Just to add to Tflan's comments: If you are a "wristy" player with a late release, a heavier swingweight (above D5) probably won't work very well. If you are a smooth swinger who just lets the head go when it's ready, just about any swingweight up into the Es will work with some minor timing changes. Low total weight seems to make a club with a higher swingweight easier to swing...especially long drivers.
If you want a small swingweight program for PCs, send me a private request and I can e-mail it to you . It's quite accurate with all shafts over 60 grams, but a point or two off with shafts under 60 grams. I find it very useful for estimating. Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "tflan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 5:35 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Swing weight > What's most important? You'd get a lot of argument but consider this. You > can conceivably achieve a swingweight of say, D2, with a telephone pole for > a shaft. SW is a relationship between headweight, gripweight, and shaft > weight at the tip end. However, it would be pretty tough to swing a > telephone pole no matter what the swingweight. So, I believe that SW is a > relatively unimportant factor in golf club design - as long as there isn't a > large difference from club to club. Some folks seem to think that the ideal > SW is D2. Others like D0, and still others are devotees of SW's in the E > range. I remember the "ADVP" clubs of a few years ago. The metal woods were > in the high "E" SW range. They didn't feel any different than did heavier > clubs with SW's in the "C" and "D" ranges. In fact they felt considerably > less "head heavy" than did many other clubs. There was a line of clubs > developed by Dave Pelz; they were ultralights with SW's in the "C" range. > The relationship between head and butt end seemed to be o.k. but since the > shaft was so light and the heads relatively light, you could feel the head > even though the SW was in the "C" range. SW really doesn't mean much in the > great scheme of things. Overall weight is considerably more important, IMO. > > Trial and error for SW? Well, depends upon how you define it. If you have a > particular SW in mind then it is, in a sense, trial and error unless you > have a system to calculate it. Fortunately for clubmakers, Dave Tutelman has > provided just such a program on the Clubmaker-online website. DT's program > gives you all the info you need to calculate SW based upon shaft weight, > length, etc. Check it out. > > TFlan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "LilCallaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:13 PM > Subject: ShopTalk: Swing weight > > > > Is it only by trial and error that someone figures out proper > swingweighting for a particular club? What would be more > important--swingweight or overall weight? > > Thanx.... > > > > P.S. This is what I really wanted to know. I got confused when I asked > the shaft length question..... > > > > -- > > And you only hit it how far?..........Try the VFT > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp > > > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at > http://webmail.netscape.com/ > > >
