Are you wasting money on clubs you seldom play? More importantly, are you denying yourself opportunities to play better and enjoy the game more, simply because you’re playing a set makeup that is unsuited for your game? I would wager that an expert in clubfitting would echo a resounding “yes” to both questions for the majority of golfers.

Since the 1980s, golf equipment manufacturers have forced major changes in the specifications of the clubs with which we all play the game. It all started when the major brand golf companies started to decrease the lofts of each iron, which up until the 1980s were set to standards that almost every club manufacturer respected and adhered to.

• 3-irons, which used to be a tough-to-hit 24° loft clubhead on a good day, have been de-lofted over the past three decades to 18° to 20° (becoming LESS than a 2-iron)
• 4-irons, which historically were set at a 28° loft, have been reduced in loft to between 21° and 23° (becoming less than a 3-iron);
• 5-irons, which before had been designed with a 32° loft, have been de-lofted to between 23° and 25° (thus becoming what a 3-iron used to be) and in a few iron sets in the late 2010s, to as little as 21.5°!

The #6, 7, 8, 9 and PW have also been subjected to a decrease in loft, although in varying increments of reduction. Why? Well, companies got the bright idea that if every iron in the bag was de-lofted, they could market them with the appealing claim: “OUR CLUBS HIT THE BALL OVER A FULL CLUB LONGER!” Which of course is exactly what happened.  In a highly competitive golf equipment industry, rolling back lofts was little more than a way to sell tons of “new and improved” golf clubs to appeal to golfers’ desires for more distance. But even more infamous and damaging was the fact that from this shrinking of lofts, the 3, 4 and 5 irons swiftly became a whole lot harder to hit for the vast majority of golfers.

 Take a look at your own bag: Which clubs are shiny, and which are well worn? For the majority of golfers, the low number irons are practically untouched. Designing clubs with cavity backs or exotic metals really didn’t help hitting those “new and improved” de-lofted lower number clubs all that much because low lofts require higher clubhead speeds and more skilled swing characteristics to hit high enough to achieve maximum carry distance.

So what did the industry do to compensate (and sell more golf clubs)? For a time, there was a small effort to offer 7 and 9 woods to substitute for the hard to hit low loft irons but higher numbered fairway woods somehow fall short of satisfying most golfers’ egos. That’s when hybrids were introduced.

So this is why we’re at the point where golfers seldom use their 3, 4 and even their 5 and 6 irons. Plus, for the most part, they’re also very confused about hybrids… which for most golfers are necessary for consistently hitting longer-iron distances into the greens and on longer par-3 holes.

The fact is, hybrids are a wonderful product, an ingenious alternative to hitting today’s hard-to-hit long irons. They can be:

• Easier to get airborne than an iron of the same loft
• Possibly more accurate on longer length par-3s
• Able to be hit more consistently from both short and long grass
• Effective from hard-pan
• Better suited for bump and run shots from around the greens.

Hybrids really are easier to hit high to fly and achieve proper carry distance than irons of the same loft ifthe hybrids are professionally fit to the golfer—custom built from scratch with quality designed components and custom fit to match each golfer’s individual swing characteristics. We always advocate professional club fitting—it’s the single best way for any golfer to play better—but when it comes to hybrids, professional clubfitting is absolutely critical to ensure consistent distance gaps.

For more, I invite you to watch this video that details the importance of club set makeup. To find a clubfitter with whom to work to be properly fit, take a moment to click on the Find a Clubfitter link found at the top of the home page on www.wishongolf.com.

Good luck in this great game!

Tom Wishon

You may have heard a few weeks ago that Dick’s Sporting Goods laid off all of its PGA professionals—more than 500 men and women—as a result of a downturn in the major retailer’s golf equipment business.

“Dick’s aimed to have one PGA professional at every store to better differentiate the experience from online retailers that try to undercut brick-and-mortar stores,” wrote ESPN.com’s Darren Roven on July 22, 2014. “But the economy, the downturn in participation, the decline of Tiger Woods and too many products flooding the market cut into Dick’s bottom line so much that the company seems to be giving up on winning the golf equipment business.”

Dick’s, which also owns golf specialty retailer Golf Galaxy, is the nation’s largest retailer of equipment from the major golf club companies. Last month’s job layoff announcement was preceded a month earlier by reports that Dick’s was reducing the floor space allotted to golf clubs in each store by 1,000 square feet.
Which makes me wonder… If Dick’s is laying off golf sales staff and reducing the space given to selling golf clubs, I’d bet that most other big box golf club retailers are sharing the same, leaking boat.

So what does this mean to America’s professional clubfitters? Is this a preview of darker, harder times to come for the golf clubfitting and clubmaking industry?

To everyone but Chicken Little, I would say absolutely not. In fact, while I mildly regret Dick’s and most other OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) suffering from a significant downturn in their golf equipment sales, professional clubfitters and established custom clubmaking equipment design companies like Tom Wishon Golf Technology are holding steady and showing realistic signs of growth.

Why are we not as affected? Why should we believe that these menacing, dark clouds in the OEM side of the industry have a silver lining for professional clubmakers? Here are two basic reasons why:

1) Major golf club OEMs have a common Achilles’ heel that makes them extremely vulnerable to a bad economy: Their business models force them to be more focused on revenues and profits from high volume sales than offering clubs that can genuinely allow golfers to play to the best of their ability.
That means, among other things, that the major brand golf equipment companies—several of which are publicly traded companies that must answer to demanding shareholders—must sell millions of clubs every year in order to prevent the price of their stock from plummeting. And that means glutting the market is an unavoidable consequence. It’s simple supply-and-demand economics: When there is too much of something, it means lower prices to dump the inventory to make room for that next new model to follow with its “fresh story” for “better performance.”

2) Imagine what a golfer might think when a golf club he or she purchased just a few months earlier is now selling for 66% less.
Does the golfer feel ripped off, that he was the victim of higher energy marketing claims designed to push and recycle what is so often previously seen technology onto an over-eager, unsuspecting, uneducated marketplace?
Probably.
Could a golfer lose confidence in the large companies, especially when confronted with barrels and barrels of barely six-month-old unsold clubs tagged with bright-yellow “SPECIAL PRICE” stickers?
Probably.
Does a golfer begin to wise up and stop throwing good money after bad, realizing the clubs he or she bought just a few months earlier are no better than the dozens of “new and improved” designs now displayed on the showroom floor?
Apparently so. Just ask Dick’s Sporting Goods or the 500-plus PGA professionals who are now looking for a job.
I don’t mean to be sanctimonious or sarcastic, I really don’t. Still, major golf club manufacturers can point to a bad economy, or Tiger’s troubles, or that golfers are just not playing as much to explain their declining sales figures. That dog, as we say out west, just don’t hunt. Consumers who have been the target of a new club model every 6 months, each with its new claim for better performance, are beginning to know it, too.
But let’s get back to what I wanted to say from that beginning:

Golf clubfitting, via professional clubmakers like you, can offer frustrated golfers a solution to their desire to achieve game improvement. Buying OEM clubs off the rack cannot. And you can get your foot in the door to win over the golfers when clubfitters present their services under the following documented statement:
Professionally fitted clubs can positively help more than 90% of today’s golfers achieve visible game improvement. By pairing professional clubfitting analysis with premium designed golf clubheads, shafts and grips (like those engineered and manufactured by Tom Wishon Golf Technology), golfers who shoot in the low- to mid-80s to high-90s can reduce their score between 3 to 10 shots.

That is a statistically proven fact, verified by more than 15 years of feedback from hundreds and hundreds of custom clubmakers. And that, my friends, is why the economic troubles of the major OEMs are such great news for us. Because OEMs cannot—and will never— devote the required time and training necessary to professionally fit clubs to individual golfers. Period.

So where are the club buyers? Well, apparently they’re not shopping at Dick’s or other big box stores. They’re still out there, waiting, wanting clubs they can believe in, eager for equipment that will have a real, genuine and proven result in making them better golfers to increase their enjoyment in this great game.
New buyers have not gone anywhere. They’re just a little frustrated and disappointed by the hollow promises of the big golf companies.

By partnering together, we can take advantage of this opportunity and offer a better solution for golfers who are frustrated—but remain passionate—about becoming better players. We don’t need millions and millions of golfers. We only need thousands and thousands. Wishon Golf is devoted to this industry, and we will continue to work our tails off to drive customers into your shop, golfers who are intrigued by your professional clubfitting and clubmaking services as well as the tour-quality components engineered and manufactured by Tom Wishon Golf Technology.

In fact, you’re invited to use any of our videos, photographs, logos, copywriting, etc. to help you promote and sell your services. Let me know if you need anything from the website. We are partners in this effort, after all, because this also your time to be talking loud and clear about professional clubfitting, about why your services—coupled with Wishon Golf club components—are a better consumer solution than buying big-brand-name clubs off the rack.

Thank you for your continued support and we’ll keep you apprised of our renewed efforts to help increase your business.

Short backswings with strong acceleration on the downswing typically require the shaft to be stiffer overall or more tip stiff than what might otherwise be indicated simply by the golfer’s clubhead speed.  The reason is because a short backswing with a more forceful transition move to start the downswing puts more bending force on the shaft than will a long backswing with a more gradual acceleration of the club on the downswing.

This is where having an accurate swing speed rating for shafts can be helpful in the shaft fitting process.  At Wishon Golf we pioneered the creation of swing speed ratings for shafts based on a 10mph range to allow for differences in shaft bending force among golfers with the same measured swing speed at impact. 

For example, let’s say we have three golfers that all have the same measured driver swing speed of 90mph coming into impact with the ball. Golfer A has a shorter backswing with a very forceful start to the downswing.  Golfer C has a longer backswing with a slight pause at the top, followed by a gradual acceleration of the club to the ball.  Golfer B has a normal backswing with average transition force to begin the downswing. 

As the “average” golfer with a back-to-downswing transition of average force, shafts with a swing speed rating of 85-95mph would be suitable for the initial evaluation of the overall stiffness of the shaft because Golfer B’s swing speed of 90mph is right in the middle of the swing speed range of 85-95mph.  Golfer A on the other hand is putting more bending force on the shaft from his short backswing coupled with a fast and forceful acceleration of the club to start the downswing.  Because of that, Golfer A needs a stiffer shaft than Golfer B.  As such, the shafts for Golfer A would come from those with a swing speed rating of 90-100mph because in an accurate swing speed rating, the higher the swing speed rating, the stiffer is the shaft. Finally, with his smoother and more gradual acceleration of the club, Golfer C puts less bending force on the shaft. Because of that, the shafts for Golfer C would come from those with a swing speed rating of 80-90mph, indicating they are less stiff to match with his 90mph swing speed that has less bending force in the swing characteristics. 

In addition, typically the more forceful and aggressive the transition and downswing of the golfer, the heavier the shaft weight or the swingweight/MOI of the club could be depending on whether the golfer has a preference for clubs with a heavier total weight (heavier shaft weight) or with a more pronounced head weight feel (higher swingweight/MOI). I say could be and not should be because it is possible to create enough weight feel to prevent the forceful swinger from being too quick with his tempo by using a light shaft with a heavier swingweight/MOI.  Golfer experience, personal preference or hit testing is how the determination is best made. 

And conversely, the more smooth and easy the transition and downswing move, the lighter the shaft weight but not necessarily the lighter the swingweight/MOI should be for the golfer. 

The best way to be sure you are properly fit for the right shafts that match all your swing characteristics is to find an experienced clubmaker/clubfitter in your area and have them use their knowledge and experience to custom fit you.

What is meant by a “tip soft” shaft?  A shaft can be designed with many variations in the distribution of its stiffness over its whole length.  A tip soft shaft is one that is designed to be more flexible in the tip portion of the shaft which we define as the last 16” to 21” of the shaft.  Likewise there can be any number of variations in how stiff the tip section of a shaft is designed.  The reason this is done is to help golfers with different swing characteristics find the right shaft that matches best to how they release the club, i.e. when they unhinge the wrist-cock angle on the downswing.

Most typically, golfers who unhinge the wrist-cock angle early to early/midway in the downswing are better fit with tip soft shafts, while golfers who hold the wrist-cock angle until very late in the downswing are better fit with a tip stiff or tip firm shaft.  Those who unhinge the wrist cock somewhere in between early and late then are typically better fit to shafts that are more what is called a tip medium design.

The terms “tip soft/tip firm/tip medium” are completely generic in their description and in no way tell you exactly HOW TIP SOFT or HOW TIP FIRM the shaft is.  That’s why we created the Shaft Bend Profile Software so that clubmakers can empirically compare how much stiffer one shaft is than another, and where on the shaft from butt to center to tip the shaft is more or less stiff.

Let me explain using a graph and data from our Bend Profile Software data base.  In this program we store the FULL LENGTH STIFFNESS measurements of many different shaft models and flexes so that clubmakers can empirically compare the stiffness design of one shaft to another to help them make better shaft fitting recommendations for the golfers they fit.

These are six different shafts which are designed to be virtually the same exact stiffness from the butt to the center of the shaft, but are very different in stiffness for their tip section. In the graph and data box, the 41 to 11 columns tell you WHERE the stiffness measurements were made on each shaft, in inches up from the tip end. So the 41/36 measurements are considered the BUTT end of the shaft, the 31/26 measurements the CENTER section of the shaft and the 21/16/11 considered the TIP Section of the shaft. In the measurements, the higher the number, the stiffer the shaft is at that point.

So from this you can see that the shafts are all very similar for their 41, 36, 31 measurement positions but then vary from the 26 position on down to the very tip end of the shafts.  The swing speed rating of a shaft is chiefly determined by the stiffness from the 41” to the 26” measurement positions on the shaft which represent the butt to center sections of the shaft.  All six of the shafts displayed in the graph could be fit to a golfer with a 90-100mph driver swing speed.  The tip section stiffness among all these 90-100mph rated shafts varies from 324/422/683 (Apollo Shadow UL) all the way up to the very tip stiff design of the Fujikura Vista Tour 70-S of 371/524/963. 

Thus the Apollo shaft would be fit to a golfer with a 90-100mph driver swing speed who has a very early cast-off release of the club, the Vista Tour 70 would best be for a 90-100mph driver swing speed player with a very late release of the club, and the other shafts for golfers with a 90-100mph swing speed with their release between early/midway to midway to somewhat late release. 

The best way to be sure you are properly fit for the right shafts that match all your swing characteristics is to find a GOOD Clubmaker/clubfitter in your area and have them use their knowledge and experience to custom fit you.

Tom

The transition is the change in direction of the golf club during the swing that occurs when the backswing ends and the downswing begins.  Golfers vary a lot in the speed, force and tempo of their transition from smooth with a gradual acceleration to start the downswing to fast, forceful and very aggressive, to variations in between those two extremes. 

The transition move has an important bearing on shaft stiffness fitting because it determines the initial bending force that is applied to the shaft by the golfer. In addition, the difference in how forceful the golfer begins the downswing can be important to determine the best shaft weight and the best swingweight/MOI of the club, i.e. the head weight feel of the club during the swing. 

Typically if you have two golfers with the same clubhead speed, the one with a more forceful transition move will do better with a stiffer shaft (higher swing speed rating) than what would be normal for that swing speed, with a 10 to 20g heavier shaft weight and a swingweight in the area of 2 to 3 swingweight points higher than the golfer with a pause at the end of the backswing and a very smooth, gradual transition move to begin the downswing.

Golfers with a strong transition who end up with too light of a total weight and/or too light of a swingweight tend to experience a higher degree of off center hits, more heel side hits, and even the tendency to make a slight outside in path become more outside in.

Tom

Higher than desired spin on the driver typically comes more from the golfer having a little more downward angle of attack into the ball or, from the golfer allowing the clubhead to slightly pass in front of the hands so the dynamic loft on the face is higher at impact than the actual static loft on the face.  In addition, playing with a shaft that is too flexible or too tip flexible for the player’s swing characteristics can increase the amount of backspin on the shot.  A shaft that is too flexible for the golfer with a later release will cause the shaft to bend forward more which increases the dynamic loft on the head to bring about more spin. 

Equipment wise, higher spin can only come from a higher loft on the face and slightly from a shaft that is too soft in flex or too tip flexible for the golfer’s swing. For example, if you have a lower ball flight with >3000 rpm spin when using a 10* loft driver, assuming the loft really is 10* at the point of impact, it is likely that a slightly downward angle of attack coming into the ball would be the explanation for the higher spin.

From the standpoint of the equipment, the only ways to reduce spin will be first to use a lower loft head, then second to use a more tip stiff shaft than what you are using now if you are a player with a later to very late release. Golfers with an early to midway release should not try to decrease spin by using a stiffer shaft because only golfers with a later to very late release experience a change in shot trajectory or spin from a change in shaft flex. But if you want to increase trajectory in an effort to carry the ball farther, you can only do that with a higher loft and/or a more flexible shaft (late release player) – and both of those are going to result in more spin than you experience now.

I recommend using a TrackMan or Flight Scope launch monitor to measure your launch angle, spin rate and your angle of attack into the ball because these are the most accurate for recording backspin. This way you will know for sure what the cause of the lower flight with higher spin is from. From my experience, a low ball flight with higher spin with a head with a loft of 11* or lower is caused by a more downward angle of attack. In such a case, to change the shot pattern to a higher launch and lower spin would require a swing overhaul to achieve more of a level to slightly upward angle of attack. For a low handicap player that may not be advisable because such a swing change could open the door for other swing errors until the less downward angle of attack change is achieved.  A very good player with a downward angle of attack should just live with the downward angle of attack and the higher spin that can come from it. 

Tom

Those who follow the doings of the golf equipment industry with interest are aware that on May 21, 2013 the USGA and the R&A officially announced their decision to ban the anchoring of putters to the body during the execution of the putting stroke.  The decision was made despite publicly stated opposition to the ban by the PGA of America and the PGA Tour.  The decision to ban body anchored putting was also made in the absence of any facts which prove the use of a body anchored putter automatically enables a golfer to make more putts or replace the skill required to play the game.

Body anchored putters have been in play for more than 30 years.  Up until 2011 you could count the number of tournaments on one hand that were won by playing professionals using such putters.  Of the 700 or so tournaments played on the PGA Tour between the appearance of body anchored putting and 2011, fewer than 1% were won by pros using a body anchored putter.   If one wants to say using a particular type of putter automatically results in better putting, the previous statistic could be used to say that the pros who used body anchored putters were at a distinct disadvantage.  After all, over 99% of all the tournaments won between the introduction of body anchored putting and 2011 were won by pros using a conventional putter.

But in 2011 and 2012, 11 tournaments were won by pros using a body anchored putter.  Did this all of a sudden prove that the use of a body anchored putter brought an automatic improvement in putting?  Perhaps the USGA thought so.  On the other hand, the reason for the sudden increase in wins by pros using the Belly or Broomstick style putters is more likely explained by the fact that a much greater number of more pros chose to use this type of a putter so the percentage of their wins simply increased because of more players in each tournament using a body anchored putter.

Even as the number of tour players using a body anchored putter increased, far more tournaments have been won by pros using a conventional putter.  So after 30 years of use of these putters, why did the USGA all of a sudden decide they needed to define that the putting stroke has to be executed with the grip end of the putter free from the torso of the body?  After all, the game has been played for 500 yrs without any need to define how one should swing a club.  Could it be that among the small number of individuals who decide what the rules of the game will be, a majority simply felt the body anchored putters “look bad” and represent in their opinion a break from one of the traditions of the game?

Rules that relate either directly or indirectly to golf clubs need to be made on the basis of whether the equipment automatically replaces the skill required to play the game for all golfers.  Golf balls most definitely can be made so they can be hit significantly farther so we do need to have restrictions in place for the ball.  Driver faces could be made so they allow each golfer to automatically achieve a 3-4% increase in distance, so putting a limit on the COR of the face is a justifiable act.

But a body anchored putter in no way allows every golfer to make more putts.  It is simply a different type of putter.  Just like there are golfers who hit the ball better with a 44” driver vs one of 46”, or golfers who gain more on center hit consistency from a D4 swingweight than D1, or a golfer who hits the ball better with this shaft vs that one, or any other use of different FIT clubs, there are simply some golfers who feel they putt better with a body anchored putter while there are many more who do not. 

At the risk of being labeled an anti-traditionalist, with my 40+ yrs of experience in golf equipment research and design, the recent USGA decision to ban the anchoring of the putter to the body is a capricious and arbitrary decision made on the basis of emotion rather than science and statistics.  Thanks USGA, you now have another poor decision to add to your previous rulings to change scorelines, and to restrict the size and length of golf clubs which will do nothing to help the game and will prevent a certain number of golfers from enjoying the game as much as they did before the restriction. 

Tom

Clubfitting is and always will be about tailoring the specifications of each golf club so they best match the various swing characteristics of each different golfer. To think that a golfer can play as well with clubs bought off the rack made to a series of standard specifications represents complete ignorance of what custom Clubfitting is and can do for any golfer from beginner to advanced. 

Next time you head to the driving range when most of the hitting stations are in use, stop and look at the differences in how all the different golfers swing at the ball. Inside-out/square/outside-in swing path – fast/medium/slow swing speed – hitting down/swinging level/hitting up on the ball – forceful, aggressive to average to smooth, slower swing tempo – slice/straight/hook  – push/straight/pull  – early/midway and late release . . . And on and on.

The vast differences in how golfers swing at the ball all translate into a requirement for different Clubfitting specifications for the golfers. This is precisely why the golf industry’s typical business model to build their golf clubs to one series of standard specifications for most of the fitting specifications is so utterly flawed. It is why so many golfers who buy golf clubs off the rack never achieve all they can be as a golfer 

Now don’t get me wrong. Proper fitting is not likely to put you or me on the first tee of nest year’s US Open. But it darn well can make the difference in whether a golfer plays to the best of his/her ability as well as how quickly a golfer can adapt to swing changes when taking lessons. Improperly fit clubs do get in the way of golfers being able to play their best. And not just a little.

Let me share a few of the relationships between specific swing characteristics and proper fitting specifications:

Clubhead Speed

The clubhead speed is a critical part of shaft flex fitting. It is also an important element in determining what spacing of club lofts will deliver what amount of distance difference between clubs. And it is also a big factor in choosing the set makeup in terms of how many woods or hybrids vs how many irons should be in the set.  Clubhead speed also affects the amount of backspin any golfer will achieve with any clubhead or shaft design.

Downswing Transition Force and Downswing Tempo

Golfers differ in how aggressively they start the downswing from very sudden/abrupt/forceful to very smooth/passive/gradual and all places in between. They also vary in their swing tempo from smooth/rhythmic to aggressive and in between. Downswing Transition force and the Tempo are major factors in choosing the right driver and wood length, shaft weight, total weight, swingweight, shaft flex, shaft torque.

Point of Wrist-Cock Release

Golfers differ in terms of when they start to unhinge the wrist cock angle from immediately after the start of the downswing (early release) to very late in the downswing (late release) to also many different positions in between. The point of release is a big factor in choosing the right driver and wood length, shaft flex, shaft bend profile, loft and set makeup. 

Swing Path

Again, golfers exist with swing path variations from very outside-in to square to very inside-out and all variations of the swing path in between these extremes. The swing path is a critical factor in determining the golfer’s best driver and wood lengths and face angle for the woods and hybrids.

Angle of Attack

The Angle of Attack determines whether the golfer swings downward, level or upward to the ball.  Angle of Attack is a key swing element in determining the best driver and fairway wood loft, the best clubhead center of gravity design and clubhead sole design as well.

So the next time you encounter a golfer who thinks he or she is not good enough to benefit from custom fitting, clue them into the fact that the more differences they have in their swing characteristics, the more fitting can step up to help them play better golf and enjoy this great game more. 

Tom

By now, most golfers who read even a little about golf equipment know that the acronym “ MOI “ stands for Moment of Inertia. And most golfers who are aware of the MOI of a golf club have been told this is a scientific property that is a big part of how forgiving a clubhead can be when a shot is hit off the center of the face.

All that is true. The MOI that almost every golf article has referred to is the resistance of the clubhead to twisting when the shot is hit off-center. Put more of the head’s weight all around the perimeter of the head and you increase the MOI, which in turn means when you hit the ball off-center, you lose a little less distance than if you do the same thing with a head that has a lower MOI.

But there is more than one MOI when we talk about golf clubs. One of the most interesting that so few golfers know about is the MOI of the whole golf club, the fully assembled clubhead, shaft and grip all together.

Any object that is put in motion to rotate about some defined axis of rotation has an MOI. In the case of your golf clubs, during the swing we rotate the club about TWO different axes of rotation. One is our spine. As we swing, we turn back and turn through so we are rotating each club about the axis of our spine.

The other is our wrists. When we unhinge our wrist-cock angle during the downswing, we are putting the club in motion to rotate about an axis that is our wrist-cock release. So in addition to the MOI of the head itself, every fully assembled golf club also has an MOI.

Why is this important?

It has been said for years by golf club experts that if we somehow can make all the clubs have the same exact swing FEEL, we should be able to make our swing be more repetitive, and from this, be able to hit the ball more consistently on center with control. Up until a few years ago, the way golf companies would try to make golf clubs have the same swing feel was through swingweight matching. Since 1920, golf companies have built sets of golf clubs so they all had the same swingweight.

But there is a different way to make your clubs all so they all require the same exact effort to swing to gain better shot consistency. It’s called “MOI Matching” and it is gradually convincing more and more golfers that it is superior to swingweight matching when it comes to making ALL the clubs in the set swing with the same exact feel.

Our research into MOI matching as a replacement for swingweight began in the mid 90s. In 2003, Wishon Golf pioneered the very first hardware and software to allow custom clubmakers to truly build sets of clubs in which the clubs are matched to each other by their MOI. Since then, more than 500 clubmakers have invested in the MOI matching equipment to be able to fit and build MOI matched sets of clubs.

Is MOI matching better than swingweight matching? The thousands of golfers who now play with MOI matched clubs believe so. Or at least that is the feedback we hear from the clubmakers who do this. MOI is a true scientific measurement of just how much effort it takes to swing a club. Swingweight is not. Swingweight is an arbitrary measurement of the ratio of weight in the head to the weight in the rest of the club. But as club lengths change, even when you make each club have the same swingweight, they do NOT require the same effort from the golfer to swing the clubs.

If MOI matching is so good, why do all the golf companies still build their clubs to matched swingweights? Mainly for two reasons, 1) MOI matching takes more time to do and costs more money in labor to do. 2) MOI matching works best when it is customized to each golfer’s different combination of size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics. The big companies build their clubs to one series of standard specs so their clubs can be bought off the rack. To really take advantage of what MOI matching can offer to shot consistency, the big companies would have to build their sets one at a time, for one golfer at a time. And that is something they do not do and cannot do.

If you’re interested in MOI matching, here is a link to more information, including answers to more questions about MOI matching – https://wishongolf.com/clubmakers/matching-golf-clubs-by-moi/

Shaft torque affects performance a little bit, but not nearly as much as does the shaft’s weight, overall stiffness design and bend profile design. And here’s why.

The golf industry’s term “shaft torque” is used to convey the relative, comparative amount that a shaft is designed to resist twisting in response to a specific force of torque applied to the shaft. If the Rules of Golf were to allow clubheads to be designed so that the shaft would attach directly in line with the clubhead’s center of gravity, shaft torque would have nothing to do with shot performance.

The reason is because what causes a shaft to twist is, 1) the downswing force of the golfer, 2) the fact that the shaft attaches on the heel end of the clubhead, which means all the weight of the head sticks out in front of the shaft. With a majority of the head’s weight and the head’s center of gravity not in line with the center of the shaft, under the force of the downswing the force of the downswing will cause the clubhead to apply a twisting force on the shaft.

The golf industry’s first experience with shaft torque came way back before the early 1900s when hickory was the predominant shaft material. Wooden shafts had very little resistance to twisting. In fact, a completely different swing technique was required to prevent wooden shafts from twisting too much during the swing. Golfers who are used to seeing torque measurements on today’s shafts between 2 and 5 degrees would be interested to hear that a typical hickory shaft can have a torque measurement of more than 20 degrees!!

In fact, the biggest reason that steel shafts took over in the 1920s and wiped the hickory shaft from the face of the golf industry was their MUCH lower torque, which resulted in far more accuracy and control of the shot. The first steel shafts were heavier than hickory shafts, but golfers were willing to deal with the downside of heavier golf clubs to get the far superior resistance to twisting that steel shafts brought with them to achieve better shot accuracy.

Next came the introduction of graphite and fiberglass shafts in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Heralded as a huge breakthrough because they were much lighter in weight than steel shafts, early composite fiber and resin shafts failed to gain much of a foothold because their torques were over 10 degrees. The companies that introduced the first composite shafts simply did not know how to make their shafts with a lower degree of torque and much greater resistance to twisting.

As a result, the first composite shafts could only be used by golfers with a smooth, passive, totally non-aggressive swing tempo. This realization is what led to the industry learning just how shaft torque works, and what had to be done before graphite shafts could gain a much larger following 

Because most of the weight as well as the center of gravity of the clubhead protrudes well out in front of the shaft, the moment the golfer begins the downswing, that acceleration force causes the clubhead to exert a twisting influence on the shaft. The greater the golfer’s downswing force, meaning the more abruptly and more aggressively the golfer starts the club down, the more of a twisting force the clubhead will exert on the shaft.

At its worst, a strong, aggressive swinging golfer using a shaft with a torque of 6 degrees and higher can see the ball fly with a low, severe hook. This is because 6 or more degrees of torque in a shaft does not provide enough resistance to the twisting force that a golfer with a strong transition move and aggressive downswing tempo will generate.  The shaft and clubhead snap back from the initial application of force and then springs back causing the clubface to significantly close and lower the dynamic loft at impact to cause the low, sniping hook.

The reason that torque is not much of a fitting factor today is because the shaft makers all design the torque of their shafts to fall in line with the flex. Shaft makers know that the faster the swing speed of the player, not always but typically that higher swing speed generates more twisting force on the shaft. Hence you rarely ever see S and X flex shafts with a torque higher than 4 degrees.

And typically for the R, A and certainly L flex shafts, the shaft makers design the shafts with a higher degree of torque. This is because the slower swinger puts less twisting force on the shaft and thus the shaft does not need to have a lower torque to help keep the head stable coming into impact.

Tom