Shambles

I totally agree with your line of thinking. Shambles

Once you have a set that works for you it normally takes a fair amount of time for you to need different specs, unless the first assembly was wrong in the first place or you are improving at a marvelous rate which is more often a mistaken impression. If you find the clubs good, you're unlikely to change them all that easily but might be frustrated at not playing more often than you already are. I don't much like the looks of those weights dangling down the shaft. I get the feeling that repeated vibration will cause a rattle. I much prefer my own home made solution regardless that it's a more clumsy application. For temporary use, I might cut out the butt end of a gripped shaft and use those weights alternately to find a weight and feel I like. It seems to be designed for that purpose and should be adequate. Shambles

Did you get Simon's old shaft ? I'd be interested in that one if you have no use for it. It might suit my old 983K. I thought Simon a fool for going on to the bigger and newer clubs. He made some of his most impressive drives with that 360, his greatest improvements and it seemed to me a bit more learning would have had him shaping shots off the tee. That is a very good club but too pretty for my hands. Considering that I use my Drivers on the fairway and sometimes even on a good lie in the rough, a fancy paint job like that would be wasted on me. Shambles

Looks like a fancy counterweight to me. Experimenting with this can take a while, depending on your meticulousness and willingness to assemble and disassemble. The weight itself is reasonably simple but the grip might suffer from repeated pulls. I spent a few months trying to save a set of badly cut shafts experimenting with counterweights I made with lead and held together with belt tape. I needed to keep it outside the shaft to be able to add or subtract as ideas came and went. At conclusion, I snipped the needed weight, formed it into a tube, bathed it in epoxy and slipped it into the grip end. My experiments had taken place just below the grip so I had to add about 20% more lead at the grip end to get the same feel. I thought about bolts, washers, screws and a variety of hardware for the weights but decided on sheet lead I bought at the hardware as the easiest and most enduring application. In the end, I threw away the shafts as a lost cause. The operation was a success but it only proved to me that I had wasted my time on shafts not worth the effort. Shambles

Spoon, That's the second great paint job you have put on the 360. Seems to me you have a great treasure somewhere. Shambles

Good to get confirmation on the birthplace of my set. Shambles

Eca, I'm very uncertain as to what defines a players cavity in your eyes. For me, the animal does not exist. I suspect you mean a perimeter weighted club that has little offset. That would be my Fourteen TC 1000, which I just removed from my bag. The week before that I was playing the Sword TM 305 and that felt pretty good to me too. The Sword is also perimeter weighted with little offset and actually feels a little better than the Fourteen to me. Both are not very difficult to bend the ball with in either direction but plenty stable for the bread and butter straight shot, except that I have a recurring swing fault that causes me to pull sometimes when disaster is available on the left side of the fairway. Less than a month ago, or about that long ago, I lucked into a set of Eye 2+ that had been unused except for a few sessions at the range for the 7 and 5. Tony Olives bent it to my specs for me and I played it in a tourney recently. My game was a disaster but the Irons felt great to me and I'm now thinking I'm home again and may stay home. These are the clubs I know and I may stay with them or put my originals back into play. As to the Fourteen and Sword, I have an offer for the Sword but might decide to keep them for the sake of change, or settle for the Fourteen, or keep both for variety's sake. I'm really very confused at the moment. Shambles

There's a thing in the head of all players regardless of skill level, provided they have been playing long and often enough. It's a comfort zone wherein just holding the club lets you know it's right for you, and it's not the same for all players even if they are the same size, weight or strength. It's a personal comfort zone and when you hold the right weight, you know it. The comfort zone is affected by the flex, balance point, looks and sound of the club and it's all personal. his is why we have a different taste in what works for us. Sometimes you can have the right equipment but be wrong because you lack sleep or rest, are distracted by your playing partners or whatever else. Rather unfortunate but a fact of life. I agree that for some people a heavier shaft can be better, but God help me, I cannot find a formula that makes predicting what works for whom possible. It's a hit and miss thing for me even with myself as the subject. I think we all need to find our own way in this matter. However, there is a range involved and we need not be as precise as all that. Experience will probably be the best teacher. Shambles

The problem is that many like myself are only now learning of the Japanese producers and cannot easily identify the " major brands ". Compounding the problem is that many or possibly most producers are boutique operations and sometimes get mixed with the similarly boutique operations that produce with pretensions. Many hopefuls enter the market these days and do so with pretensions, both from Japan and from the USA. It's difficult to identify the reliable producers from ads alone especially as so many of the well known brands along with the new guys are getting their clubs at least partly made in China. What is a poor ignorant like myself to do ? I don't want to study the sellers. Maybe a nice published summary of the manufacturers would be a good addition to this website if it listed their age, number of products, manner of manufacture and source of manufacture. Probably more information would help, but you get my drift, I hope. Shambles

Knowing that Spoon is normally ahead of the curve with equipment, I too would also like to have a " Close " whatever that may be and would only request a proper set of pictures and specs of that " Close " with attendant prices. Shambles

Thanks much for the interest. Frankly, I had a lot of trouble with the wedge until I figured out that my problem was mostly from skulling the ball and that was caused by the bounce. From that point I found that the bounce is in different places and there was no real magic to a good wedge. It's just a wedge that you know and understand better and can therefore use in many more ways. The classic teaching on how to use a wedge only works well when you have thick and fluffy sand and don't need to go that far. When the sand becomes more firm, you need to do some thinking and creating. That's where a good wedge you know and understand comes into it's own. They really don't all work the same way, though you can make them all work in some ways. My all time winner, so far, is an old low bounce Fourteen 56* wedge. I was told it had an 8* bounce by the former owner but I never measured it and really don't know how. Using the table I saw so much potential that I just used one or two practice strokes to decide to become the owner. Scared me silly when my home course added thick fluffy sand to almost all the sand traps but the thing opens so wide the bounce magnified tremendously and proved easy to use. I suspected this on the table but the cooking is always tested in the tasting. Currently I am bagging my old Eye 2's including the SW that is very useful but I never liked. I still don't know why I never liked, and still don't like this wedge, but it is a very good wedge that I can use but don't like. Maybe it's because it's the wedge that got me started with the table exam and from which I learned much. Anybody out there really have any affection for his most influential grade school teacher ? This wedge got me thinking and learning and I used it for 20 years, more or less, and never liked it. I still don't like it but I have a deep investment in learning it and it is still in very good shape. Getting it to roll the ball is still a job, but it stops the ball very well. I think my dislike is caused by this specific model wanting to send the ball up in the air as much as possible, whereas other Ping wedges, though less useful to me, allow me more access to lower flights. A high flight is good but the low flight with roll also has it's uses in the short game. The table test only makes the bounce and leading edge relationship very visible to you. If you simulate the path of the swing on the table, you ought to be able to see why some shots and ball positions will be more difficult than others. It's not enough to simply put it there. You need to simulate the swing, slowly so you don't damage the table, and see where the bounce takes effect, and then see where in your swing you do the same thing with the head. It's only a beginning and the real work is on the range or the fairway, but if you have a clear picture in your mind of what the head is going through, you might better understand what you are actually doing and adjust your swing plans for more success around the green. Shambles

The purpose of the bounce is to reduce the tendency of the club to bury itself when swung at an angle be it steep or shallow. You can destroy the design by swinging more steeply and you can also find the angle that works better for you by experimenting so that you can find a swing that allows you to take a little sand and still have a useful height/length result, and also allows a reasonably easy direct strike at the ball. The different grinds allow you to effectively move the bounce when you open or close the face angle. They can help keep the leading edge a bit closer to the ground thereby allowing you to slip the club under the ball and, hopefully, get enough backspin for your needs. You could see the effect of different grinds by putting the wedge on a table top and playing with the shaft angles, simulating different stances and ball positions. It ought to be possible for you to see how small changes can do much. A little grinding at the heel of millimeters can allow the heel of the shaft to move a fair amount and still have the leading edge close enough to the ground to let you slip the leading edge under the ball, and yet let the bounce prevent you from burying the club. Fiddling with a wedge on a table also makes it easier for you to see that there are considerable positions you can approach the ball from relative to the ground's firmness, and the required swing steepness to be able to have a chance at striking the ball in a manner you were planning on. Getting a grind on a wedge that suits you personally can be difficult to achieve, depending on the demands you place on your wedge. Success and failure can be defined by as little as a millimeter and the measure is done by what you feel and how good you truly are. I like looking at a wedge on a table because it allows me to see things up close and personal. If I can see it and get the picture in my head, I have a better chance at knowing what that head will need to do when planning a shot from the end of the shaft. For me, getting a picture helps plan the angle of attack and even the strength of the needed swing. It also helps me understand why some wedges are not going to be worth the effort and others a treasure that must never be allowed to wander away. Shambles

In my experience it's more likely that the player who uses the club frequently becomes stronger rather than the shaft becoming softer. I suspect that idea came from the time of Hickory shafts which, being wood, actually softened with use so the pro of that time would keep a practice set and a tournament set. Shambles

It's not all that hard to feel the leading edge of any candidate irons and make a decision. I also suspect it's more likely that your need is a swing instructor to get you into the habit of hitting the small ball before the big ball. Personally, I've gone the opposite direction, retiring my Fourteen TC 1000's and Sword's in favor of bagging my 20+ year old Eye 2's which have, I think, twice the thickness of leading edge to the above mentioned. I hit the small ball first with all the clubs but these days I'm in the memory lane mood. It's just a mood in my case, or I'm feeling my age. The rounded leading edge does help reduce the damage of hitting the big ball before the small ball, but better would be to practice enough to make hitting the small ball habitual even if you have to swing a little bit more slowly and carefully. It does not take long to get used to the change and then get back to the more furious swing. As a matter of fact, most people I've met do so so quickly that they lose what progress they made. Shambles

Personally speaking I choose a wood that performs somewhere in the area of my 5 Iron as a utility wood. My reasoning is that if I'm in trouble, I'm NOT going to take a chance with anything longer than a 5 Iron as at that shaft length, I'm going to be very insecure about getting the club on the ball without going through more foliage than I'm willing to deal with. 4 and longer just needs too flat an approach to the ball because of the loft. 5 is my max and that is also my trouble wood's loft, more or less as long as I can send the ball pretty much the length of the 5. Anyway, the wood can be choked and that helps get the ball up more quickly but it also has more mass and so can be used to hammer my way out of trouble. If the trouble is that bad, I go to the shorter irons. There is no predicting trouble conditions but I find that having a trouble wood that gives me flexible use buys me more possibilities of a solution. I use the 5 Iron standard because that is also a choice in times of trouble far from the green simply because it too can get the ball up pretty quick and a wood near that loft can get the ball up more quickly and pretty far too. I don't give a lot of attention to length for specific clubs except as it refers to my personal length. I once played with this left handed golfer from La Salle who overshot the flag on a 200 yard par 3 with his 6 Iron. I had seen him practice at a range near his house and knew he was long but never knew he was that long. It's convincing proof that it's the Indian that matters so I try to configure my bag to my performance. Shambles

In truth, the tennis wraps were applied to American made grips. Rubber strips were considered but the tennis wraps proved softer to the hand. It was a friend who made the choice as I am satisfied with my grips as is. Personally, I consider today's Japanese made clubs very much like the American clubs that used to be made in America. Some are good, some not so good. My only complaint with Japanese clubs is that the shafts tend to be a bit short for my swing regardless that I'm only 5'8". I grew old with the American standard and am reluctant to change that much. As far as lie is concerned, even with a club by club measure in a club pro's machine, they all come within the standard and it's just a matter of finding the right shaft characteristics and length for me. Shambles

Stretching a grip makes the rubber thin and hard on the hands. Since all you seem to want is a thicker grip, why not just use a tennis wrap om the grip ? You could also buy some Jumbo grips, also once called arthritic grips, as they come thick and soft to the hand. Shambles

I'm not so sure that opening a wedge only adds a degree of bounce. I suppose it depends on the size of the flange and the location of the bounce. There are just too many factors that can influence a delicate wedge shot, which might explain why the OEM's have separated the wedges from the irons these days. Good luck in finding the wedge you need. Shambles

Currently I am bagging a 52* Vokey and a 56* Fourteen w/ 8* bounce. The setup is doing good for me regardless that I find myself using the 56* for a lot of shots I used to depend on other clubs for. Shambles

A large rotary brush would probably help much in buffing, though you would also need both grinding and polishing wax. If it's possible, I suggest you visit a trophy maker's factory. Shambles

I like the looks but it's not a configuration for comfort or control. I'd be very interested in the engine. Rover does not have all that good a history of economy, efficiency or durability. The only thing I ever really liked about the Rover has been the aluminum body and the square shape. Shambles

I agree. Golf just does not suit everybody in the same way and if you want the best solution it needs to be fit to your personal proclivities. A consistent error can be alleviated by an adjustment to your equipment but that adjustment need not necessarily work for all and therefore cannot be a general solution. A better solution can only be determined by a consistent problem. Shambles

TourSpecGolfer, I can accept that the various designs you mentioned are intended to add to the utility of a club but their individual effect is not necessarily worth the trouble or the cost, unless you are dealing with a player on the border. Forgiveness, the various aspects of it, in any case, exists is design and size. Size is more important as evidence the golf boom that came when Ping's humongous eye 2's came on the market. The only thing left of the eye 2's these days is a reduction to mid size category and no longer a giant in the field. Ping didn't grow smaller, the other clubs grew bigger. Try adding lead or tungsten to an iron and you'll quickly see how much is needed to affect COG, Draw or Fade. The design does almost all of that and the user can only adjust for comfort. In a tiny head, the effect is even more invisible. However, if we could change offset and nothing else, we would see the Draw and Fade characteristics change dramatically for very little change. COG requires a redistribution of the entire head material. The only thing I can see in multi peice construction is the possibility of a more complicated design but the major players have long been identified. Shambles

Looks like a great retirement home for a traveling pair. I love the idea of a mini in the back. Makes things so much more convenient. Shambles

That was a fun thing in the heyday of the Beetle. If memory serves, Steve McQueen roared through Hollywood in one built with an 8 cylinder engine back in the late 70's or early 80's. There were a fair number home built back then but the idea faded after only a short while. Personally, I've always chosen comfort over extreme performance. Shambles