Jump to content



HossOnMoss

Member Since 09 Nov 2009
Offline Last Active Mar 19 2019 06:40 AM
****-

#41397 New Titleist 712 Prototype Irons!!!

Posted by HossOnMoss on 24 June 2011 - 07:53 PM

It looks to me like the sole on the AP-2s is slightly wider.....a change that lots of staff members suggested.

Texsport


That's funny. To me, the soles actually look thinner on the AP2's in these pics. Not really sure why guys would want wider soles since the CG is already back and low enough with the multi-material weighting. If it's a digging issue which I haven't really heard of, they could just increase bounce, camber, or blunt the leading edge while keeping the sole more narrow which is more versatile.


Liking the Satin! Long time coming.


They all look good, but the MB's look strange in satin to me. Personally, I have always thought that any muscleback iron that wasn't chrome looked a little odd.

#41089 US Open Shaft Counts

Posted by HossOnMoss on 17 June 2011 - 10:08 AM

Here are the counts of what's in play at the US Open this week for irons and woods which is always interesting to see.


Irons

1. True Temper 135 (86.5 %)
Dynamic Gold 78 sets
PX 25 sets
Rifle 10 sets
PX Proto 1 set

2. KBS 17 (11%)
KB Tour 12 sets
C Taper 5 sets

3. Nippon 3
Modus 3 1 set

4. Aerotech 1




Woods

1. Mitsubishi 98

2. Aldila 85

3. True Temper 83

4. USTM 62

5. Fujikura 61

6. Graphite Design 46

7. Matrix 39

8. Miyazaki 13

9. Oban 11

10. FST 2



#39489 LOOK AT WHAT ARRIVED TODAY!

Posted by HossOnMoss on 03 May 2011 - 01:14 PM

I'm sure those shoes are comfortable. But, I'm really disappointed with golf shoes these days.

Seems like they get uglier ever year. I guess I'm just too old school and love the classic look.



If you want something that is classic looking and even beats the old Footjoys, take a look at the new line that just came out from Allen Edmonds. These shoes are just PURE quality in every way. Vey comfortable and not all that heavy either. I particularly love the Redan model and there are a few guys out there who you might have heard of that are starting to wear them including Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson, and Ben Crenshaw. Trust me when I say that the pictures on the site do not do these shoes justice. When you see them in person, you can really tell a difference in the quality of the Allen Edmonds vs other classic saddle style shoes.


http://www.allenedmo...View=image=

#39133 Ideal numbers

Posted by HossOnMoss on 21 April 2011 - 01:47 PM

I completely agree with what you are saying. I have plenty of exprience to know how these things work and I'm not saying that he doesn't know how far he carries it. Any good player can go out on the course and compare the yardages with a forced carry and gauge the difference.

What I am saying is that what someone is telling him is "optimized" or when they thought they had him truly optimal, it obviously wasn't. Sounds like he got a bad fit compared to his previous setup is all. I am well aware of the difficulties with fitting better players and particularly with working with the Titleist stuff eventhough we don't sell it at BSG. I frequently work with quite a few tour caliber players including a Titleist staffer who has played on the PGA and Nationwide tours for many years and is a multiple time winner. So, I'm quite familiar with everything that you are talking about. There is definitely a lot more that goes into finding the BEST setup other than just launch numbers on the range. However, the variations in launch monitors and different shafts are not an issue. Any knowledgeable fitter and someone who uses Trackman as I do which gives you DEAD ON accurate numbers removes the guess work or inconsistencies that you are talking about with various machines. From there though, you always want to validate a fit on the course in the "real world" where it matters in competition....especially for a higher caliber player.

What I was saying before is that if he actually had a TRULY optimal fit after he made the change, then he wouldn't have lost any carry. This isn't based on my opinion or lack of knowledge just because I don't work on a tour van. It's based on physics and facts which any really good fitter knows. TRULY optimal numbers will yield a carry that is the same or within a few yards at most of what you would see with more launch and/or spin. The problem is that most people including those who fit players for a living don't really know what the true optimal range is and how the results differ from there. With what we know today and by studying landing angles, there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of carry by hitting it higher than what is optimal.

From the optimal range, you can increase launch and/or spin and you will only see about a 3-5 yard increase in carry before you actually start to LOSE carry distance. I'm not talking about roll or total distance here at all, but just carry alone which you and your pro seem to place emphasis on and for good reason I would add. Once you get a ball flight that is much higher than the optimal trajectory for TOTAL DISTANCE which includes roll, there is a VERY small window before the ball flight will begin to balloon and you will start to lose carry and roll.

So, what I am saying by this and was tyring to point out before is that there really is VERY little trade off to be made for extra carry distance once you are optimized for total distance. The main result from going above that is less roll and not more carry. That may give you more control and often times does for better players in particular. However, the idea that you can just hit it higher and carry it farther vs. what you would achieve with a truly ideal ball flight is not realistic or possible based on the physics of it.

That said, we are talking in terms of ideal numbers. The thing to keep in mind is that not everyone can achieve that and with better golfers including tour caliber players, they are often times the most difficult players to optimize believe it or not because of the very reason that you said. They are good enough to alter their swings to produce a certain ball flight that they are accustomed to whether it is good or bad and they can also make things work as you said. However, they generally do not have the most optimized numbers from a fitting standpoint. So for someone like your pro and because of these challenges, a player in that scenario often times will in fact see a great difference in carry yardage by going higher vs. what is "the closest to optimal" that they can achieve otherwise which is likely the case in the example that you gave.

In terms of what I was saying to the original poster and your initial response is in regards to ideal vs. higher than ideal. The thing to keep in mind here is that there is often times a big difference between ideal and the closest that one can get to ideal if that makes any sense. It's a very complicated thing and is very specific to each player which I why I am speaking in terms ideal optimization as opposed to player specific optimization. You have to have a basis for comparison and a starting point, but in the end any fitting who is worth their salt will find what produces the best results regardless of the numbers on a launch monitor which is where the real expertise comes in and where most fitters out there are lacking.

#38097 Any Callaway Razr Hawk Tour Reviews out there?

Posted by HossOnMoss on 24 March 2011 - 11:36 AM

For me nothing has been able to touch my FT Tour with DI-7 other than the Razr Hawk Tour with DI-7. All in all, the trajectories are pretty much the same. The biggest diferences are the look at address with the Razr Hawk Tour being 10cc's larger and it has a slightly different shape which I do prefer over the FT Tour. The other thing is that the Razr Hawk Tour seems to have a more neutral bias to it whereas my FT Tour is more fade biased. I hit the Razr Hawk Tour pretty much dead straight or with a tight draw with my normal swing where as the FT Tour tends to have a very slightly fade that just kind of falls to the right a bit.

Both are setup at 45" and D2 with a Graphite Design DI-7 X tipped 1/2". I can easily play either and hit these setups as well or better than anything else that I have ever played, but I do prefer the look and slightly straighter ball flight of the Razr Hawk Tour.


CIMG2538.jpg
CIMG2539.jpg
CIMG2540.jpg
CIMG2542.jpg
CIMG2543.jpg
CIMG2544.jpg

#37758 Shaft recommendation for r7 TP HFS 15°

Posted by HossOnMoss on 14 March 2011 - 10:39 AM

F7M2 LTD innit!



Having tried an F7M2 LTD before in the 3 wood, I found it to be way too stiff even for higher spin players and I haven't really seen anyone who it worked well for.

That said, I did have an r7 TP HFS myself a while back and used a standard F7M2 in it and that combo was exceptional. REALLY good setup there. :yes:

#37291 Accuflex Creation 80x 3 wood shaft?

Posted by HossOnMoss on 02 March 2011 - 01:40 AM

Thanks guys, I just picked up a RIP 80, well see how that does



Much better choice for a lower spin shaft. The Creation was a real piece. Just some low end shaft with outdated technology that they tried to pass off as high end. They seem like a steal at $60 now these days, but in reality it NEVER should have been sold for anymore than that.

#35150 Longest and best driver on the market?

Posted by HossOnMoss on 17 January 2011 - 04:45 PM

Very true but the max COR is the same for any driver and that doesn't change. Any driver for any manufacturer that is right at this limit is the cream of the crop. I have never hit the 282 or the 910 but from what I read from the Bombsquad big dawgs is that the 282 is one of the most consistent drivers that they've ever tested as far as ball speed goes and so that would make it one of the hottest drivers on the market for sure especially since there are limitations as far is COR with all driver's. Now surely someone else has produced a driver that is right at the limit and therefore they are producing a driver right at the limit of "hotness!" You just gotta get your hands on it and match it with a correct shaft for you and then you have your own personal hottest driver on the market.



The COR or CT only measures the springlike effect of the FACE, not how much energy the entire head transfers. In other words, all drivers will not be maxed out in terms of ball speed just because they have the maximum COR value that is legal.

Aerodynamics these days is increasing the clubhead speed which obviously adds ball speed. A COR measurement is not going to take that into account. Although the increased ball speed is from more swing speed as a result of aerodynamics, it means that not all heads are equal. A longer shafted club might increase ball speeds as well, but you can apply that to any head. You cannot adjust the aerodynamics of how a head is designed though. So, that is a tangible and measureable benefit that translates directly into more ball speeds and is inherent to the design of a particular head.

The most over looked aspect when it comes to ball speeds though is how the CG of the head affects energy transfer. This factor is also not accounted for by a simple COR or CT Measurement. Where the weight is distributed throughout the head has a direct effect on ball speeds. Therefore, you will get more ball speed from one driver over another even if they have the same COR measurement because of the internal differences.

Making a head that has a face which max outs the COR or CT is not the hard part. Any company can design a head to do that and after that it's all about manufacturing capabilities in order to be able to produce heads with a tolerance as close to that number as possible without going over or having excessive rejects.

Another thing that you have to keep in mind the ball speed on off center hits. Robot testing is great and all to compare heads, but you have to be realistic and consider the fact that we obviously do not hit the center of the face everytime on the course. So, face technology such as TM's Inverted Cone or Callaway's Hyperbolic Face designs are important as well. All of the ball speed in the world on a dead center strike doesn't do you any good if you don't hit it there and none of us are that perfect. This is exactly why I have said for so long that the term which TM came up with several years ago called eMOI (effective MOI) is an important and useful idea. I recall numerous debates on the forums over it as many thought that it was just a marketing gimmick. Nevertheless, eMOI measures a tangible and important factor that affects ball speeds especially in the "real world" when human golfers hit less than perfect shots on the course.

A lot of what makes a driver "longer" than another one does depend on the individual's needs when it comes to launch and spin. However, there are certain factors that you cannot be fit for which will give a clear advantage over other heads with all other things equal. You can change or fit one for aerodynamics, efficiency of energy transfer as a result of CG placement, or eMOI. So, these aspects can indeed make some heads POTENTIALLY longer than others. Of course, you still have to optimize the head with the right loft and shaft for the player in the end. However, some heads are behind the 8 ball from the start so to speak.

#32320 Shaft help on New 710 CBs

Posted by HossOnMoss on 18 November 2010 - 12:21 PM

I had been playing titleist 690.CBs with Rifle 6.5s at 1/2 in long since 2004 and loved them. My only problem was ballooning at times with the mid irons. I recently purchased a set of 710 CBs with ProjectX 6.5s thinking I was getting pretty close to the same club. Boy was I wrong. Played this weekend for the first time and it felt like I was swinging a telephone pole with no clubhead. They felt heavy and and had zero feel compared to the regular rifles. I would hit fat then thin fat then thin and had no feel for where the clubhead was and ball striking had always been the strength of my game. It was very disappointing to say the least. Now that my frustration has been vented...what do yal think would be a good option for shafts? KBS X, DGX100, Black Gold X or just go back to the old rifiles? Any help would be awesome or maybe I just need to get in the gym and grow a pair.



If you like Rifles, but want a little flatter trajectory....then I would take a look at Black Gold.

#31617 Matrix Radix

Posted by HossOnMoss on 28 October 2010 - 09:19 AM

Is anyone here using a this shaft? Looking for something to raise my ballflight but not add spin.



Radix is most likely going to spin more than a lot of higher end shafts. So, it depends on what you are coming from. What shaft are you playing now?

#31249 PGA PICS: 2010 Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospitals for Children Open

Posted by HossOnMoss on 20 October 2010 - 01:43 PM

From the PGA Tour practice rounds on Tuesday in Vegas at TPC Summerlin.

Attached Images

  • CIMG1918.jpg
  • CIMG1919.jpg
  • CIMG1920.jpg
  • CIMG1921.jpg
  • CIMG1922.jpg
  • CIMG1923.jpg
  • CIMG1926.jpg
  • CIMG1927.jpg
  • CIMG1928.jpg
  • CIMG1929.jpg
  • CIMG1930.jpg
  • CIMG1931.jpg
  • CIMG1932.jpg
  • CIMG1933.jpg
  • CIMG1934.jpg
  • CIMG1935.jpg
  • CIMG1936.jpg
  • CIMG1937.jpg
  • CIMG1938.jpg
  • CIMG1939.jpg
  • CIMG1940.jpg
  • CIMG1941.jpg
  • CIMG1942.jpg
  • CIMG1943.jpg
  • CIMG1944.jpg
  • CIMG1946.jpg
  • CIMG1947.jpg
  • CIMG1948.jpg
  • CIMG1951.jpg
  • CIMG1955.jpg
  • CIMG1956.jpg
  • CIMG1957.jpg
  • CIMG1958.jpg
  • CIMG1960.jpg
  • CIMG1961.jpg
  • CIMG1962.jpg
  • CIMG1963.jpg
  • CIMG1964.jpg
  • CIMG1965.jpg
  • CIMG1966.jpg
  • CIMG1967.jpg
  • CIMG1968.jpg
  • CIMG1970.jpg
  • CIMG1971.jpg
  • CIMG1972.jpg
  • CIMG1973.jpg
  • CIMG1974.jpg
  • CIMG1975.jpg
  • CIMG1976.jpg
  • CIMG1977.jpg
  • CIMG1978.jpg
  • CIMG1980.jpg
  • CIMG1981.jpg
  • CIMG1982.jpg
  • CIMG1983.jpg
  • CIMG1984.jpg
  • CIMG1985.jpg
  • CIMG1986.jpg
  • CIMG1987.jpg
  • CIMG1988.jpg
  • CIMG1989.jpg
  • CIMG1990.jpg
  • CIMG1991.jpg
  • CIMG1992.jpg
  • CIMG1993.jpg
  • CIMG1994.jpg
  • CIMG1995.jpg
  • CIMG1996.jpg
  • CIMG1997.jpg
  • CIMG1998.jpg
  • CIMG1999.jpg
  • CIMG2000.jpg
  • CIMG2001.jpg
  • CIMG2003.jpg


#29106 Why tour issue?

Posted by HossOnMoss on 02 September 2010 - 01:37 PM

I never got a good reason for tour issued. Lots of folks mentioned fitting.

I'm an old fart that used to play on tour, took some time off, now i'm still playing my old pt3 blades and mac persimmons... we NEVER had tour vans back then... just guys that would adjust our gear however we wanted.....

Now i'm beating guys who hit the ball 50 yards longer with this new technology, and one of the young guys said he actually bought his equipment here so I figured I'd look into it. I tried his driver out (Taylor Made, can't remember what model-- it looked like a black lacrosse stick) and I probably hit it 40 hards farther than my persimmon, but it was so light and upright, it felt like i was swinging a towel with a large, light, and hollow head at the end of it. I hit it farther than all get out but had no ability to work it like my stick.

Are there any other older ex tour guys here that can help me understand the logic for tour issued and this super light equipment?



To specifically answer your question, let's be specific about what we are talking about. I don't really like to use the term "tour issue" these days because it has been watered down and misused often times purposely by people who are trying to sell things and add value to them. TECHNICALLY, a club that is given to a tour player from the vans or through the tour dept. and therefore "issued" to tour can be called "tour issued" regardless of whether it really has any difference to it or not vs. what you can buy off of the shelf.

What we are really looking here are better described as TOUR SPECIFIC versions or models that have distinguishable, tangible differences vs. what is offered at retail. Sometimes this is easy to evidence while other times it may not be. Some of the major differences that you will find with TRUE tour equipment, as in the stuff that is made for the sole purpose of fitting better players such as those on tour are:

Alternate centers of gravity (lower spin, higher spin, more neutral or perhaps fade biased, greater workability)
Different head sizes and/ or shapes to alter CG and aesthetics
Altered cosmetics or looks for aesthetics based on what better players want to see
Different materials for durability, feel, or greater ability to adjust/ customize for loft, lie, and face angle
Varying groove designs
Various hosel sizes to more easily accept specific types of shafts

These are just a few of the most common differences that you might see in a club that is designed and made specifically for tour use vs. what is made for retail and is to be used by the average golfer. Tour clubs may exhibit some, a few, or even all of these differences at times. In some instances, there will even be "tour only" models that are not even comparable to anyting that is available at retail. These types of clubs are not a tweak here or there to an existing retail product. These products are models that are made with the intention of a tour professional's use alone. An example of these cases would be a TM '09 Rescue TP. The retail version looks the same on the outside, but internally is designed to perform differently. So, this would be a case of a retail model that is altered to fit better, stronger players who need less spin or less draw bias. On the other end of the spectrum, you have a product like the TM TP Driving Iron which cosmetically does have the badging of a Tour Preferred iron. However, these clubs were solely for use on tour and there is not a retail counterpart for this club in anyway, shape, or form that you can buy in stores.

Whether it be club heads or shafts, each and every company will have products of some sort that fall into these areas of tour equipment. Whether or not these differences are something that you need or fits you is up to the individual. The answer to "Why tour issue?" is if you feel that any of these things that I described would benefit or enhance your performance. Of course, some also like to have this stuff fit to them so that they can have something different which is fine as well. It just comes down to the individual. There are plenty of tangible differences which offers you a great deal of options should you need or desire what real tour equipment can offer over even customized retail clubs.

#27996 I need a low spin driver head

Posted by HossOnMoss on 13 August 2010 - 09:19 AM

What is the lowest spin driver head out there? My "current" driver is a 909 D3 8.5 with a devotion 7 X flex. SS 117-119 ball speed 175ish LA 12ish and spin is 3500 plus. I have a F7M2 LTD x flex but I am looking for a super low spin head. I tried FT Tour, didn't like it. Superdeep was ok, I am thinking about a 9015D, been hearing good stuff about it. Anyone have any suggestions? Thank you...



FT Tour is pretty much one of the flattest hitting heads around these days, but the Diablo Edge Tour is a sleeper for a lot of guys. That head is a very solid performer, looks pretty good, and is pretty low spin.

#27700 2007 BSG Shaft Test (Robot) vs. 2010 Shaft Test (Players)

Posted by HossOnMoss on 09 August 2010 - 09:59 AM

That makes sense. Thanks for your help. I can't find the 2010 shaft test results. If you could post that I would appreciate it. Thanks again



Sure, here is a link to the player testing that we did:

BSG Player Shaft Testing

#26277 Tiger switching to Nike putter for The Open

Posted by HossOnMoss on 16 July 2010 - 10:19 AM

You can't have it both ways. First you take a shot because I comment that the technology will have more credibility as a "must have" when a definitive majority of the best players reach the same conclusion and then you turn around and take a shot because I'm not rolling over and playing dead because Tiger Woods has suddenly started using the technology.

By that last bit of "logic" alone, if you really believe what you said, then you should have been using a Scotty until this week. Also, if Tiger switches back to the Scotty next month are you going to jump over to a Scotty? No, I think not. So, let's at least be honest and acknowledge that this has a lot more to do with selling putters than simply using them ... hence the shots with wavering logic.

I haven't switched because I don't like the feel. Sorry if that doesn't float your boat. As the technology continues to evolve I will remain open to change but it quite simply has not yet evolved to the point that anyone not choosing to use it is "ridiculous" as you charge.



First of all, I'm not taking shots. Just having a discussion....it's not meant to be personal.

And, I'm not having both ways. My opinion is that the technology is already proven enough and the benefits are tangible enough that everyone should take advantage of it regardless of whether or not the vast majority on tour or Tiger have taken to it. YOUR stance was that you would consider it when it gained the credibility as a result of greater usage, not mine.

You also completely missed my point about Tiger. It's not about choosing what you use based on what someone else does or just following Tiger. It's about being ahead of the curve. So no, I will not be putting a Cameron in the bag if he happens to go back. After all, I didn't put a grooved face putter in the bag because he did. Just like I didn't keep a steel shaft in my driver until 2004 and just like I won't be carrying a muscle back 2 iron now simply because Tiger is bagging one for the Open. My point was not to just do what Tiger does, but rather consider the fact that he is typically one of the last players on tour to adopt advances in technology as evidenced by his use of steel shafts in the driver, a thicker faced driver, sub-460cc heads, a golf ball that limits his distance, muscle back irons, etc., etc. As slow as Tiger is to accept modern advances, one would have to be considered a bit archaic to be far behind considering his preferences and immensely greater talent level. So, do not be surprised if this event does not accelerate the movement on tour towards more usage of grooved putters.

Since you obviously care so much about tour validation, my point was that there is no reason for the average player to reject the idea when the best putter EVER chooses to take advantage of the technology. Just like the fact that Tiger normally does and has for quite some time now carried a 5 wood rather than a 2 iron. That pretty much tells you that you and I have no business hitting a 2 iron if the best player in the world feels like even he is better off with a little extra help.

Along that same line of rationale, consider how many players now on tour do not even carry a 3 iron and have replaced them with hybrids. I can pretty much promise you that the WORST ball striker on tour is going to hit his 3 iron better than 99.9% of us. So, what are we doing trying to play them if some of the best players in the world feel as though they are at a disadvantage with them?

There is no wavering logic on my side. I am only trying to appeal to your own thought process which I disagree with in order to get my point across. I really don't care personally about the validtion from others, but more about the science, testing, and results behind it. I also understand though that not everyone thinks that way which is why I make these points. It's not about selling putters. Tiger's use and the growing trend on tour is going to do that. It's about a belief in the technology since I have been using it since long before I ever even though about selling a single putter of any sort.....and I always will.