LynnBlakeGolf Forums - Tall Golfers

LynnBlakeGolf Forums (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/index.php)

- The Golfing Machine - Basic (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Tall Golfers (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7952)

Sorry Kev,
I had a typo. It should have read....
A 45" driver, IMO, is really made for someone that needs a longer club, but the swingweight is usually in the D0 range and not balanced like the irons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewitgolf (Post 81992)

Drew, nothing to be sorry about my friend. I was agreeing with you that 45" is too long for many, and it makes no sense to me they make a club that long so light. We are on the same page on this which makes me feel I'm on the right track. :salut:

In fact, I'm in the camp that would love to see Mr. Woods go back and try 43" with X-100 to find more fairways, but distance is unfortunately King these days.

Kevin

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewitgolf (Post 81989)

O.B.

Is your driver, fairway woods and/or hybrids also longer than standard? A 45" driver, IMO, is really made for someone that needs a longer club, but the swingweight is usually in the D0 range and not balanced like the irons.

I kept my Titleist 909 D3 at standard length and my 3 wood too. Didnt want to go longer on those for accuracy and shaft flex reasons.

In regard to the irons softening Im a pretty smooth swinger, not a ton of loading so the softer flex associated with length doesnt bug me. The face seems to stay square pretty good , in other words. I can play reg shafts without a problem or actually even my wifes clubs. I dunno just not a big consideration for me so I just keep ordering S300 like I have since the mid seventies .......although my old Wilson Staffs were just Dynamic Stiff as I recall, not Gold s300.

My concern for heavy swing weight is if it adversely effects the way the club switches ends? I like em heavy but am just wondering if in my next set I order lighter heads (if thats possible) or counter balance my existing set. I dont think its a problem but just wondering about the implications if there are any.

I used to have a driver that was in the E range back in the days of persimmon I sorta felt like I had to muscle it around instead of letting it swing. But my irons just feel like I can drop them like a heavy hammer or something now. More mass maybe? I dunno.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Par71 (Post 81985)

Yoda, OB, Drew,

Thanks for your answers, really helpful stuff. I will check the Level Left Wrist. I always assumed that my left wrist was level at address because the right wrist looked level in a mirror. But actually the left wrist might have been cocked just a little.

I do have 1/2" longer shafts, 2 degrees upright lie and midsize grips, so I guess that should be OK (I am 6 ft. 4").

The reason behind my question on component variations was that I figured Plane Angle might need an adjustment. When I am addressing and impacting on the Elbow Plane (double plane shift) I need to bend over more from the waist to be able to get my right forearm on plane (waist bend about 45 degrees, as opposed to about 30 degrees when I am on the Turned Shoulder Plane). I feel that this lowers the center of gravity of my body and that I find it easier to retain the same degree of waist bend during the stroke. Also, this should flatten the Angle of Attack (although I am not exactly sure if that's a good thing). On the other hand, I find it more "natural" to make a Zero Plane Shift stroke on the Turned Shoulder Plane. That was my standard pattern even before I learned about TGM.

This is a great question Par 71. Theres a lot of good teachers watching this thread so Ill let em answer this.......but first of course Ill give you my hackers point of view....

- In the end, Homer preferred the TSP angle to plane shifting to the lower planes.
-The steeper the Plane Angle the less OUT there is to the clubheads Three Dimensional Line of Flight (path) and therefore there are some advantages given ball flight laws to my mind. Less Plane line Rotation for instance, less Divergence etc. Variations in ball position will effect trajectory more than initial direction or ball curvature. This is just the way it is when you consider the geometry of the circle. Circles have been like this since they were first discovered this isnt a Homer invention just a Homer insight or observation for the golfers consideration.
-flatter plane angles do have flatter associated Angles of Attack so for any given ball position less backspin.

Personally I find the TSP to be more natural for me too, no Vertical Drop of the Hands in Transition. Although I do goof with Vertical Drop when Im battling the "over the top" cut across swipe. It'll fix that quickly as the clubhead blurr starts to match up the Arc of Approach Delivery Line better ......the visual equivalent to the true path of the clubhead from the players perspective.

I also find that the TSP sorta makes the switch to a Level Left Wrist at Address easier . Not getting too #2 Angle conscious helps with this too , for me anyways. The low hands of address in my old set up were sort of like a running start on left wrist cock but with an associated price I found out.

I'd say stick with the TSP if thats easier, more natural and get the left wrist level. Im pretty sure thats what Homer or Lynn would advise in a lesson...... although if you had done a Double Shift to the Elbow Plane for years HOmer might leave it alone. But thats not your situation as it sounds to me.

The other thing to consider is the degree of Vertical Drop ....Hogan shifted down but not that much in degrees while Furyk shifts down too but with an incredible change in Plane Angle degrees when viewed DTL. You'd have to think , theoretically anyways that Hogan's minimal shift was more consistent. But it'd be crazy to change Furyks Shift at this point ......he's doing just fine and supposedly has some of the best impact dynamics on tour as measured on Trackman.