• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Tour Swing Update!!!

Rockford35

Shark skin shoes
Staff member
Admin
Aug 30, 2004
21,798
1,080
Canada
Country
Canada Canada
I think it's pretty safe to assume that a lower CG will result in a higher ballflight. If you had a big, heavy soleplate, that would elevate the ball much higher than one that had weight more on the "horizon" of the impact zone.

Weights for and aft help more with MOI and the resistance to twisting, more or less. But the height at which they are established helps with ballflight too in terms of launch angle at impact.

Remember the original HiBore? It had a really low CG and you could hit an 8.5* driver super high. This was a big reason why they were "disappoiting", as everyone was so honed in on "higher loft for carry" when the technology was basically back-asswards of that. You'd go down a degree in the hiBore.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

R35
 

Eracer

No more triple bogies!!
Oct 31, 2005
12,405
8
I think it's pretty safe to assume that a lower CG will result in a higher ballflight. If you had a big, heavy soleplate, that would elevate the ball much higher than one that had weight more on the "horizon" of the impact zone.

Weights for and aft help more with MOI and the resistance to twisting, more or less. But the height at which they are established helps with ballflight too in terms of launch angle at impact.

Remember the original HiBore? It had a really low CG and you could hit an 8.5* driver super high. This was a big reason why they were "disappoiting", as everyone was so honed in on "higher loft for carry" when the technology was basically back-asswards of that. You'd go down a degree in the hiBore.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

R35
I had my fore/aft confused with my up/down. I've edited my original post.
 

Rockford35

Shark skin shoes
Staff member
Admin
Aug 30, 2004
21,798
1,080
Canada
Country
Canada Canada
I had my fore/aft confused with my up/down. I've edited my original post.

No worries. Even after you understand it all, it doesn't make any difference when you're hitting 15 yard slices into the trees. LOL...:D

R35
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
How are moving the COG? You need a pile of lead and the adverse reaction on your swing will offset it, if you can out enough on. The MWT is just dubious at best, I used the 14g weights and could just about tell the difference between them and the twos and fours, a difference of 28g and barely noticeable.

When I played about with tape on the SMT it was clear after a bit the ballooning was from a change in the angle of attack, not the club, and it took 30g to get that
 

Eracer

No more triple bogies!!
Oct 31, 2005
12,405
8
How are moving the COG? You need a pile of lead and the adverse reaction on your swing will offset it, if you can out enough on. The MWT is just dubious at best, I used the 14g weights and could just about tell the difference between them and the twos and fours, a difference of 28g and barely noticeable.

When I played about with tape on the SMT it was clear after a bit the ballooning was from a change in the angle of attack, not the club, and it took 30g to get that
It was a thought experiment, designed to question the relative effect that COG and face angle have on launch angle.
 

Rockford35

Shark skin shoes
Staff member
Admin
Aug 30, 2004
21,798
1,080
Canada
Country
Canada Canada
How are moving the COG? You need a pile of lead and the adverse reaction on your swing will offset it, if you can out enough on. The MWT is just dubious at best, I used the 14g weights and could just about tell the difference between them and the twos and fours, a difference of 28g and barely noticeable.

When I played about with tape on the SMT it was clear after a bit the ballooning was from a change in the angle of attack, not the club, and it took 30g to get that

I'm not talking about MWT. I'm talking about a head design.

Take a head like the FT-5. Put all the weight in the sole and a composite top on it that weighs 11grams. If the total head weight is 205g, that's a significant proportion in the sole, no?

The reason why MWT is so damn stupid is that the head itselg has a COG built into it for a specific launch characteristic. If you want actual results, you need a hot melt, not 8g of screw in weight.

R35
 

Clugnut

Gimme some roombas!
Aug 13, 2006
3,423
1
The reason why MWT is so damn stupid is that the head itselg has a COG built into it for a specific launch characteristic. If you want actual results, you need a hot melt, not 8g of screw in weight.

R35

This is very true, IMHO, but I think MWT has merit for changing swingweight and spin/launch. I shafted up a driver this week without thinking. When I had it done, I measured the SW, and it was E0! So instead of ripping it down, I simply replaced a 12 gram with a 4 gram, and I was in business. As for spin, my personal testing has shown a 600 rpm drop/increase in moving weight full front to full back. This allows me to use a shaft that feel right to me, and tune it with MWT.

As for ballflight, its all marketing.
 

Latest posts

Top