Opinion & Analysis
Part 1: Taking the guesswork out of selecting shafts
It’s clear that a lot of threads and posts in the GolfWRX forums are from golfers asking all sorts of questions about shafts. In nearly 40 years of golf equipment design and research work, I think it is fair to say that the shaft is the least understood component of the golf club.
I have engaged in serious shaft research since 1990, and from that have learned a lot about shaft design, performance and fitting, I would like to help clear some things up and share some facts about shafts and what you need to know to pick the best shaft for YOUR swing.
I will do my best to make all of this understandable without stressing everyone’s attention span. But there is a lot to explain about this subject so I will separate this into three parts with some time in between each thread to allow you to digest it and ask questions.
How Can Golfers TRULY Compare Shafts to Know their Real Performance Differences?
Below is a typical “specification chart” from a major shaft company. I have removed the names because it is not my intent to criticize a specific shaft maker. It is simply my desire to show you how the typical information provided about shafts will not allow golfers to know what they really need to know about shafts to be able to make an informed buying decision.
Plain and simple, the information in this chart cannot tell a golfer how any of these shafts truly perform, much less how they actually compare in stiffness to any other the shaft.
The flex? There are no standards for exactly how stiff any of the flex letter codes are. Charts like this provide no quantitative measurements of exactly how stiff any shaft might be. In fact the ONLY bits of information on a typical chart like this which can be helpful are the WEIGHT and the TORQUE.
The butt and tip diameter? These are fine for knowing what the hosel bore of the clubhead needs to be to easily accept the shaft and to know how to install the grip to obtain a desired size.
The parallel tip section? That simply tells you if you cut more than 2 inches off the tip, it’s not likely to fit all the way into any normal hosel with a 0.335-inch bore.
The bend point? Sorry, but the term bend point is not relevant because with terms like “high,” “mid,” or “low,” it has always been way too generic. WHERE EXACTLY IS a mid bend point? And how does this mid bend point compare to some other company’s mid or low or high bend point?
Recently I have seen a couple of other shaft companies begin to offer a form of QUANTITATIVE stiffness measurements for their shafts. Here’s an example:
This shaft company offers a series of stiffness profile measurements for the butt, mid and tip sections of their shafts. That’s a start, but the problem is that this company only offers these stiffness profile measurements for their own shafts. This is somewhat reasonable for comparing the various shaft models and flexes within this one company, but what if you have some other company’s shaft in your driver, or you wish to compare these shafts to some other company’s shafts? And if you have never hit one of these shafts, how stiff or flexible are any of these measurements in the first place? These rudimentary stiffness profile measurements do not allow the depth and scope of stiffness information to allow you to make a valid shaft fitting decision.
You might look at the butt stiffness number and say, “That’s a frequency measurement and I know how stiff a 270 cpm shaft plays.” Yes, that butt stiffness number is a frequency measurement. But the problem is you have no idea how these butt frequency measurements were obtained.
- What length of the butt was clamped?
- How heavy was the tip weight?
- Is this 270 cpm frequency the same as a 270 cpm shaft that you played?
Again, there are no standards in the golf industry for shaft frequency measurement so you have no idea if a measurement of say, 270 cpm from this company is equivalent to a measurement of 255 cpm or 265 cpm or whatever cpm using one of the many other types of shaft frequency measurement.
What makes all this even more “exciting” or I should say, challenging, is the fact the industry is now populated with many shafts that are VERY expensive. Do you really want to GUESS whether that $300 shaft is right for you, or would you like to have a more definitive way to help make that decision?
Is there a Better Way to Compare Shaft Stiffness?
Ever since I began to perform quantitative measurements on shafts, I knew we needed a way to be able to see and compare the stiffness of as many shafts as possible, and do it over their entire length. That way, club makers and golfers could have a tangible way to compare the complete full length stiffness design of shafts to each other. The performance and the bending feel of any shaft are products of its stiffness design over its entire length. Not just the butt, not just the tip, but the whole length of the shaft. There are almost an infinite number of ways the stiffness of a shaft can be created over its entire length.
In 2005, we arrived on a reasonably simple method to perform full length comparative stiffness measurements for golf shafts. From this, we created a software program that would house and display the data from our shaft stiffness comparison methodology. We made the first version of the software available to club makers in 2006. Two times each year we ask the shaft companies to send us multiples of each of their new shaft models and flexes so we can keep adding shafts to the software data base.
At present, we have more than 2,000 different wood, hybrid and iron shafts in the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software. We charge a one-time fee of $129.50 for the software because the expense to have it programmed and maintained is not insignificant. It also takes us quite a number of hours to acquire, test and input the new shaft data into the software two times each year. You can find more information about this on my site, which is linked in my bio.
As much as we would like, there is no possible way we can include EVERY shaft in the industry in the software’s data base. We have to rely on the shaft companies to send us the multiple samples of each of their shafts to measure because we simply cannot afford to actually buy all of the shafts. We also cannot obtain the OEM stock shafts because the OEM companies will simply not allow anyone to have their raw shafts for any measurement work like this. We do have some OEM stock shafts in the data base, which come from “pulls” from OEM clubs that we can measure. But we do try to put as many shafts as we can into the data base so that clubmakers and golfers can better compare the relative stiffness of shafts.
To date more than 600 different club makers now use the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software in their shaft fitting. This use by the club makers has also provided “in the field” verification that the measurements of the shafts do indeed provide a valid representation of the performance and even the bending feel of the shafts in the data base. The shaft fitting comparisons made with the data in the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software is most definitely valid for predicting the performance and feel of a shaft.
How Does the Bend Profile Data Explain the Performance and Differences Between Shafts?
Some of you have seen graphs from the TWGT Bend Profile software that I have posted to answer a question here and there about shafts. For those of you who have not seen this, the following is a basic screen image from the software showing a comparison of the relative stiffness design of two shafts. I just randomly chose to use the Mitsubishi Rayon’s Diamana White 83 X5CT S flex and the UST ProForce V2 HL65 S flex to start the explanation.
You see seven columns in the data box. These show WHERE on the shafts we do the stiffness measurements. Starting at 11 inches up from the tip, the measurements then are made at 5-inch spaced positions up from the tip end of each shaft, ending at 41 inches up from the tip. Because iron and hybrid shafts are shorter in raw length, their measurements run from 11 inches up to 36 inches up from the tip end of the shafts.
Measurements are done with a 454 gram weight attached to the tip of the shaft using a specially designed frequency analyzer that measures the shaft oscillations using two separate load cells and two separate strain gauges. Each shaft is tested at the same exact place on the shaft, using the same exact test methodology. This ensures the data is comparable from shaft to shaft to shaft in the data base of the software.
Let’s take a look at an example graph and data chart
The 41-inch, 36-inch and 31-inch measurements represent the butt section, the 31-inch, 26-inch and 21-inch measurements represent the center section and the 21-inch, 16-inch and 11-inch measurements represent the tip section of the shaft (yes, there is an overlap).
When companies design different flexes of a shaft, each different letter flex version is ordained chiefly by the stiffness measurements of the 41-inch to 21-inch positions of the shaft (butt, to center, to upper tip). Tip section differences on shafts do not play as significant of a role in the overall flex design (swing speed rating) of a shaft as do the butt to center to upper tip sections. The tip section design of a shaft is chiefly designed to create differences in the launch angle, trajectory and spin rate among shafts within the same flex.
After significant research and study of the shaft data, we can make conclusions about how much of a difference in the stiffness measurements is significant or not. With so many shafts in the data base, we can also identify a basic relationship between a golfer’s clubhead speed, the average bending force generated by that clubhead speed, and the overall stiffness design of a shaft. This is very important for being able to tell a golfer which shaft may be better suited to his clubhead speed. Therefore, we can use the stiffness measurements of the 41-inch to 21-inch positions on the shaft to determine the swing speed rating of any shaft.
We can also determine how much of a measurement difference is significant or not with respect to stiffness in the butt, center and tip sections of the shafts.
- For example, at the start of the butt section, as represented by the 41-inch measurement, a measurement difference of 8-to-10 cpm is approximately equivalent to one full letter flex difference.
- At the middle of the center section, as represented by the 26-inch measurements, a difference of 12-to-15 cpm is equivalent to one full letter flex difference.
- In the middle of the tip section, as represented by the 16-inch measurement, a difference of 30-to-40 cpm usually accounts for a visible difference in the launch angle, trajectory and spin rate of the shot.
There are no standards for how stiff any of the letter flex designations of shafts may be. How stiff IS an R flex, an S flex (or any of the other letter flexes)? How much variation is there among shafts of the same letter flex?
Below is data to show the low-to-high range in stiffness for all shafts for drivers and fairway woods in our data base that are marked as being a letter R flex shafts. These are listed from softest to stiffest, but all of these are made and marked by their respective companies to be an R flex shaft.
Based on the measurements of the 41-inch and 36-inch sections for the butt section, you are looking at a range of FOUR FULL FLEXES. That means the R flex shafts in the golf industry actually exist within a range of four full flexes. The same is true for S flex shafts, as well.
Because there are far fewer L, A and X flex shafts, the range in stiffness within these letter flex codes is not quite as wide as it is within the R and S flex shafts. Here is the Bend Profile graph and data chart to illustrate the range in R flex shafts for woods that exist today.
Based on all of our research to associate a driver clubhead speed with the measurements for the 41-inch, 36-inch, 31-inch, 26-inch positions of the butt and center of the shaft, here are the appropriate driver clubhead speed ratings for each of these above five different R flex shafts:
- Miyazaki C.Kua 39 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 55-to-65 mph
- UST ProForce V2 HL-55 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 65-to-75 mph
- Aldila RIP’d NV65 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 75-to-85 mph
- Fujikura Blue 004 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 85-to-95 mph
- Rapport Blue Velvet R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 95-to-105 mph
Therefore, you are looking at shafts in the golf industry that match up to a range in swing speed of 50 mph, yet ALL are marked and sold as R flex shafts.
You may be prompted to comment, “This has to be the exception rather than the rule.” If we take a look at the data base to search where the majority of R-flex shafts lie with respect to their 41-inch, 36-inch and 31-inch butt section measurements, we find that the majority of R-flex shafts exist within a range that represents a 20-to-30 mph difference in the clubhead speed rating for the shafts.
This is precisely why golfers sometimes buy a new club and its shaft doesn’t feel as stiff or feels stiffer than their previous shaft with the same letter flex.
Do all shafts of the same letter flex have the same butt-to-center section stiffness (same swing speed rating) within the same shaft company or the same golf club company?
Let’s take a look at the R-flex version of a number of different shaft models from one shaft manufacturing company. All are selected on the basis of being very close to the same shaft weight so they potentially could be considered for purchase by the same golfer.
I want to be sure to first make something clear. I am NOT saying it is wrong for a company to make the same letter flex version of each different shaft model to be of a different stiffness design. That is their right as a company to determine the exact design of each flex for each shaft they make.
What I am saying is that it is very difficult for consumer golfers to know how to choose the shaft that might best match their swing when the companies provide no empirical information like this to use for making quantitative comparisons of the different shafts.
The swing speed range for all these R-flex shafts from Aldila ranges by 25 mph. At one end, the NVS 65-R is a shaft that would be rated for use by a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 70-to-80mph. At the other end, the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R is a shaft that would be rated for use by a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 85-to-95 mph. That means within all the R-Flex shafts from Aldila, the clubhead speed rating for possible selection by a golfer can range by 25 mph – yet all are marked as being an R-Flex shaft.
On top of this are definite differences in the TIP SECTION design of all these different R-flex shafts. Within all the R-Flex shafts from Aldila, we see shafts with a tip section design that ranges from the very tip-soft (Habanero 60-R) all the way up to the moderately tip stiff design of the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R. If both these R-flex shafts were hit by the same golfer, the Habanero would launch the ball approximately 3-degrees higher and with an estimated 750 rpm more backspin than the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R. Yet again, both are marked as R-flex shafts.
Again, each company is free to design their shafts as they see fit, for whichever golfer swing types they designate. But how can any golfer really know the difference in the overall stiffness design of any of these shafts and from that, know anything about the performance difference between these shafts of the same flex without clear, quantitative comparative information?
Please understand that variation between the same letter flex of different shaft models goes on INTENTIONALLY with every shaft company in the golf industry. It is not specific to Aldila. I simply use them to illustrate that this does happen within each shaft manufacturing company. Without a clear, quantitative means to compare the stiffness design of shafts, consumer golfers are in the dark with respect to making accurate shaft buying and shaft fitting decisions.
For those of you who made it this far, CONGRATULATIONS! You ARE indeed interested in shafts. For those of you who didn’t… well, true shaft knowledge can be a little beyond a normal realm of interest, I do admit that. I hope you all got something out of this, and there is more to come to help you know much more about how to determine the differences between shafts and how to turn that information into better shaft buying decisions.
By the way, there are many custom clubmakers out there who can help you find the right shaft FAR more accurately than the ways you have been trying to pick the right shaft in the past. These club makers who study this stuff are worth knowing and can help you. Again, to find a good club fitter, check out these sources:
- The AGCP (Association of Golf Clubfitting Professionals)
- The ICG (International Clubmakers’ Guild)
- The TWGT Clubmaker Locator
Related
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Pingback: Best 13 swing speed shaft flex chart - lindaadvisors.com
Graham Davis
Dec 10, 2016 at 10:00 pm
One more point. I am 5 fòot 7 inches and 11 stone, so not a power house. 7 is my highest handicap and I hit my driver about 240 yards with mý 88 to 90mph swing speed. 220 yards carry.
Graham Davis
Dec 10, 2016 at 9:15 pm
I should add to my previous mail that I have put together at least ten different shaft combos ranging from 45.5 inch fujikura 44gm regular to 44.25 inch black tie regular. I have tried senior, regular and stiff flex, and high , mid and low bend points At 85 to 90mph, why does a long heavy shaft give me the best results?
Graham Davis
Dec 10, 2016 at 9:02 pm
I am a 7 handicap 61 year old with driver swing speed of 88 to 90 mph. You often say current drivers are too long and to use more loft but my stats on trackman say 45.5 inch shaft at 9° gives my best launch and carry with least spin. Why is this? I use grafalloy prolaunch blue and swing weight is about D5. This is a 68gm shaft. I have the same shaft at 44.5 inches but don’t hit it as far. Consistency is not a compromised with the longer shaft. My smash factor is just as good. I can see 10 to 20 yards more carry. Do I simply have good tempo?
Montree
Mar 23, 2016 at 11:34 pm
May I share my story to choose golf swing analyser
A common mistake made by amateur golfers is choosing golf clubs that are not suited to their swing speed. If you do not match your clubs to your abilities to swing them, it can have an adverse effect on your game. Club factors that should be adjusted based on how fast you swing a club include the shaft flex, torque and the type of shaft. By taking the time to find the right clubs for your game, you can best leverage your golf equipment to improve your game.
Step 1
Determine your swing speed. Many golf retail stores and pro shops can take this measurement. Otherwise, the speed can be estimated based on the club that you hit from a distance of 150 yards. If you use a 3-iron or wood, your swing speed is probably less than 60 mph; a 4-iron is 60-75 mph; a 5-iron is 75-84 mph; a 6- or 7-iron is 84-93 mph; and an 8- or 9-iron is over 93 mph.
Step 2
Determine the shaft flex of your clubs based on your swing speed. The shaft flex is representative of how much force is required for the shaft to transfer energy to the golf ball during your swing. Ladies flex should be used for a swing speed of less than 60 mph, senior flex for 60-75 mph, regular flex for 75-84 mph, stiff flex for 84-93 mph, and extra-stiff flex for speeds above 93 mph. Choosing the wrong shaft flex can lead to hooked, sliced or generally inaccurate shots.
Step 3
Pick a material for the shafts of your irons. The two most common options are graphite and steel. Players with a slow swing speed normally will choose a graphite shaft to maximize the distance the ball travels, while those with a fast swing will choose steel for greater consistency. If your swing speed is moderate, test clubs of each type to determine which feels the best. The majority of modern fairway woods and drivers are sold with graphite shafts and should be chosen based on the information provided in Step 2.
Step 4
Choose the clubhead for your irons. Low-handicap players will prefer half-cavity or blade clubheads for greater consistency and control, while high-handicap players should opt for full-cavity clubs to aid in getting the ball in the air consistently. A half- or full-cavity golf clubhead has a hollowed-out area toward the back to distribute weight around the clubhead, creating a larger “sweet spot.” Blade clubheads have more weight around the face of the club.
Step 5
Test the clubs you have chosen before purchasing them. If you do not like the feel of the clubs, pick a different manufacturer with the same configuration options before changing the shaft flex, material or clubhead variant.
Read More : http://www.golfswinganalysers.com/best-golf-swing-analyzer-2016/
Pingback: How to Hit More Fairways with a Custom Golf Shaft
Rob Campbell
May 8, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Dear Mr. Wishon,
How about if I clamp the grip to a work bench with the shaft cantilevered, hang a weight (maybe 454 g) onto the head (hosel) and measure the deflection along the shaft, once with just the head, once with the added weight? A lot more time consuming than clamping a bare shaft in an expensive oscillator but way easier for us at home. A profile of the shaft bend could be drawn and different shafts could be compared without messing with the club.
I just found out I hit my cousin’s driver 30 yards further than mine. He’s got an R Fujikara and I have an A Project X. His would have way more deflection.
Could such a profile convert to yours?
Pingback: Does the golf shaft really effect your shots? | golfblogaustralia
Adrian Hubert
Mar 31, 2013 at 11:20 am
Hi,
I have some good knowledge of shafts, please can someone confirm that there is a difference between buying a shaft from say Golfsmith and having the same branded shaft from the tour. ?
Tom
Mar 11, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Great article Tom. Just wondering, how did you determine that 454 grams was the best weight to use?
tlmck
Oct 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm
lol. Just thinking of the guy who tried to sell me a C.Kua 39 R for my 92mph clubhead speed.
I can say for certainty, with only my swing as evidence, that a C.Kua 39 stiff is equivalent to a Diamana Red 44L stiff. I have the C.Kua in my identical head backup driver as the Diamana is apparently no longer made, and was nowhere to be found. It’s also nice that the C.Kua does nor require a special grip.
Nathan
Oct 2, 2012 at 3:56 am
This article looked promising untill i got to the part ( you really want to know it will cost you!!) good work
Chris
Oct 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm
When can we expect part 2?
Tom Wishon
Sep 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm
to JEFF who asked about shaft swing speed ratings for golfers with different levels of transition/tempo force in their swing.
Most definitely you are sniffing at a lot of what is going to be in Part 2 of this series. This is precisely why we teach clubmakers to do a basic 1, 2, 3 rating of each golfer’s transition force and downswing tempo to go along with their swing speed.
For example, three golfers all with a 90mph swing speed. But Golfer #1 has a very forceful transition and aggressive tempo. Golfer 2 has an average force/aggressiveness in transition/tempo and Golfer 3 has a smooth, more passive “swinger” type of transition and tempo.
For golfer 2, you can choose from shafts rated to be 85-95mph because his bending force is average for a 90mph swing. For golfer 1, you’d pick from shafts rated at 90-100 because these would be slightly stiffer shafts his swing speed is at the low end of the shaft’s rating – more stiff to better match with the fact that for his 90mph swing speed, his strong/forceful transition/tempo puts more bending force on the shaft so he needs a little stiffer shaft than what his swing speed indicates on its own.
And then finally the 90mph smooth swinger should pick from shafts with a swing speed rating of 80-90mph because he is NOT putting as much bending force on the shaft for his 90mph swing.
But you have the big basic point of shaft flex fitting down – amount of bending force is not always related to the golfer’s swing speed, but is heavily influenced by their transition and downswing tempo.
Tom Wishon
Sep 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm
To John who asked about OEM stock shaft stiffness:
There’s no nice way to say this. You can’t and won’t know how stiff an OEM stock shaft is. The OEMs do not provide any quantitative information on the stiffness/bend profile design of their stock shafts. Test hitting is the only way unless you buy the club, take it apart and then send me the shaft so I can measure it and include it in the data base of the software we created.
We’d love to include them in the data base of this software program but they will not send us their stock shafts to measure, nor will they allow their shaft mfg vendor to do that either. So the few OEM stock shafts we have in the software come from clubmakers who pull these shafts intact from stock clubs and send them to us to measure.
This again is one more good reason to be working with a GOOD, experienced clubmaker who has this software when you want to nail down what works/performs best for your swing and sense of feel.
Ian Mikutel
Apr 22, 2013 at 4:18 am
Why not use some of the $129.50 you charge for database access to purchase OEM shafts each year? It seems to me like the most valuable data for most golfers out there would be that of the OEM shafts, not super expensive, custom shafts? Unfortunate that the OEMs won’t send clubs for this testing, or just standardize this testing across all OEMs.
Pingback: GolfWRX.com – Taking the guesswork out of selecting shafts (Part 1) | Golf Products Reviews
Pingback: Light VS heaver shafts or clubs??? - Page 2 - Golf Forum - Golf Rewound is the Family Friendly Golf Forum and Discussion Group
Justin
Sep 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm
@Eric:
Yes, the more flexible the shaft, the more you can “feel”.
Davy
Mar 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm
The more ‘what’ you can feel?
The answer should be interesting.
Ryan
Sep 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Great write up. This definitely confirms what a lot of us already thought we knew which was every OEM even within there own shafts has no tangible way of discerning flex even within their own shafts that to me is CRAZY but soo glad Tom gave us real eveidence to prove this and I cannot wait for part 2
Davy
Mar 29, 2015 at 2:50 pm
You seem to have missed the point. Each manufacturer arbitrarily decides by their own measurement and priorities what they will market as an ‘R’ flex for example. One practice is to offer an ostensible ‘R’ flex with an ‘S’ shaft band on it to capture the vastly misinformed share of the market that believes they require a stiff shaft. But, you are correct about Tom’s authoritative expertise.
Ryan
Sep 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Great write up. This definitely confirms what a lot of us already thought we knew which was every OEM even within there own shafts has no tangible way of discerning flex even within their own shafts that to me is CRAZY but soo glad Tom gave us real eveidence to prove th
Jeff
Sep 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Terrific article. Does the data about stiffness profiles lend itself to discerning which shafts are more suitable based on an individual’s loading characteristics at a given swing speed? Does this matter? Looking forward to reading your next article.
Eric
Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Tom:
I play hickory clubs with a group. One thing I’ve noticed is one can truly feel the weight of the club, and I believe that significantly affects how the club is swung – particularly as you begin the forwardswing, and your subconscious changes the path of the swing.
As a result, I wonder if the whippier shafts improve feel of the clubhead – OR – is there a way to get great clubhead feel without giving up the control of a stiffer shaft?
Mark
Sep 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Thanks Tom.
As always, a well thought out and informative article. I’ll be getting the software, and look forward to part 2.
ACGOLFWRX
Sep 21, 2012 at 8:42 am
Excellent information for the masses, well written and above all, very informative.
John
Sep 21, 2012 at 6:16 am
Very well written Tom – thanks. The only problem remains, how do I know what level of stiffness I should be purchasing through the OEM’s at retail stores? Hope that’s covered in Part II.
Al
Oct 16, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Not speaking for Tom by any means, but his philosophy is that, rather than relying on the OEM’s, you should be custom fitted for your clubs rather than buying off the shelf.
Davy
Mar 29, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Well, you might try hitting before buying. Would you buy shoes without trying them on?
Matt
Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50 pm
As an engineer I am fascinated by this and am always on the search for the right fit as a scratch golfer, to maximize my game. This is revolutionary stuff. Thanks!
Davy
Mar 29, 2015 at 3:18 pm
It probably seems revolutionary, but Tom has been doing this since back in the 1980s when he was at Dynacraft and wrote his first Complete Guide to Golf Shaft Fitting. While there are no generalities, many tour players over the years have opted for heavier dynamic and static weighting with flatter lie angles than off the shelf mass-produced clubs. As an engineer, you probably enjoyed reading Homer Kelley’s The Golfing Machine. Bob Tway, Bobby Clampett, and a litany of others found it interesting all the way to their demise in a vortex of paralysis by analysis. But, it is interesting and has one salient bit of advice you can look up at 6B-1D in the book.
Bill B
Sep 20, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Tom,
Without a doubt this is the best information on shafts I have seen in one place. You have created my dream of the “golf shaft genome project”. The golf shaft is the heart of the club and you are making quantative information available that provides options to professional fitters and club junkies alike. We have all made our own personal golf shaft assments on various shafts via real life play, launch monitor results, and feel, but this speeds up the process and opens the door to choices across various manufactures.
Thanks and keep up the good work
Bill Baitinger
Mike D.
Sep 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for the write-up Tom. Verifies what I’ve thought about shaft manufacturing. Can’t wait to see part two!
Chris
Sep 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm
This is absolutely fantastic information. Many thanks!.