We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Two Taylormade R9's Different Lengths

SuperStroke
Those were my thoughts exactly Ty. But from what we are hearing now, it is about comfort and proper fitting. What we learned from this thing is that fitting for a driver shaft is crucial when it comes time to buy equipment. While length did not matter as much as we originally thought, many players commented immediately as to their likes and dislikes.
 
Under what circumstances was this test conducted?

Driving range? Launch monitor? Regular round?


-JP
 
A wide open fairway with tape down the middle. 6 volunteers out there measuring actual measurements of each shot and accuracy. 24 testers in total.
 
JB said:
A wide open fairway with tape down the middle. 6 volunteers out there measuring actual measurements of each shot and accuracy. 24 testers in total.
Click to expand...

OK, before I write anything else, let me state that I'm not arguing with the results you say you've derived from these tests. I believe that the numbers your test produced are accurate and true.

That said, let me offer this opinion:

Tests such as these involve a number of participants each hitting essentially the same shot many times in a controlled, relaxed environment with no consequences for hitting a bad shot. As such, a group of people can essentially "groove" a swing for this one particular club and because of that can produce reasonable, stable and even predictable results (as is demonstrated by your test) even with the longer drivers.


It's not that a pro or even a rank amateur can't successfully hit a good drive with a longer club, but rather it's whether they can do that out on a golf course with any reasonable amount of consistency. Hitting a bunch of balls with the same (or very similar) club over and over into an open fairway is a lot different than standing on a tee, perhaps with a match or "personal best" score riding on the next shot (or even the next few holes) and having to negotiate obstacles, forced-carries, hazards, doglegs and also perhaps deal with wind or rain, having only hit a similar shot only a handful of times so far.
The tension created by such a situation will likely cause muscles to tighten up and one's usually smooth swing may become a bit more forced and any error will be magnified with a longer shafted driver than with a shorter club.

This is the reason why the tour at large seems to prefer the shorter driver lengths overall because in real life - real round circumstances, the presence of anxiety and tension will tend to manifest themselves in less-than-perfect execution and a shorter shafted club will tend to minimize the effects of that imperfection because a shorter shafted club is easier to control overall.

The results of your test certainly point to some eye-opening (and perhaps opinion-changing) numbers, but to truly decide the issue, those same players need to be tracked out on the course over a period of time and under a variety of circumstances before any declarative statement or judgment can be made as to whether or not one is better off with a longer or shorter driver.


-JP
 
JPsuff said:
This is the reason why the tour at large seems to prefer the shorter driver lengths overall because in real life - real round circumstances, the presence of anxiety and tension will tend to manifest themselves in less-than-perfect execution and a shorter shafted club will tend to minimize the effects of that imperfection because a shorter shafted club is easier to control overall.
.


-JP
Click to expand...

That is not true at all as you will find in the actual article that comes out on Friday. We spoke with two tour players (one LPGA and one PGA) and both said essentially the same thing. The shorter club for them is about 2 things, aesthetics and comfort. They both said that they hit the longer shaft further and do not lose control. The comfort they discuss is not at all about the swing or mechanics, just about comfort of knowing its the same as its always been.

But my question to you, is since computer testing does not work for you, and real life hitting does not work for you as shown in this test, how would you like to have them tested? Or does no testing matter.

By grooving a swing as you put it, it still does not change the fact that one shaft is longer than the other. Standing on the tee is no different than standing on the tee in our test. You still must execute the swing. Each player had only 18 swings 9 with each club and they alternated each 2 shots between long and short. that way they could not "groove" to a certain length.

I am very curious as to how you would like to see testing done or does it just not matter. We are here to get through the marketing (hence no ads) and determine the truth about equipment. But I am very curious as to find out how you would go about doing this test? Have players play 50 rounds with each driver? Use iron byron? Your debates in the past indicated that those did not work for you. So I am genuinely curious.
 
JB said:
That is not true at all as you will find in the actual article that comes out on Friday. We spoke with two tour players (one LPGA and one PGA) and both said essentially the same thing. The shorter club for them is about 2 things, aesthetics and comfort. They both said that they hit the longer shaft further and do not lose control. The comfort they discuss is not at all about the swing or mechanics, just about comfort of knowing its the same as its always been.

But my question to you, is since computer testing does not work for you, and real life hitting does not work for you as shown in this test, how would you like to have them tested? Or does no testing matter.

By grooving a swing as you put it, it still does not change the fact that one shaft is longer than the other. Standing on the tee is no different than standing on the tee in our test. You still must execute the swing. Each player had only 18 swings 9 with each club and they alternated each 2 shots between long and short. that way they could not "groove" to a certain length.

I am very curious as to how you would like to see testing done or does it just not matter. We are here to get through the marketing (hence no ads) and determine the truth about equipment. But I am very curious as to find out how you would go about doing this test? Have players play 50 rounds with each driver? Use iron byron? Your debates in the past indicated that those did not work for you. So I am genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

Hi JB - if it's about aesthetics and comfort and being the same as it's always been, why aren't they using 175cc drivers? There's a far larger difference in aesthetics between a 460cc square driver and a 175cc pear-shaped driver than there is between a 44" shaft and a 45" shaft. I can't for the life of me imagine that any tour pro wouldn't want an extra ten yards with no loss of accuracy. If that's what they said, then I guess that's what they said, but I can't understand it.
 
The larger driver heads offer larger sweet spots and more forgiveness. We got to talk to two players like i said and both said they made their choices based on looks and comfort. The PGA player even spoke about the head size and why he changed to the longer shaft.
 
JB said:
The larger driver heads offer larger sweet spots and more forgiveness. We got to talk to two players like i said and both said they made their choices based on looks and comfort. The PGA player even spoke about the head size and why he changed to the longer shaft.
Click to expand...

I guess you could summarise my opinion here by saying I believe you, but I don't believe them. If a tour pro is using a shorter shafted driver, then he/she is doing so because they think it will make their scores lower, for whatever reason. The results of this test seem to contradict that, in particular amongst the low handicap group which is closest to the tour pro group.

Simply put, I think you could safely say that the additional ten yards and the additional accuracy might afford you maybe one more birdie and one fewer bogey per tournament. That's a 0.5 stroke difference in scoring average. That equates to quite a lot of money and may well be the difference between winning and losing. They'd give that up because it looks more comforting? I doubt it.

I know this is cynical, but I can't see a way round it.
 
JB said:
That is not true at all as you will find in the actual article that comes out on Friday. We spoke with two tour players (one LPGA and one PGA) and both said essentially the same thing. The shorter club for them is about 2 things, aesthetics and comfort. They both said that they hit the longer shaft further and do not lose control. The comfort they discuss is not at all about the swing or mechanics, just about comfort of knowing its the same as its always been.

But my question to you, is since computer testing does not work for you, and real life hitting does not work for you as shown in this test, how would you like to have them tested? Or does no testing matter.

By grooving a swing as you put it, it still does not change the fact that one shaft is longer than the other. Standing on the tee is no different than standing on the tee in our test. You still must execute the swing. Each player had only 18 swings 9 with each club and they alternated each 2 shots between long and short. that way they could not "groove" to a certain length.

I am very curious as to how you would like to see testing done or does it just not matter. We are here to get through the marketing (hence no ads) and determine the truth about equipment. But I am very curious as to find out how you would go about doing this test? Have players play 50 rounds with each driver? Use iron byron? Your debates in the past indicated that those did not work for you. So I am genuinely curious.
Click to expand...



Any favorable result of controlled-environment testing simply proves that something is possible. To prove whether something is ultimately practical, testing needs to include real-life/real-world situations as well.

As I wrote in the last paragraph of my response: "those same players need to be tracked out on the course over a period of time and under a variety of circumstances before any declarative statement or judgment can be made as to whether or not one is better off with a longer or shorter driver."

I have nothing against any type of testing, but unless testing also includes real life circumstances, all it does is suggest a result rather than conclusively prove one. I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I'm simply pointing out that any true confirmation of your results - or any testing results for that matter - would need to include averages obtained in regular play and then have those averages compared to those obtained in controlled testing and see how they stack up against each other.


I am however, scratching my head over what you wrote regarding the two tour pro's.

You wrote that you:

"spoke with two tour players (one LPGA and one PGA) and both said essentially the same thing. The shorter club for them is about 2 things, aesthetics and comfort. They both said that they hit the longer shaft further and do not lose control. The comfort they discuss is not at all about the swing or mechanics, just about comfort of knowing its the same as its always been."

So this brings up two things in my mind.

The first thing is that their answer suggests that they're both uncomfortable with a longer shaft, so there has to be a reason for that.

The second thing about those statements is that if Tour pro's are uncomfortable with longer shafts, then why would an average weekend golfer need or want one?

Again, I'm not picking a fight here JB, it's just that those responses beg such questions.


-JP
 
Ty_Webb said:
Simply put, I think you could safely say that the additional ten yards and the additional accuracy might afford you maybe one more birdie and one fewer bogey per tournament. That's a 0.5 stroke difference in scoring average. That equates to quite a lot of money and may well be the difference between winning and losing. They'd give that up because it looks more comforting? I doubt it.

I know this is cynical, but I can't see a way round it.
Click to expand...

But the longer drives and more accuracy by the low handicaps were done with the longer shafts. So in that case, the longer shafts should work for everybody right? That is the whole point of this, is that the results differ so much for each person and people should stop looking at tour pros and club manufacturers when picking the length. They should be fitted. However we did learn something interesting that will be in the article and that is people think that the length drastically increased in the last couple of years. It was well before that, and that is when the PGA players starting using the longer shafts. They just never increased beyond that point.



JPsuff said:
Any favorable result of controlled-environment testing simply proves that something is possible. To prove whether something is ultimately practical, testing needs to include real-life/real-world situations as well.

As I wrote in the last paragraph of my response: "those same players need to be tracked out on the course over a period of time and under a variety of circumstances before any declarative statement or judgment can be made as to whether or not one is better off with a longer or shorter driver."

I have nothing against any type of testing, but unless testing also includes real life circumstances, all it does is suggest a result rather than conclusively prove one. I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I'm simply pointing out that any true confirmation of your results - or any testing results for that matter - would need to include averages obtained in regular play and then have those averages compared to those obtained in controlled testing and see how they stack up against each other.


I am however, scratching my head over what you wrote regarding the two tour pro's.

You wrote that you:

"spoke with two tour players (one LPGA and one PGA) and both said essentially the same thing. The shorter club for them is about 2 things, aesthetics and comfort. They both said that they hit the longer shaft further and do not lose control. The comfort they discuss is not at all about the swing or mechanics, just about comfort of knowing its the same as its always been."

So this brings up two things in my mind.

The first thing is that their answer suggests that they're both uncomfortable with a longer shaft, so there has to be a reason for that.

The second thing about those statements is that if Tour pro's are uncomfortable with longer shafts, then why would an average weekend golfer need or want one?

Again, I'm not picking a fight here JB, it's just that those responses beg such questions.


-JP
Click to expand...

When you read the article, you will see that it is not about the shaft length that sets up for them. The length is not the issue. You are jumping to conclusions!!! Have you hit both 44" and 45.25" driver shafts? What were your findings?

You obviously have not read any of our reviews of clubs. When we review clubs they are hit on the range by multiple people, and then played on the course by multiple people. Why would you think this would be any different. As I stated originally, we are giving the forum a sample of what is in the article. There is much more to it than this.
 
JB said:
But the longer drives and more accuracy by the low handicaps were done with the longer shafts. So in that case, the longer shafts should work for everybody right? That is the whole point of this, is that the results differ so much for each person and people should stop looking at tour pros and club manufacturers when picking the length. They should be fitted. However we did learn something interesting that will be in the article and that is people think that the length drastically increased in the last couple of years. It was well before that, and that is when the PGA players starting using the longer shafts. They just never increased beyond that point.
Click to expand...

I know they were done with the longer shafts. That's why I'm questioning why the tour pros use shorter shafts. Fact is that the tour pros on average use shafts that are somewhat shorter than standard (whatever standard is these days - 45 or 46"). My point is that if they thought they could get more accuracy and more distance from a longer shaft, then they'd switch to that in a second. I appreciate that everyone is different, but the results of this test seem to imply that everyone is noticeably longer with the longer club and any accuracy lost is minimal in the higher handicappers and in the low handicappers actually improves accuracy.

I also know this is an average. Could you share whether there were any testers who had better numbers with the shorter shaft?

Lastly, you said that the results differ so much for each person, but that's not what those preliminary results seem to suggest because they're so consistent between each group
 
THe PGA tour pro said something kind of funny. he said something along the lines that everybody is following what the PGA tour pros use and base it on that, however the averages are brought down because there are so many short PGA players.

As for the results differing per player, I was speaking in general terms. Results differ with every club and every shaft and that is why people should try out as much as they can and get fitted rather than generalizing.
 
JB said:
THe PGA tour pro said something kind of funny. he said something along the lines that everybody is following what the PGA tour pros use and base it on that, however the averages are brought down because there are so many short PGA players.

As for the results differing per player, I was speaking in general terms. Results differ with every club and every shaft and that is why people should try out as much as they can and get fitted rather than generalizing.
Click to expand...

That is a couple of very interesting points. Are they shorter than normal as a group? Tiger is like 6'1", Phil must be about 6'2", Ernie is 6'3", Vijay is very tall, Faldo was about 6'3", Goosen isn't that short. Seems like a lot of the good players of late have been pretty tall. Might well be true though.

Fair enough on the results differing point. I would certainly concur that getting fitted is a good idea.

One thing that makes me laugh though is that for all these large headed drivers, longer shafts, longer balls, better putters, better wedges, club fitting and so on, scores don't seem to be coming down. I don't mean at the top level. At the top level, the scores have definitely come down. I mean more at club player levels. At my club back home, the average handicap in 1990 was 18. In 2005 the average handicap was 18. They'd added maybe 100 yards to the course, so it went from 6,450 to 6,550 yards. The main yardage increases were on two of the par fives, which very, very few reached in two anyway, so it just extended the layup club for most of the members. What it did do was make it harder for the longer players to reach in two.
 
For every tall guy you mention on tour, there is a guy that is 5'6.
 
JB said:
When you read the article, you will see that it is not about the shaft length that sets up for them. The length is not the issue. You are jumping to conclusions!!! Have you hit both 44" and 45.25" driver shafts? What were your findings?
Click to expand...

JB, I'm not "jumping" to anything. I'm simply trying to understand your results and the comments of the professionals you mentioned.

As I have written earlier, I have played shafts, both steel and graphite, with lengths ranging from 43-inches up to 46-inches with a variety of driver heads and over the years I have determined that, for me, a shaft length of 44-inches works best in terms of both control and overall performance.

I fully acknowledge that the longer shafts did indeed produce longer drives, but that their consistency overall was spotty at best. Since I brought my shaft length down to 44-inches, I have very little trouble with my driver performance across the board.

JB said:
You obviously have not read any of our reviews of clubs. When we review clubs they are hit on the range by multiple people, and then played on the course by multiple people. Why would you think this would be any different. As I stated originally, we are giving the forum a sample of what is in the article. There is much more to it than this.
Click to expand...


And I've essentially said the same thing; that for any test to be complete, there needs to be both controlled and real world testing. In this last statement, you've alluded to the fact that there is more to your testing than simply hitting balls into an open fairway and I everything I've written basically mirrors that sentiment.

All I'm doing is offering my observations and opinions based upon what you've shown to be the results of your tests so far. I have not disagreed with your findings, nor have I suggested that longer shafts are a bad thing for all people.

So why are you arguing with me?

I look forward to any future results of your testing and I'd be interested to see how everything plays out when it is completed.


-JP
 
You are once again assuming someone was arguing with you. I would not even bother doing that anymore. Nobody is arguing with you. You questioned our testing and asked questions, so I wanted to supply those answers. None of our testing is ever going to please everybody. Nor do we care to or aim to. We will always have the same conspiracy theorists that want to dispute things and we are absolutely fine with it.
 
JB said:
You are once again assuming someone was arguing with you. I would not even bother doing that anymore. Nobody is arguing with you. You questioned our testing and asked questions, so I wanted to supply those answers. None of our testing is ever going to please everybody. Nor do we care to or aim to. We will always have the same conspiracy theorists that want to dispute things and we are absolutely fine with it.
Click to expand...


I didn't question your testing. I simply asked how your test was conducted. You then told me and I suggested that there ought to be a "real life" aspect to such testing and in your last few posts, you've said that there is and will be.

So we basically agree more than not.


(So would that make you a co-conspirator?) :question:


-JP
 
R9 44 vs 45 etc.

R9 44 vs 45 etc.

JP -- How tall are you? I am 6' 2" and the one driver I had cut down to 44 inches ( an old Cobra 440 SZ) was more forgiving. I added weight to the head and the distance was not that much of a factor.
 
If I might be allowed to throw in an oar of reason, the results are somewhat surprising and do contradict what some quite well respected people have said in the past. Quite possibly that's a function of the greater forgiveness afforded by clubs these days, so missing by quarter of an inch on the face probably has less impact now than it did 10 or 15 years ago, so the added length may be "got away with" more now than it used to be.

Either way, when you see results like this that are surprising, it's only natural to try to understand them, which is what I think JP is trying to do. To that end, asking questions is a good thing and should be encouraged because it's in discussion that we enhance our understanding. No one's methods are being called into question, it's just questions being asked about the methods.

I'm happy to sit this out and see the full report on Friday though.
 
Ty, I agree with you again 100%. Delivery and execution are a marvelous thing.
 
bsandefu said:
JP -- How tall are you? I am 6' 2" and the one driver I had cut down to 44 inches ( an old Cobra 440 SZ) was more forgiving. I added weight to the head and the distance was not that much of a factor.
Click to expand...

I'm six feet even.


-JP
 
Did I miss the full report? Can someone send me a link?
 
Thanks bonknhead

I must admit I thought that the PGA pro was going to say that he used a shorter driver than 45.5".

Couple of questions.

1. How long is Tiger's driver shaft?
2. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top