What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2003 (Part 8)

Copyright 2003 by Leith Anderson
All rights reserved
Originally appeared in March 2003 issue of Golf Today

By Leith Anderson

Launch Angle and Spin Rate
Using a Launch Monitor to help find the next "Magic Driver"

January stayed cold and wet in the Bay Area. With the Nicklaus Airmax 360 out of play, I was working hard to find the new Magic Driver. There was a trip to the PGA Merchandise show in late January and the SST Tour Van came to town for the AT&T so we got a chance to work "behind the ropes". The only memorable golf was at Spyglass and Poppy Hills the weekend before the AT&T. A new Magic Driver candidate came out of a demo barrel just in time for the Monterrey weekend. Our Achiever launch monitor arrived so we had a chance to expand our testing to include launch angle and spin rate. I am convinced that widespread use of launch monitors will revolutionize clubfitting.

To say that science has had a major impact on golf in the last ten years is an understatement. Historically, golfers have not been real friendly to new ideas. Think about how long it took Karsten Solheim to prove that perimeter weighting was a good idea. If you were going to pick a single year that golf committed itself to technology, it would probably be 1992. That was the year the first Callaway drivers hit the market and delivered a death blow to the persimmon people. Throughout the 90's drivers got bigger and more forgiving as the materials used in construction became lighter and stronger. That was the major technology story. Meantime, golfers embraced technology faster than new fins on a Cadillac. It became common to buy a new $500 driver every year searching for the "magic". The industry prospered.

It might be that we are nearing the end of the technology cycle. Drivers have hit their physical limit as their size touches 550 cc's (they passed their aesthetic limit long ago). Titleist might have made a mistake by convincing the USGA to approve the new ProVI "X" ball - the august body might just find itself embarrassed enough to rein in the chemists who have found a way to put silly putty under the skin of a golf ball. The final clue that the cycle is nearing its end is that almost every booth at the PGA show beckoned with the siren song: "Let me show you our new technology". Hundreds of booths and at least half of them had technology for sale. No kidding, there was even new technology in golf tees.

Technology in Club Fitting

A few years ago, the state of the art in fitting golf clubs was to measure swingspeed, however crudely, and then match shafts to a golfer's self-image. As electronics became better and cheaper, club fitters could measure the ball speed moments after impact and predict carry distance. Today, for a few thousand dollars, you can get a sophisticated laser guided machine that measures physical speeds precisely, captures the position of the club at impact and reports the "launch angle" and "spin rate" as the ball leaves the club.

Not long ago, this analysis was reserved for golf professionals and a few ordinary golfers who were willing to cough up full retail price to Titleist and Callaway and journey to a company "fitting center". Today, you can get the same information from your local clubmaker down at his shop on the corner. With precise information, it is possible to compare the actual performance of golf clubs. It takes some time up front, but you save a lot of disappointment later on the golf course.

Changing Styles in Driving

Not too long ago, if you were a better player and you were copying the pros, you loved the look of a drive that started out low and then picked up altitude. We called them "risers" and thought they were beautiful. Taylor Made named their woods "Burners". Callaway "Warbirds". You felt like a wimp if you used even a 9 degree driver. Real men played 7.5*. If you wanted a little extra distance, you'd take a chance and try "turning it over" hoping that the ball would hit and run a mile. Sometimes it ran a mile two fairways left.

There were a few iconoclasts among the pros. I can remember following Andy Bean at the Open at Oakland Hills and he was hitting high, parabolic shots that seemed to stay in the air forever. We thought he was a freak of nature.

The scientists are in the game with their chemistry and sophisticated electronic toys. They engineered the balls, changed the materials and the dimple patterns. They are applying the laws of physics and artillery warfare to golf. The longest carry distance can be calculated based on the launch angle and the speed of the ball at the moment of impact. It's a relatively simple equation. Now, scientists can calculate the best launch angle for combined carry and roll. Sure enough, electronics reveal that "fine tuning" shafts and heads to precise tolerances will produce the best possible results.

A Brief Diversion

Before I get into some facts that might be disturbing for some readers, I would like to recall a little wisdom that I saw at a street demonstration in San Francisco last month. A protester was carrying a placard that said: "Don't believe everything you think." This warning could also apply to golf. If you are looking for better results, you might have to challenge come of your current beliefs.

Reasonable Expectations

Here's another law of physics. The maximum carry distance you should expect from a drive is derived from a simple equation. Multiply your swingspeed measured in miles per hour times 2.2 yards. If your swingspeed is 95 MPH you're going to carry your drive 209 yards with a solid strike. For the technologists, that's at sea level with no wind. This might be a rude awakening. The reason I say that is prospects that walk into the Golf Lab every day who swing the driver at 95 miles an hour who insist they carry the ball 250 yards. When you measure results with sophisticated electronics, these players are always disappointed. You will never be satisfied if you have unreasonable expectations. On the other hand, if you know the best you can do and you get close, you can stop working on that phase of your game and move on.

To maximize distance with your driver, you have to work on each of the variable parameters: shaft for flex, shaft for bend profile, PUREing for stability and consistency, head for loft, head for weight distribution, overall weight, balance and counterbalancing to make sure that you are reaching your maximum potential distance. In addition, the electronics will reveal swing flaws, such as a power-robbing outside in swing path or open clubface that can cause you to come up short of your potential.

It is important to choose a driver that launches the ball at the correct angle. You will probably need a driver with more loft than you think. The loft number on the bottom of the club is as threatening to a golfer as dress size is to a woman. It took me years to accept that I wore size 14 shoes. Get ready to leave the psychological hang-ups behind. Remember that last fall Charles Howell was in the news because David Ledbetter changed his driver from 7.5 to 10 degrees. His results improved. You can be sure that he forgot why he was using the "stud club". And, the slower you swing, the higher the launch angle required for maximum distance.

Backspin is Your Enemy

Forget about that fancy rising drive. It loses momentum, stalls and falls softly into the fairway with little roll. It is just as out of style as balata golf balls, metal spikes and plaid pants. Backspin causes the ball to rise. Therefore, all of the launch angle charts also include a "spin rate" for maximum carry distance. The required backspin goes up as swingspeed and ball speed go down.

The pros like to talk about hitting "knuckleballs". That's a ball that comes off the face with the least possible backspin. In the air, the ball might actually appear to wobble a bit, just like Hoyt Wilhelm pitched it from the tee.

I ran across an analyst's comment in a golf magazine recently with regard to working the ball with a driver. It went something like: "Forget about shot shape, they're just trying to make field goals".

Launch Angle and Spin Rate Chart

Here is the launch angle and spin rate chart supplied with the Golf Achiever launch monitor. Notice that as ball speed decreases, the optimum launch angle must increase and backspin must increase as well.

March Magic Driver Contest Round One

The test was conducted by hitting sets of ten drives with each Magic Driver candidate and recording the results with the Golf Achiever launch monitor. I kept copies of the statistics and shot patterns. The charts that follow present summarized results. After completing the indoor testing, I confirmed the results (or not) at the driving range. By the way, these were not random clubs, they were "pick of the litter".

I'll make my disclaimers now. I am just a single player, hitting thirty or forty drives with each driver. I don't expect points for scientific method. However, it is a reasonable test that any golfer could perform for himself. Assuming you have access to a launch monitor, it will take five or six hours spread over two or three days. It's still better than beating balls at a range where you can't see how far the ball is going and can't remember enough facts to make an informed decision.

Most of the clubs were tested as they came to me. My intention was to choose three "finalists" and then perform the final "tuning" over the next month. I will PURE each shaft, tweak the flex and swingweight, and add the Balance-Certified counterweight system and test the results again. At the end of that process I should have a good idea of how much improvement we can expect after fully optimizing a club for an individual player. I think it's worth the effort. As far as I know, it will be the first attempt quantify the benefits of "tuning".

There will probably be some new entries next month as well because there are several drivers that I would love to test if I can get my hands on them. My goal is to continue the search until I truly find the "Magic Driver".

Introducing the Contestants and Round One Results

The first table that follows is summarized data from round one. The second chart is the same summarized data after modifications to "improve" performance for round two.

I included the Magic Driver in the competition for old time's sake. I loved that driver so much I even played a tournament with it broken. That tells you something. It might be time to say goodbye, but I included it for a benchmark. It's still competitive, even broken. RIP

I found a great Titleist LFE 9.5* driver in a demo bin. Under $200. I usually don't pay retail for the newest model and this was a rare opportunity. The stock ultralight shaft flexed to about a 6.5 on the Equalizer. I took it straight to the course and it performed great at Spyglass and Poppy Hills. I was getting a nice tight draw and good distance. I was thinking that this one might make it straight into the bag for a long time. It was a solid performer in round one. No modifications for round two.

The replacement Magic Driver showed up from Nicklaus headquarters. This year's model has an "S" after the 360. The design flaws that caused the breakage have been fixed. At first, I didn't like it. They changed the shape a little, I thought a little too round but after I had a chance to hit it, I loved the way it set up square. The stiff Fujikura shaft measured 7.5 on the PCS Equalizer System. The finish is pretty good - grey with a brushed look. No aiming marks on top - the Nicklaus folks think aiming marks are too cheesy. The shaft was just too stiff so the club didn't perform. It would have taken a quick trip to eBay except I'd planned the resurrection of the Magic Driver so it got the original shaft for round two.

The Nicklaus folks sent along two additional drivers to try out. The new 430 has them all excited. It looks like the bulbous big brother of the 360. The Regular flex Fujikura proprietary (Vista Pro 70) shaft measured out to a 5.8 on the Equalizer, a very stout stiff. If you plan to buy a Nicklaus driver and don't have a swingspeed north of 110 (minimum, minimum) bury your ego and buy an "R". If you swing it at average speeds, buy a senior flex. There were a couple of bright spots with the 430. The spin rate was only a little above optimal. Also, it was easier to hit it in the center of the big face. But the distance was disappointing. I decided that I really don't handle the big head well so I planned to cut it down ½" and add six grams of additional weight to bring it up to D-2 at the shorter length. One more chance for this puppy.

The Nicklaus Company spent a bunch of money designing a new "Tour" type driver called the "JNP" that they thought Jack would love. He didn't. But this is a beautiful club. It looks about 340 cc in size and has a classic pear shape and shiny black finish that I love. They sent an 8.5* which I thought would launch the ball too low, but it didn't. Indoors, it was competitive across the board and had the lowest spin rate. Outdoors, the 6.2 (just south of X) shaft wanted to drift right. The club performed OK otherwise with third best distance. I thought I'd get rid of the Fuji and give this one a try in round two with a softer and livelier shaft. The numbers looked good but I needed to get it going right to left. I decided to reshaft it with a 5.5 Lite Revolution from SK Fiber. We've been getting fabulous results with the SK Fiber shafts, even pulling a few Speeders to replace with a much cheaper alternative.

Sonartec is in the news as a "Players" club. They have a technology story which is "higher center of gravity". We saw a lot of Sonartec fairway woods in the pros' bags at the AT&T and we watched Vijay Singh hit one of their prototype drivers for a long time on the range. The "Super CV" driver, in addition to the cavity in the sole which raises the center of gravity, also has a tungsten ring around the back, moving the weight higher and farther back. The fit and finish is great, but I thought the size was a little small at 305 cc. It was a surprise indoors, finishing with the best overall performance. Longest distance, best swing path, best face angle, longest hang time and best accuracy. Outdoors it felt pretty good, but I became convinced that the Penley proprietary shaft, flexing out to 6.8 at 44.75" was just too stiff and caused me to wrestle the club. (Later, I found that I made a mistake and the original shaft was only 6.2. But by then the damage was done.) I decided to take it into the second round with a great SK Fiber Light Revolution that came out of the Cobra 427.

Finally, there was the LaJolla 350 matched to a Fujikura Speeder 757. I made that club because I wanted a comparison to the most expensive club I could build. It's kind of a pet peeve that most golfers have no way to judge quality so they just buy the most expensive assuming it must be the best. At full markups, this club would cost $600. Not the best performer, but some interesting results including straightest and most solid strikes. The data would have been better except for a couple of bad readings on individual swings. It looked like launch angle could be a problem. It stayed together for round two.

Results of the First Round of Testing on the Achiever Launch Monitor

Making Sense of the Charts

The most relevant statistics for this article are the launch angle and spin rate. Note how only the JNP is near the top of the optimum spin rate range. All of the drivers are at the lower end of the best launch angle range. Loft on most of the drivers was 9 degrees with the LFE at 9.5 and the Sonartec at 10.

Of course, I was interested in distance. But I also began to understand the importance of the other statistics, particularly "sidespin" and "off line" - both indicators of accuracy and control. Swingspeed is pretty close which is because these drivers were all fitted for flex in advance. I also grew to like the "toe/center/heel statistic as an indicator of solid contact. Fine for indoors, but how would they perform at the range?

Results of the Second Round of Testing on the Achiever

Analysis of Second Round

The Titleist LFE was a solid performer. Right at the top in Ball Speed and Clubhead speed. Launch angle was a little suspect but distance was good at 238, just two yards behind the leader. It was spooky straight, averaging just six yards off line. Definitely a keeper. I'm really interested to see what tuning will do for this club.

The resurrected Magic Driver, the new 360-S was slightly behind the pack in most categories. Plus the shot pattern didn't look that good, especially compared to the Titleist. If there were no chance for redemption by a trip to the range, the relationship would have been over.

The Nicklaus 430 was the poorest performer, almost across the board. There was one alibi, I made a little miscalculation about how much extra weight would compensate for the ½' length adjustment and it came out too heavy at D-6. I think I might be getting spooked on drivers over 400 cc, but this head may come out of the closet with a new shaft some time in the future. It didn't do well outdoors either, so it's back to the parts bin.

The JNP cleaned up. Fastest ball speed, fastest clubhead speed, good launch angle, best backspin, best distance, best hang time and straight. Plus, I liked its looks the best. Take me to the range.

The new shaft hurt the Sonartec CV. Ball speed and clubhead speed went down. Launch angle was probably a little too high. It had the highest spin rate. OK distance and the straightest. I was worried that the new shaft didn't help.

Finally, the Speeder stood out on backspin and the almost total absence of sidespin. This got my attention because the LaJolla folks like to brag that the face of their driver costs more than the whole head from most other manufacturers. The statistics were OK, and this is the only driver that was going right to left, kind of unusual with my tendency to leave the face open and cut the ball most of the time. Plus, it's not exactly the head shape I like. It's a little too round to my eye and the 350 cc size appears small and the face closed. Okay, but it's the most expensive.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Once again, we proved that you should never, never, NEVER buy a driver based on hitting it indoors only. Results at the range changed the rankings.

I admit it; I wanted the JNP to win. It aced the tests and was the most beautiful girl in the class. But outdoors, it was susceptible to missing high and right. I hate that more than anything. For me, it's a fatal flaw. I could never take that club to the course the way it was. I think that the shaft was too soft, so I awarded a "takeover" after tipping the shaft ½". Results of that treatment later.

The Sonartec also failed the test outdoors. A combination of the softer shaft and the high spin rate caused the "risers". It was fun to hit, and I got used to the small size, but it can't go the course either. Another "takeover". It should get another chance with its own shaft, to be fair.

The Titleist LFE felt heavy and stiff. (And just a week ago it was my "gamer".) But, we know it's a performer so it qualifies for the trip to the golf club spa next month. I'm thinking of backing the shaft out of the bore through a little bit when I take it apart to PURE it. I might shave ¼" when I put in the Balance-Certified counterweights. If this club gets a little better, it could be in my bag for a long time.

The new 360-S Magic Driver performed OK outdoors despite lackluster results indoors. It's got the "magic shaft" that just won't go left. I would feel confident to take it to the course, as is. But it already has the counterweights and a PUREd shaft so it's done. I'll keep it to play, but it won't be the new Magic Driver.

The surprise of the day was the LaJolla Speeder. It was solid and straight. I'll probably get accustomed to the closed look. The club just wouldn't go right. It was as easy to hit straight as a 7 iron. The only drawback was the launch angle was too low. That might not be a problem on the windy Bay Area courses I play. I think that I'll bring this one back with a 10 degree head. I'm not sure it's worth the money, but it's surely no embarrassment. I'll take it to the course for my next practice round.

The "Takeover"

The JNP got another chance. I tipped the shaft ½" which stiffened it half a flex. I put the Balance-Certified 20g. counterweight to make up for the trim. I had the all-time best set indoors and the "high rights" problem was fixed outdoors. Ball speed increased 2 MPH and distance by two yards. To some extent, this is an indication of the benefits of "tuning". I still may have a little work to do on this club. For now, it's in the bag.

The Sonartec also came back to life with its own shaft back. The high center of gravity with the stiff tip absolutely drilled the ball. It would not go right. It was surprisingly easy to hit for a relatively small head. I got the feeling that it is going to be a great control club. It is about five yards shorter. It could be a great driver for a tight course. The only thing I'd like to try for next month is the 9* head to see if we can bring the backspin down. It's still the highest at 3800 RPM.

By next month, a few of these clubs will have made it to the course. That should be interesting.

Update on the Pelz Wedge Story

I haven't been able to track down the party line on the Rifle Spinner shafts in the Pelz wedges that test out what appears to be too stiff. They might be too stiff and too heavy, but they're still in my bag. I had a great couple of days out of the bunkers at Spyglass and Poppy Hills. Several times I had those nasty forty yard bunker shots to a pin at the back of the green. I got four out of five up and down. Good for me. The only drawback was that I was having trouble hitting the sand wedge off of the tightly mowed fairway and I "fatted" a couple. But that's a dangerous shot on a good day.

Several avid players bought the Pelz wedges at the Palo Alto Muni. They all like them, including my friend and short game wiz Heather. I promise to finish this story off next month.

I have three candidates picked to go through "fine tuning" so see if we can pick up any more distance or accuracy. Others are waiting for a chance. Stay tuned.

Leith Anderson is a partner in the Golf Lab in Palo Alto.
Email to Leith@calgolftech.com
Cell phone (650) 743-2816.

All questions related to equipment and clubfitting will be answered.