Canadan

You Are Great
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
148,270
Reaction score
105,532
Location
Ohio
Handicap
**
Off Course is back this week with a fantastic show. Hosted by Dan Edwards each Friday he gives you a deep look into the world of golf and equipment in a way unlike any other podcast has done before. Today Nick Sherburne, Founder of Club Champion and shaft guru, joins the show to talk about SST Pure.

It wouldn’t be Off Course without some tangents, but we talk about the truths and myths about SST Pure and ask the question “Does it Matter?”. This show has a lot going on and it is an episode you will not want to miss as Nick Sherburne joins the show again to go Off Course.

Episode 56 is here and Dan and Nick discuss the following topics.

What is a PUREd Shaft
Truths, Myths, Misnomers, Oh My
Will Nick ever use Social Media
And so much more

You can listen to the show right here, Apple Podcasts or of anywhere you do your listening and downloading from. Search for the Hackers Paradise and make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. After listening, come back over and drop us a note below on what you agree and/or disagree with from the episode.

 
Really enjoyed this one and talking the way through what is and what isn't so to speak.
 
Ran through this one when i signed on working this morning. Great listen....need to go back and re-listen to it again. Interested in the pouring process and literally laughed out loud about the TikTOk video
 
Enjoyed this. Always enjoy hearing from Nick as well. He's so versed in the industry and equipment. It makes total sense how manufacturing variations can affect the quality of shots even with the same swings being put on the club.
 
Awesome. Just bumped it to the top of the Playlist. Will listen this morning.

(y)
 
They've done their homework/sales pitch well.

I just can't believe the variance in a shaft is anywhere close to the variance in my golf swing. Given that it takes a $20000 machine and proprietary mathematical process to find it.
 
They've done their homework/sales pitch well.

I just can't believe the variance in a shaft is anywhere close to the variance in my golf swing. Given that it takes a $20000 machine and proprietary mathematical process to find it.

I don't necessarily disagree, but let me ask this. Why then consider the shaft at all? Or to take it a step further, why consider a single degree of loft, etc?
 
I don't necessarily disagree, but let me ask this. Why then consider the shaft at all? Or to take it a step further, why consider a single degree of loft, etc?
Since you ask, Part of my issue is the numbers you get back from the process have no quantifiable value to them. My assumption is the variance is very very very small (like fractions of a Hz small) so they have this formula to manipulate the data into a pretty, more dramatic curve.
Shaft profile and even a 1/10th of a degree of loft would be exponentially more dramatic a change, imo.

Would be interesting to see results in a the experience or even range days in the future. 🤔
 
Last edited:
Since you ask, Part of my issue is the numbers you get back from the process have no quantifiable value to them. My assumption is the variance is very very very small (like fractions of a Hz small) so they have this formula to manipulate the data into a pretty, more dramatic curve.
Shaft profile and even a 1/10th of a degree of loft would be exponentially more dramatic a change.

I do not agree with that last part at all.
With that said, for people that go to the extreme finite lengths for choosing shafts, heads, etc to me makes sense. Will one see a quantifiable benefit? No idea.

My response was to the idea that the swing is the variable, which is true. Yet if that is the case, loft to the degree you just mentioned, wouldn't matter either. Nor would a small change to the dynamic in the EI curve.
 
I do not agree with that last part at all.
With that said, for people that go to the extreme finite lengths for choosing shafts, heads, etc to me makes sense. Will one see a quantifiable benefit? No idea.

My response was to the idea that the swing is the variable, which is true. Yet if that is the case, loft to the degree you just mentioned, wouldn't matter either. Nor would a small change to the dynamic in the EI curve.

I see what you're saying, and as has been said, eliminating variables is not a bad thing. However small they might be. And cost/benefit is always up to the individual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #11
They've done their homework/sales pitch well.

I just can't believe the variance in a shaft is anywhere close to the variance in my golf swing. Given that it takes a $20000 machine and proprietary mathematical process to find it.
I didn't get the sense that they were making significant claims on variance.. More on making sure the shaft presents in the best condition possible.

I don't own anything that is PUREd so I'm either equally a skeptic or simply lazy with the amount of times I swap out clubs/shafts. Then again, I don't swing weight my builds either, and that's a whole different story (yet sort of similar in total).
 
I look at it this way. If I went and took all that time to dial in shaft, lie angle, swing weight, etc. I'll pay the extra to ensure it's as close as possible. I do feel like the argument could be made that you went and took all that time for all that, so this part isn't necessary.

I did get the puring process on my ZX7's I got earlier this year. It's impossible to say if there was a quantifiable help, but I can promise you it didn't hurt. It's all about confidence in knowing most of the "controllables" are controlled.
 
Great listen enjoyed how he described the process of how Puring works.
 
I love how the basic pitch on SST Pure at this point is, "well it can't hurt!"
Think of all the stuff I could sell with this idea.
Will it help?
Who knows, but it can't hurt!
 
I just got through the whole thing. Fun listen. I was not aware that club champion owned SST.


I can still remember the first golf magazine article I read about SST in the mid 90s..

I will fully admit that I have been and I guess you can say I still am a sceptic of SST puring.

I understand that idea of it and have read a bunch about it. I can understand the idea of removing a potential variable. But I guess it’s along the lines of composite putter shafts to me. I am just not sold yet.

But. You can hear that Nick believes it. He is invested in it and I like that. He seems like a very bright guy and would love talk shop with him. I would totally dig that.

So, it was fun and informative listen. Really enjoyed it as I do all of the off course pod casts..
 
I listened to most of the podcast but have little left and I believe Nick said they were puring 30,000 clubs per month.....that is huge! I don’t know where that many clubs are coming from as I know no one who has any clubs pured. Did I hear wrong?

I may be wrong but I believe Titleist at one time said puring was unnecessary, I wonder if this is why JT is hesitating but maybe ha has now converted.
 
Full disclosure, I did not listen to the podcast. I am a retired club fitter/builder. Years ago I was interviewed by a club making supplier as I was one of their top 5 customers for SST Puring of the shafts I purchased.

Back then the tolerances and quality control of graphite shafts were all over the place, especially with the stock shafts. While some manufacturers of aftermarket product were better than others, there still were significant issues between shafts. If you didn’t have your shafts Pured, or, at the very least Spined and Flo’d, it was not unreasonable to see bad stuff happening.

Fast Forward to the past several years and QC, along with tolerances are so tight with almost all manufacturers, the necessity to concern yourself over Puring has been virtually eliminated.
 
Back
Top