California Golf Technologies

What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2007 (Part 6)

The Longest Ball? Equipment performance news from the bleeding edge.

By Leith Anderson

This month I received the following email from a Golf Lab customer who participated in our “golf ball fitting” project.

Leith: Disturbing news.

I need your feedback on this situation. I am hitting the golf ball unreal distances the last few weeks. I am using the Top Flite D2 Feel that you recommended. My irons are Mizuno MP 33 with S300 shafts.

I am getting extremely long distances into 1 to 1.5 club winds. Example: Number 5 at Palo Alto from the Blue tees. With my ball was sitting down in the rough - Paly
rough - not anything serious. I had 155 to a back pin. As usual, it’s into the wind.

I pull a 6 iron which before goes 155ish. My shot flew the green into
the back bunker. It carried 165-170 from the rough into the wind!!?? I also
reached 15 in two. I don’t do that. I hit driver- hybrid. My second shot was 210 into a left to right hurting wind. I thought I was laying up but I’m past the hole to the center of the green for a tap in, two-putt birdie.

I can name a few more situations with a 20 yard increase off what I call
normal distances for me. Is it the summer air? The D2 ball? I’ve also
been working on a few swing changes. I am trying to find the source of this
new found distance. Please shed some light Leith.

Sincerely, Steve

Steve: I wish it were your swing changes. I’m afraid it’s the ball.

At the Golf Lab, we’ve been working on understanding the new crop of golf balls for the last couple of months. This project has been enhanced by the recent availability of new software that matches golf balls with a player’s “launch ballistics” – ball speed, launch angle and spin rate. We’ve invited Golf Lab customers to participate in “free ball fittings” so that we could gain experience with “fitting” balls. Over 50 customers participated in the tests and reported their results. The key question: Is there “unreal distance” in your future from just changing balls? You’ll have to read the story to find out.

Ball Testing – Round One

Advanced Golf Solutions (AGS) is a small company that hooked up with Golfworks to produce golf ball fitting software based on extensive “ballistic” testing. Hitting shots with robots and blowing balls out of air cannons, the testing focused on understanding the aerodynamics of how a ball flies. The software requires input of ball speed, launch angle and spin rate – together with the ball used for testing.

The output is three lists: One is the best ball for distance. Two is for best accuracy. Three is “player’s choice” – based on balancing distance and accuracy.

We noticed one thing about the ball recommendations real quick. One ball that was always recommended was the Top Flite D2. That ball comes in three versions: Red for “Distance”, Green for “Feel” and a Teflon-coated Blue for “Straight”. What was it about this ball that brought it to the top of most lists?

A quick call to the software developers revealed an interesting fact. The D2 ball employs a new dimple design. The “D2” stands for “two dimples” or more accurately, a dimple within a dimple.

Golf ball manufacturers have known for years that the size, shape, number and placement of dimples influence the way a ball flies. Bigger, smaller, more, less, round, oblong and hex in every imaginable pattern have all been tried.

D2 Aerodynamics

The software developers at AGS revealed that the Top Flite D2 came along quite late in their project. One aspect of their testing is to track ball flight with radar. When sophisticated radar is utilized, the path of the ball can be plotted. With all other golf balls, the plot reveals the ball “bouncing around” in the atmosphere. The AGS developers reported that when they plotted the D2 trajectory, they noticed almost no “bouncing around”. At first, they thought that the radar was malfunctioning. Later, they came to realize that the D2 simply flies straighter. If aerodynamics were the only criterion, the D2 would surely be a great choice.

Buzz from the Internet

I picked up a couple of interesting stories about the D2 from the Internet. These stories are pure hearsay, but they sound true enough to repeat. The first was that during testing, Top Flite engineers code-named the D2 “TRID”. Those initials were meant to stand for “The Rock Is Dead”. I have talked to several product testers who tried the “TRID” without knowing what the code meant.

Second story: Also during testing, the Top Flite engineers realized that they might have discovered a new design that actually delivered better performance. Keep in mind, Top Flite is owned by Callaway so it would stand to reason that the best designs would normally go into the most expensive balls. But Callaway is deep into its own “hex” design and the marketing folks hesitated to abandon the investment that they’ve made in the high-end Callaway branded balls – which, by the way are not frequently recommended by the AGS software.

So, the “dimple in dimple” design was assigned to the $18 per fifteen pack Top Flite D2. Next year, look for the dimple in hex.

Understanding The New Golf Balls

It was surely a happy day for golf ball manufacturers when they junked the machines that used to wind little rubber bands around a rubber core. Today, golf balls are mass-produced by forming a resilient core and covering it with one to four layers of space-age material. The more layers, the more sophisticated the “tuning” of the ball performance and also, the more expensive.

In the past, premium balls were engineered for “control” and “accuracy” judged by the “soft feel” of a urethane cover that was designed to reproduce the feel of balata. In general, the softer the surface material, the more spin is imparted to the shot. The softer covers also produce more consistent spin. Consistency can be measured by launch monitor tests. In June I attended a Taylor Made demonstration that showed that soft cover balls could be both “low spin” with the driver and deliver more consistent spin and trajectory with irons. Launch monitor data proved the point.

For accuracy, the AGS software always recommends expensive, soft cover balls. Depending on the launch ballistics of the particular player, the most likely recommendation is one of the Titleist Pro V series or the Nike Platinum.

But when distance is a factor, the D2 is always near the top of the list. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the AGS ball fitting software is foolproof. The ball that frequently comes out on the very top of the distance category is the “Wilson Hope”. It is a challenge to find that ball for sale. We finally ordered them from The Golf Warehouse. On the course, Fuji Bob found them to be a dud. As usual in the golf business, recommendations are never good for all players, all the time.

Personal Experience

I made the trek over to Golfsmith to pick up a couple of fifteen packs of D2’s. Thirty balls for $35. I took a box each of the Red and Green. I classify myself as “Neanderthal” when it comes to golf balls. As a dedicated ball hawker I’ve been content to play any ball that comes out of the bushes in good condition – except Top Flite and Pinnacle. I’m so embarrassed about Top Flite balls that even though I made my first hole in one with a “Rock”, I tossed it into my shag bag. There will be no Top Flite on my hole in one trophy. I preferred Titleist Pro V’s mainly because I like to play a single ball for more than one round and I think that the Titleists have the best paint.

Like the whole world, I’m after a little more distance. Naturally, I tried the Red D2 first because that’s what it promised. It was satisfactory, the ball held its line well. It gave good distance into the wind. Spin was not a problem on full shots but hard to get on sand saves. Acceptable, not revolutionary, but acceptable.

Since then, I’ve been in touch with Golf Lab testers and the online forums. The D2 Green ball for “Feel” was getting better reviews. So I switched to the Green.

I think that the Green D2 is better for distance than the Red. I’ve had some experiences that I can only describe as “bombs”. Unreal distance. Examples: The ninth hole at the Palo Alto Muni. Par five about 520. I’m 250 out and take a five iron to lay up. In the rough with a following wind. Flier lie. The ball ends up ten steps off the green. A 240 yard five iron? First hole at Paly. Par five into the wind. After a chunked second, 180 into a two club wind. I take a five iron thinking short. I hit it hard and blow it twenty yards over the green. My partner gasped, “What happened to that?”

I think that the extraordinary distance difference of the Green D2 shows up into and against the wind. I judge it to be a couple of steps longer for most iron shots. Perhaps in the future, scientific testing will confirm that opinion.

I’ve now played the Green D2 in four competitive rounds. Three 12-man match play events and the Paly Member-Guest. The ball is just plain fun. It gives me a chance to hit par fives in two. I like the way it flies. On most shots, the distance is predictable. But there is that question in the back of my mind about “nuclear” results in the wind.

If I were in serious competition, I’d be afraid that I’d nuke one in the wrong place. On a lot of courses, twenty yards over the green is a certain triple bogey – or worse. But I like the Green D2 and will play it for the next month or so. By then, there will surely be another crop of balls to “preview” for 2008.

Golfballselector.com

There’s another “ball fitting” application that has just been launched. Golfballselector.com (GBS) is an Internet-based service that uses a combination of objective and subjective data to choose the best golf ball for your game. If you are a serious player who is interested in trying to discern the differences in premium balls based on three factors: distance, accuracy and feel – you might find that golfballselector.com is a great partner in your quest.

Golfballselector.com was developed by a consortium of golf industry veterans who combined physical measurement of compression and cover hardness with launch monitor data, robot and human testing. If you’re wondering if golfballselector.com recommends the D2, the answer is not yet. The initial selection of balls focused on the most popular high-performance balls in the market early in 2007. As a late arrival, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Top Flite didn’t make that cut. By the time this article is published, a second-generation update should include the D2 as well as all other popular 2007 models.

When you log into golfballselector.com (after paying a one-time use fee or annual subscription) you are prompted to enter launch monitor data if you happen to know it. If not, the program leads you through an “expert system” that asks for your distances with certain clubs and infers the appropriate launch ballistics.

You then answer a series of thirteen questions that discover your preferences for distance, control and feel. The questions are subjective, intended to discover the kind of game you play and the importance you put on certain shots. After you have answered the series of questions, you are presented with a list of recommended balls. Overall, the selection process is simple.

Personal Experience

I signed up and paid the annual subscription price of $29.95. The value in golfballselector.com is that you can imagine yourself to be different personalities – with different golf games. The most useful aspect of GBS is playing the “what if” scenarios.

Suppose today I want to emphasize distance? What ball is best for that? Suppose today I want control? What ball is best for that? Suppose today I want to emphasize feel? What ball is best for that?

When I signed in and entered my known launch monitor statistics, I was presented with my profile. It was immediately obvious that I was being dropped into a bucket. After assuming a few alternate identities to figure out the system, I came to know that the buckets classify swing speed as under 89, 89-100, 100-109, 110-116 and over 116. Each swing speed range has a corresponding ball speed range. If you enter a number that looks too high, the system asks: “are you sure.” I felt that I was classified correctly, when I told the truth.

Once you are sorted into a swingspeed and ball speed bucket, you are asked about your launch angle and spin rate. Spin rate is “high” or “low” based on a breakpoint at 2800 RPM. Launch angle is “high”, “medium”, or “low” with high 14* or over, medium at 12-13* and low under 12*. If you’ve gone through launch monitor analysis, you may know your numbers. For most good players, there will be a range of parameters based on the driver they are using. The more precise your input, the more likely that the ball recommendations will be accurate. Players who have not gone through launch monitor analysis will find it very difficult to estimate spin rate or launch angle.

Questions 1-10 analyze your subjective preferences. The system accepts input by clicking on bar graphs – generally blue for distance on the left versus red for feel and control on the right. Responses are weighted. Is distance your most important factor? How important is control with your irons? What about feel with your wedges and putter? Questions 11-13 are all about feel. Your choice is “crisp” or “soft” with various clubs.

Step 14 presents you with a list of balls that match your playing profile and your preferred characteristics.

Step 15 is a summary page. Your results are presented in a three bar graph. If you preferred distance, the top red bar will dominate. On the right hand side of the page is your list of recommended balls – each one with a percentage of agreement with your parameters. This is where it gets real interesting. You can “slide” the bars back and forth to indicate more or less emphasis on distance, control, or feel. As you slide the bars, the ball recommendations change in real time. If you’re looking for a good educated guess to help you find a ball you might like, you can’t beat the Golfballselector.com. Changing recommendations in real time is absolutely nifty.

The Key Question: What’s My Perfect Ball?

The key question is actually a trick question. There is no “perfect” ball for every player, every day, just as there is no “magic club”. When I answered the subjective questions with my “most honest” responses, I received a recommendation of the Nike Platinum which was, with spooky consistency, the same ball recommended as “most accurate” from the Advanced Golf Solutions software. From there, I assumed the identity of a “bomber”. In that case, the golfballselector.com recommended the HX Tour as the best. When I changed to a feel player, the program recommended two Wilson balls: The PX 3 and TX 4. The Golfballselector.com will be easier to compare to the AGS software after the list of balls is updated – the target date is September 1.

My Recommendation

The Advanced Golf Solutions software is interesting because it pays attention to the aerodynamics of the golf ball. It seems to me that the research was extensive and correctly executed. If the AGS software has a defect, it is that it does not take into consideration subjective player preferences. For example, AGS makes no attempt to fit for “feel”.

Golfballselector.com is a much more personal application. “Feel” is a very important aspect of GBS.

Which is more correct? I think that any player who is serious about finding the best ball for his game will utilize both programs. At the Golf Lab, we include AGS ball fitting recommendations with our club fittings at no extra charge. If one of our customers is interested in a “second opinion” we offer a subscription to Golfballselector.com. With the constant changes in golf ball technology, I think that any serious player will want to stay in touch with new balls as they hit the market. A subscription to golfballselector.com is a relatively trivial expense when you compare the cost to your yearly investment in the game you love.

Stulz Shafts – Follow-up

I’ve been playing a set of Bridgestone Combos shafted with the set of Stultz Nano Arrows that I wrote about last month.

Stulz Golf is a new company on the horizon with an innovative shaft that features a triangular tip section. There is a tendency to think that the triangular tip section is a gimmick. Stulz recommends a specific shaft alignment but as we know from USGA rules, no alignment of the golf shaft is permitted to change the performance of the shaft. So, what are the little triangular “fins” for? They serve to stiffen the tip section of the shaft. Newer shaft “bend profiles” for drivers tend to favor stiff butt, soft midsection and stiff tip patterns. The Nano Arrows seem to follow that profile.

Stulz Golf does not own its own factory, so all production has to be done on a contract basis. That’s usually a red flag for players who are seeking consistency in performance. What happens when a company changes factories?

But the shafts are a lot of fun and I found no evidence of inconsistency. I played them in two match play tournaments and picked up two wins. I lost two matches with the same Bridgestone heads shafted with Aerotech Steel Fiber 110 gram shafts – my current “gamers”. By that measure, the Stulz shafts made the cut. I noticed a significantly higher ball flight, a little more “pop” and similar feel through the set. The downside? The heaviest shafts that Stulz makes for irons are 90 grams. That’s pretty light. Over the last two months, my misses were caused by bad tempo – or you could say a short, quick swing and a snappy pull to the left. In my imagination, I thought that the 90 gram shafts were just a little too light to help me keep my swing on tempo. That’s your tradeoff with lightweight shafts. You get better distance, a little higher ball flight, possibly a little more finesse. But if your tempo is quick, heavier is usually better. I’m hoping that Stulz will extend their line with heavier weights.

Established Golf Lab Customers are welcome to check out our high performance demo clubs for a weekend of use for no charge. For others, high performance demos are available for a modest rental fee. My Bridgestone Combos got a month of play so that’s enough for me. I cut the “Nano Arrow” shafts down to more normal playing length and they’re now available as a Golf Lab High Performance Demos. If you’ve got a swing that is similar to mine, you can try the Bridgestone/Stulz set yourself.

Where’s the “Stulz Sweet Spot?”

I get my clues from surprise shots. In the Palo Alto Muni Member Guest Tournament I was facing a shot to the sixth green from 190. With a following wind, a slightly tight lie and a forward pin, I was thinking that I needed a monster five iron. Since it was only our second hole of the day, I opted to take the longer club, hoping for a smooth swing. That four iron got up into the jet stream with a slight draw and flew the green. Overall carry had to be more than 210 yards. Was it the ball?

After that, I started to think that the Stulz Nano Arrow shaft could be a perfect shaft for a utility club. Some utilities are hard to get airborne. For me, the same problem occurs with fairway woods. After watching that towering four iron, I could hardly wait to get the Stulz shafts into my utilities.

That was a great call. I picked up one of the new 21* Sonartec utilities – the finally updated successor to the venerable “MD”. The Stulz .370 tip shaft tested to a PCS Equalizer 6.5 flex value without tip trimming. As I said, the Stulz shafts are very stiff in the 90 gram weight. In my first round, I hit two great shots. One was a layup from the tee. A slight draw at least 20 yards longer than what I would have expected with my Mizuno Fli-Hi. But the real winner was a “trick shot”. After a bad drive I was 200 yards out, next to a tree. I was blocked by trees in front so “over” was not possible. I had a little “window” to go through – a desperate shot – that I hit perfectly. A low running hook that got through the window and waved at the pin as it scooted by. That was one of those shots that you could hit 100 times and not duplicate. So, the Sonartec and Nano Arrow get a “permanent” place in my bag – at least for the next month.

A New Take on “Square”

One of the up-and-coming second tier golf companies is Nickent. They made their move by focusing on a niche – utility clubs – and going to the Nationwide Tour for validation. Players on the Nationwide Tour are trying to win to get to the “Big Show” so they will try whatever works. Plus, Nationwide players don’t get offered “head to toe” contracts.

I’ve been watching since Jon Claffey left Sonartec to take a new challenge as Director of Marketing for Nickent. I think that Jon had a lot to do with Sonartec’s success and was interested to see what would transpire at Nickent. When you see the same guy behind two winners, you start thinking it’s the guy.

I’ve been one of the few supporters of “square” drivers. Based on my own experience of hitting more fairways, I think that the square driver – or another high Moment of Inertia (MOI) shape – is here to stay. This is the first year in the history of golf where players willingly bought drivers that they knew would not go farther. Trading distance for accuracy? Unheard of!! Despite the naysayer’s who predicted that the bargain barrels would be full of square drivers by end of summer, I was looking for new ideas to come out in high MOI models.

It happened with Nickent. They just announced a “Tour Square” driver. The story is a square to open face angle and a little more bulge and roll. The idea is to appeal to the low index player, and golf snob, who has been a tough sell for the Nike “Toaster”. I grabbed a prototype out of our sales rep’s bag. The look is not as radical as the Nike SUMO2. It is square but smooth, black with silver corners and a red sole plate. The color is anodized black, a look that is beginning to show up on premium drivers since Taylor Made brought out the Super Quad.

A Short Detour for Shaft Choice

I wanted to give the Tour Square a good chance to excel so I figured a shaft change was in order. Alas, most Nickent drivers are shipped with proprietary shafts. You never know exactly what you’re getting with proprietary shafts. Another setback is that the company is wedded to a .350 hosel size which cuts the shaft selection down a lot – unless you’re willing to shim a .335 shaft. We don’t have anything against shimming, we’d just rather not.

Years ago, Apache shafts were our main shaft line. Tastes change and we began to look elsewhere – Fujikura, ACCRA, Aerotech and Nippon became our most-used models. But I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Apache. It has been interesting to see that Apache – now renamed Matrix Composite – has become the top shaft promoted by Bombsquadgolf.com (BSG). If you’re not hooked by the online golf forums you might not know that BSG is the enfant terrible of the genre. The site limits debate, bans posters for perceived insults and overall is a shameless self-promoter. But, they cover high-end golf equipment like nowhere else. Where else this side of Japan can you spend $25,000 for a set of custom clubs?

BSG spends some of its money on performance testing. They hired the Golf Labs (San Diego) to perform independent testing on a selection of premium shafts. One came to the top when tested for initial ball speed – in my view, the most important parameter. That shaft was the Matrix XCon 5. It’s a 50 gram shaft. Why bother with anything after #1? We ordered up a few XCons and I installed one in the Tour Square – shimmed of course.

Tour Square and XCon 5 on the Course

Day One: My first drive came close to an individual distance record. From there, it was nothing short of a great driving day. Not perfect, I’ve never had one of those. I usually get too excited when things are going well and miss a couple around the back nine. Ball flight? Boring and low spin, just as expected. Distance? Outstanding. I was using a 10.5 degree head and getting about the same trajectory as the SUMO2 delivers in an 8.5*. The big surprise was the shaft. Despite testing out at 251 CPM (no grip, 5” clamp, 45”, no tip trim) it felt as stable as a much stiffer shaft.

Day Two: Sometimes, honeymoons are short. Day two the Tour Square acquired a severe case of the “lefts”. My experience illustrates two characteristics of square drivers. First, they take some time to get used to. The SUMO2 is very particular about how it wants to be aligned. I find the square shape very difficult to fade – and easy to yank. Which leads to the second characteristic. Square drivers like to go left – so far all I’ve tried – including the Tour Square – had that tendency. You don’t find many really good players who want to “take the right side out of play”.

Another relevant warning is to check head weight and shaft length. I have found that the square drivers do better in shorter lengths. You’re not swinging for the fences so there’s no reason to go longer than 44.5”. To keep the swingweight up, a heavier head is required. Nike ships SUMO heads heavy – usually in the 204 to 206 gram range. The Tour Square was 196 grams. It required ten grams of lead tape to get it up to playing weight. Will the Tour Square still be in the bag in a month? That depends on how it does tomorrow.

Tour Stage MR-23 Forged Cavity-Backs

In the world of forged golf irons, there are a few brands that have always been known as the top of the market. Other companies venture into that territory from time to time.

Miura – the small Japanese family-run foundry with impeccable standards - has pretty much assumed the leadership role worldwide for forged irons. Other names come to mind – today always Japanese foundries. Endo (this year’s Callaway X-forged). Ishihara (distributed and customized by Scratch). Alas, there is no longer a North American foundry, despite the frequent attempted revivals of the famous Hoffman foundry in Tennessee. That’s where most of the classic irons of American golf were forged.

From time to time, golf equipment companies, big and small, create models that become classics. You can have a lot of fun playing those irons if you update them with modern shafts fitted to your game.

Tour Stage is known as one of the top brands in the world of golf. If you don’t dig under the covers, you won’t know that Tour Stage is a brand owned by the Bridgestone conglomerate. Bridgestone takes the prize as the golf equipment company with the most false starts in the American marketplace. One year it’s Precept, then Tour Stage, then Bridgestone. Alas, the Big Bridgestone in Japan became so frustrated selling into North America that this year they didn’t bother to bring out a new line of golf clubs and resorted to running tire commercials on the PGA Tour Tournaments that they sponsor. They’ve done a good job with balls but for golf clubs, Bridgestone was lost.

That’s really a shame because Bridgestone golf clubs are very, very good. For most of the year, I’ve been playing Bridgestone irons as my test models. It’s much cheaper for me to buy a near-new set of Bridgestone irons on eBay and throw away the shafts than a new set of heads from any of our other suppliers – even at “demo” prices. The market has spoken. If you’re looking for a good set of heads for a cheap price, look for Bridgestone on eBay. They are great reshaft candidates.

For 2008 I have heard that Bridgestone has recouped its energy and is coming back into the American market with force. I surely hope so. Bridgestone is a proud company used to a lot of success in Asia and should do much better in America.

In the Bridgestone line the premium brand is Tour Stage. A few years ago, when Bridgestone was trying to introduce the Tour Stage brand to the American market, they produced 1500 sets of the MR-23 – a classic, zero offset, small size, cavity back blade that cost $1500 a set when they came out. The one thing that the Japanese marketing executives never understand is that Americans look hard at prices and will only pay a very small premium for the top of the market. We wait until later to pick them up used for a few hundred dollars.

The good news is that MR-23’s are showing up in the market. At around $350 for used set, they are now reasonable to buy to work into an updated set, shafted with state-of-the-art Nippon lightweight Japanese steel shafts. For this month’s project, I decided to take some of my own advice and go with Nippon 950’s in extra stiff flex recommended by the Max Out Golf Labs Shaft Max. For many months, I have ignored the data on my own golf swing, opting to fit myself into much softer shafts than I would have recommended for Golf Lab customers.

The MR-23 heads were very light, requiring six grams of added tip weight to bring up to my target swing weight of D-6. I left them a quarter inch longer than I normally play – 1 inch over standard based on a 38” five iron.

MR-23’s on the Course

After playing with irons going softer and softer, from PCS Equalizer values 6.0 (stiff plus) down to 4.5 (regular) I was ready to step up into the extra stiff range. The Nippon 950 shafts are rated at 95 grams but actually weigh 105 grams installed. They are “constant weight” which means that each one is a little heavier as it gets shorter – so a wedge shaft weighs the same as a three iron shaft.

In two rounds, the results were “interesting”. That’s a lukewarm comment. Overall, I got one result I was looking for. The heavier clubs helped me slow my tempo down. Over two rounds, I only snapped one six iron left. That could have been weight related and could have been that I was trying hard to control tempo.

There were three very interesting results. First, despite the “X” flex, I could feel a little kick with the irons. I look for that in shafts to help reinforce my timing. Even though they were rated as “Extra Stiff” the 950 shafts did not play as stiff as pipes.

Over the course of two days, I hit several irons that “lasered” to the pins. The ball flight was lower, as expected, and the ball seemed to get to the target fast. I was a little worried about distance. Consequently, I took a longer club and made a smoother swing. My worry was that the Nippons were going to be short, like my Project X experiment from a couple of months ago.

For my second round, I found myself an invited guest at the San Jose Country Club (SJCC). It’s a great old school course with tree-lined fairways. Since I was playing the Nickent Tour Square with its proclivities, I found myself in the left trees a few times. On two occasions, punching out from the rough I was able to put enough hook spin on the ball to make it dart to the left. That’s a shot I don’t practice much at wide-open Palo Alto Muni, but I was startled at the amount of spin on the ball.

The final test was distance. The fourteenth at SJCC is a 155 yard par 3. With a slight following wind and bunkers in front, I was thinking soft six or hard seven. I took the seven and flew the green, 20 yards longer than I expected. That experienced erased any fears about “shorter”.

So, I’ve got my bag set for the next month. I’ll play the MR-23’s shafted with Nippon 950 X flex in the Paly 36 hole stroke play. Then, I’ll know for sure. My recommendation? First and foremost, be willing to try a setup that’s different from the one you always play. How will you know if there’s something better unless you try something different? Second, if you’re going with lightweight steel shafts, don’t be afraid to step up a flex.

Next month I’ll have a report from the floor of the Las Vegas PGA Show. The new product year is about to start.

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.