Loft versus Launch Angle (or how I learned to hate strong lofts)

[blugold]

Shaft length is RIDICULOUSLY out of control. You won't hear any argument from me on that!! My Mizuno play 1/4" shorter than standard (whatever standard is suppose to be)...

CG, Spin, YES. Right with you!! If you will replace Launch with Trajectory then, CG, YES, right with you again. Loft is static until acted upon. Then it becomes dynamic. So, static loft is not flexible and dynamic loft is flexible. But you cannot change static loft. The object is at rest...

I think you and I are getting on the same page.

Because golfers of different skill levels produce different dynamic lofts, club companies who make club for golfer of various skill levels, they altered the static loft of the clubs for us bad golfers. As a means to replicated the dynamic loft of good golfers.

 

[Fourwiggle]

I think you and I are getting on the same page.

Because golfers of different skill levels produce different dynamic lofts, club companies who make club for golfer of various skill levels, they altered the static loft of the clubs for us bad golfers. As a means to replicated the dynamic loft of good golfers.

OK, I'm with you and I understand exactly why and how you viewing the entire scenario.

My point is simply this: the OEMs have found a way to create a more forgiving clubhead with MOI, apply a lower CG (higher spin), decreased the loft to compensate for loss of distance by spin & trajectory and increased the length of the shaft to add even more distance.

Are we agreeable on that? Did I miss anything?

 

[SharkHat]

Bingo!!

And BINGO again!!

And you lost me. If I can't understand it then please explain it because I really do want to know. Why do I need to lower a loft because it's CG has changed? What does CG do (specifically) to merit such a change in a static object?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we've been trying to explain to you, and is the basis of the whole debate.

The further the club's center of gravity is below the ball's center of gravity, the higher the launch. Not trajectory, initial launch angle. The angle that the ball leaves the face of the club. Independent of spin.

Take your 8 iron. Change nothing about the club or the swing. No variables except where the ball contacts the clubface. Hit it off the turf. Now hit it off a tee or a "flier lie" in the rough. Which has the highest launch angle.

 

[blugold]

OK, I'm with you and I understand exactly why and how you viewing the entire scenario.

My point is simply this: the OEMs have found a way to create a more forgiving clubhead with MOI, apply a lower CG (higher spin), decreased the loft to compensate for loss of distance by spin & trajectory and increased the length of the shaft to add even more distance.

Are we agreeable on that? Did I miss anything?

We are on the same page!!!!

My issue is with the longer shafts. While things like lofts and moi characteristics are being changed to help bad golfers, longer shafts are being put into super forgiving heads. Which is hurting the cause.

 

[Fourwiggle]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we've been trying to explain to you, and is the basis of the whole debate.

The further the club's center of gravity is below the ball's center of gravity, the higher the launch. Not trajectory, initial launch angle. The angle that the ball leaves the face of the club. Independent of spin.

Take your 8 iron. Change nothing about the club or the swing. No variables except where the ball contacts the clubface. Hit it off the turf. Now hit it off a tee or a "flier lie" in the rough. Which has the highest launch angle.

But there is a variable and that is contact. I know if I blade a wedge or catch a flyer vs hitting it crisply off a tee the launch angle is different. This does not explain launch and CG. This explains contact. Are you trying to relate CG to contact across the clubface?

 

[SharkHat]

But there is a variable and that is contact. I know if I blade a wedge or catch a flyer vs hitting it crisply off a tee the launch angle is different. This does not explain launch and CG. This explains contact. Are you trying to relate CG to contact across the clubface?

It's exactly what I'm talking about. Does the loft change at any point across the clubface? No.

So how else would hitting high on the clubface make the launch angle change? Because there is a wider gap between the centers of gravity of the ball and the club.

I'll share this link with you again. Read the section about Centroids about halfway down the page.
http://www.leaderboard.com/glossary_launchangle

 

[Fourwiggle]

We are on the same page!!!!

My issue is with the longer shafts. While things like lofts and moi characteristics are being changed to help bad golfers, longer shafts are being put into super forgiving heads. Which is hurting the cause.

Exactly!

Because they want to say "Mine's Longer"... It's a p*ss*ng contest!!

If they truly wanted to help high-handicappers out they would increase the MOI, lower the CG, leave the lofts in tact and shorten the fulcrum/shaft. This is why many (including myself) would rather hit a wedge into a par four than a 4 iron. Shorter shaft, more MOI, etc.

 

[nicedivot]

yes, I finally reach the end of the thread (at this precise moment, end of the thread as this will continue).
And for what it is worth, based on what I have read, wiggles is NOT disputing all other factors in golf club and swing. but when you do comparison study of any kind (golf, computer, etc..) you try to put everything same except one and compare then say by changing one thing to this, the result is that.
For example, if you have 2 car engines - 4 cylinders with total of 2 L engine, and 2nd one 4 cylinders with total of 3 L engine. and fed exact same type of gaz and put up to exact same RPM (say 3000 RPM) then see which one uses more gaz. someone will say but 4 cyliners with 2 L engine uses more gaz if you put it up to 7000 RPM. True... and that's why you want all other things the exact same.

Did I get this right wiggles? and if yes then hope this clears up a little

 

[blugold]

Exactly!

Because they want to say "Mine's Longer"... It's a p*ss*ng contest!!

If they truly wanted to help high-handicappers out they would increase the MOI, lower the CG, leave the lofts in tact and shorten the fulcrum/shaft. This is why many (including myself) would rather hit a wedge into a par four than a 4 iron. Shorter shaft, more MOI, etc.

I will agree with you on the shortened shaft. Not the lofts. Bad golfers need the lowered irons lofts in order to help create a better dynamic loft. A shortened shaft would help create a repeatable swing.

And for a very large part, it is a pissing contest. I think it is 60-40, general intention to help bad golfers, and pissing contest.

I don't think we need to discuss that ratio. Because I believe that part of it is irrelevant.

In all fairness to this debate. A good fitting would solve most of these questions.

 

[Fourwiggle]

It's exactly what I'm talking about. Does the loft change at any point across the clubface? No.

So how else would hitting high on the clubface make the launch angle change? Because there is a wider gap between the centers of gravity of the ball and the club.

I'll share this link with you again. Read the section about Centroids about halfway down the page.
http://www.leaderboard.com/glossary_launchangle

You just described MOI in it's pure form. Hit a ball anywhere on the clubface and get about the same results. May go a little lower, may go a little higher but about the same results in the end.

And you also just proved my point that the loft does not change so neither will the launch angle... THANK YOU!! Thus, companies jack lofts to increase distance for more sales. Cause / Effect...

 

[SharkHat]

You just described MOI in it's pure form. Hit a ball anywhere on the clubface and get about the same results. May go a little lower, may go a little higher but about the same results in the end.

And you also just proved my point that the loft does not change so neither will the launch angle... THANK YOU!! Thus, companies jack lofts to increase distance for more sales. Cause / Effect...

Stop straw-manning.

I did not say that hitting the ball anywhere on the club face will produce the same result. I said exactly the opposite.

 

[Fourwiggle]

I will agree with you on the shortened shaft. Not the lofts. Bad golfers need the lowered irons lofts in order to help create a better dynamic loft. A shortened shaft would help create a repeatable swing.

And for a very large part, it is a pissing contest. I think it is 60-40, general intention to help bad golfers, and pissing contest.

I don't think we need to discuss that ratio. Because I believe that part of it is irrelevant.

In all fairness to this debate. A good fitting would solve most of these questions.

Yes please, NO ONE DEBATE THE RATIOS!!

Bad golfers will be bad golfers with or without lower lofts. Why not just choose a 6 iron instead of a 7? EGO. Which is what the OEMs are marketing to.

 

[JB]

This thread is borderline hysterical. The amount of anger by some over this is near crazy. Here you go. Every company out there offers lofts for just about any player. So who cares how incorrect a select few in here are. Play the clubs that you like, since a company offers both styles and multiple lofts.

Sometimes it amazes me what passes as "fact" nowadays. I truly wish there was a way people could watch the actual process in which clubs are made. It would completely end this nonsense and show exactly what some have been saying the entire time.

 

[nicedivot]

This thread is borderline hysterical.

lol i second that...

and Wiggles.. did you read my post on near the bottom of page 4 ?

 

[blugold]

Yes please, NO ONE DEBATE THE RATIOS!!

Bad golfers will be bad golfers with or without lower lofts. Why not just choose a 6 iron instead of a 7? EGO. Which is what the OEMs are marketing to.

I will agree that the marketing is playing to that, to some extent.

I think you and I agree that no single club will cure all swing faults.

But to me, playing with loft, which we agree is part of the "launch scenario", to create more fun for a bad golfer, isn't a bad thing.

 

[Fourwiggle]

Stop straw-manning.

I did not say that hitting the ball anywhere on the club face will produce the same result. I said exactly the opposite.

It's exactly what I'm talking about. Does the loft change at any point across the clubface? No.

Ok, once again if loft does not change launch will not change (everything else being equal)...

 

[Fourwiggle]

I will agree that the marketing is playing to that, to some extent.

I think you and I agree that no single club will cure all swing faults.

But to me, playing with loft, which we agree is part of the "launch scenario", to create more fun for a bad golfer, isn't a bad thing.

Not at all, but tell me that. Don't just say "mine's longer"...

 

[SharkHat]

Ok, once again if loft does not change launch will not change (everything else being equal)...

Wrong.

 

[jlukes]

Ok, once again if loft does not change launch will not change (everything else being equal)...

So then why do hitting it low on the face produce lower shots and hitting the ball high on the face produces a higher launch? The loft is the same throughout the entire face. Could it be, I don't know.... Center of gravity?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Fourwiggle]

yes, I finally reach the end of the thread (at this precise moment, end of the thread as this will continue).
And for what it is worth, based on what I have read, wiggles is NOT disputing all other factors in golf club and swing. but when you do comparison study of any kind (golf, computer, etc..) you try to put everything same except one and compare then say by changing one thing to this, the result is that.
For example, if you have 2 car engines - 4 cylinders with total of 2 L engine, and 2nd one 4 cylinders with total of 3 L engine. and fed exact same type of gaz and put up to exact same RPM (say 3000 RPM) then see which one uses more gaz. someone will say but 4 cyliners with 2 L engine uses more gaz if you put it up to 7000 RPM. True... and that's why you want all other things the exact same.

Did I get this right wiggles? and if yes then hope this clears up a little

Could I buy you a beer??

That's all I'm saying...

 

[Fourwiggle]

So then why do hitting it low on the face produce lower shots and hitting the ball high on the face produces a higher launch? The loft is the same throughout the entire face. Could it be, I don't know.... Center of gravity?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

No, it's a poor golf shot.

CG did not change, neither did loft. Contact is all that changed.

 

[nicedivot]

So then why do hitting it low on the face produce lower shots and hitting the ball high on the face produces a higher launch? The loft is the same throughout the entire face. Could it be, I don't know.... Center of gravity?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

jlukes.. what you said now is comparion of same loft but lower CG vs higher CG
or the bad shot thing as wiggles already said before me

 

[blugold]

Not at all, but tell me that. Don't just say "mine's longer"...

Meh. Grain of salt.

I do think there is some nobleness in their intentions.

 

[SharkHat]

No, it's a poor golf shot.

CG did not change, neither did loft. Contact is all that changed.

The distance between the centers of gravity of the two changed

 

[jlukes]

jlukes.. what you said now is comparion of same loft but lower CG vs higher CG

So basically you just want golf manufacturers to make the same exact club with every spec the same. Because that's the only true way to compare clubs... Or something like that?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD