golfrewind.com

Straight; I'd be happy to build you a 2 iron if you wish. After hitting the short 3 iron, I'm about ready to built up a complete set of irons, 3 to PW.

As for this 1/4" progression being the same thing as the True Length Technology system. with shorter long irons, and longer short irons, That's not correct at all. I'm starting with a standard length 9 iron and PW, and then using 1/4 increases for all the other irons. So while the TLT is making the short irons longer and hence harder to hit, I'm making the 9 iron the same length and ALL other irons shorter than standard. All the wedges will remain the same. I don't see any reason to make the short irons longer and hard to hit, when it's not needed. And I did check on the TLT site, but it doesn't say what they do for club lengths, They want you to give them a lot of information, and then they will built a set of clubs to those spec. I'm not interested in haveing them build me a set of clubs, If they would give me the club lengths I would be interested in knowing what they decide is correct for me, but I'd rather build my own set. If the system I"m trying to use really works for most golfers, than it's something any clubmaker can use, without some fancy system of figuring out exactly what the best club lengths for each club is. With that system, everyone has to go to TLT, which is fine if you want to go that route. But why not have a system that any club maker can use that will benefit all golfers?
My current problem is trying to decide how I want to add weight to all the club heads to get the Sw up to where I want it. For the 3 iron, I just added a 20 gram weight inside the tip of the shaft. It seems to be working okay for now, But I'm thinking a better way would be to add the weight behind the sweet spot of the head. This should be better and give me a more solid impact with more weight right behind the ball, which should equal more distance.

I have a 2 iron already. I want a -2 iron (minus 2 iron). Or perhaps not, but I did want to point out that one could use the unused shaft-length to expand an iron set.

That (adding weight to the back of the club) is what I would probably do. If your 3 iron now has the same length as a normal 6 iron, I would add the weight difference between a 6 iron clubhead and a 3 iron clubhead to the 3 iron head, approximately at the place where the 6 iron clubhead carries that extra weight.

How in the world does making the short irons longer equate to being harder to hit?.....but anyway.

Ok, so since you didn't understand why I posted the info on the TLT and obviously was over your head.... I'll give you another one you might want read and try to understand
Ever heard of "one length fitting"....it's been around for years also. One length building advocates that all clubs are the same length and have the same lie angle, and it's based on the WTF of the golfer.....reason for this is that every club can be played with the same ball position, setup, stance, etc. Now that would be a easier way to build wouldn't it? YOU HAVE BEEN CLAIMING OVER AND OVER THAT A LONGER CLUB IS HARDER TO HIT.....THEN WHY ADD 1/4" AT ALL? Leave them all the same. Example would be a WTF of 37" all clubs would be at 37.5" w/ a 63* lie. Would you like some more examples?

This really is a joke..... You really think your coming up with something new and great....sorry man but it's been done already. It's laughable to think that you and a few people on this forum have this grand idea that you have come up with some great new building method...man get real. Your a little late...might of done some more research on the subject before you claim to have come up with something new.

Your last few sentences of your post are amazing......I don't even know where to start on all that....so I'll stop and leave you to your little jerry rigged experiment.

To each his own I guess...do the forum a favor and leave the technical stuff to those who just might happen to know a little something. You will only confuse the new golfer even more with your comments. Maybe yet add a disclaimer to the end of your post....that would work to.

The way I read it, Oneputt is posting about an equipment experiment he is currently performing. He is not claiming invention. This is no different than a poster sharing his experiments with claw-style putting, for example.

You might want to consider doing the forum a favor also, by conducting yourself in the civilized manner that is the norm here. Thank you!

Straight;

here's a copy of my original post. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awhile back I read something about building a set of irons with 1/4" difference in club lenghs between the irons instead of 1/2". Just wondering if any of you club buildiers have any experience with this and what your opinion of this idea is. If you use 1/4" instead of 1/2" you end up with a 3 iron the length of a normal 6 iron. Should make for better ball striking with the longer irons if nothing else. While the shorter club length for a 3 iron might cost you some distance, I'm thinking you might make up for that with more solid ball contact.
Any one have any opinions on this method of building a set of irons?
I know the lie angles may have to be corrected a few degrees, and the head weight of each of the irons will have to be increased to get the swing weight back to normal. Each of those items can be corrected with no big problem. If you have any experience with this, I'd appreciated your reply. Thanks in advance.

As you correctly stated, I never claimed that this was my idea. Right up front I mentioned it was an idea I had seen someplace.I'm glad you're smart enough to know how to read and understand what you read, unlike someone else.
After I posted that I could build you a 2 iron, I noticed that you had a little - symbol infront of the 2. What you posted would be correct, and one could use the longer shafts to make a 2 iron or even a shortened 1 iron with this method. A 1 iron would be 38 inches long, the same as a normal 5 iron. Should be much easier to hit than a standard 1 iron. For now, I think I'll stick with a 3-PW set, and leave the 2 and 1 irons for someone else.

'Someone else' would do well to back up his claims of the so-called incorrectness of your approach, and his suggestions of having superior knowledge by sharing it with us so that we can review it, perhaps even benefit from it. Instead he claims to be so disgusted by this thread, that he refuses to enlighten us, which is highly suspicious, IMO. I am also surprised how someone can get so worked up about what seems to be a rather harmless equipment experiment.

I don't understand the argument here.

You simply go with what works best for you, wether you come to that with the aid of proffessional help (clubfitting) or through experimentation.

If you can get the ball in the hole best with 14 8-irons of different lengths, go for it.

Welcome to the site Skid. It's nice to have a new member with some common sense.

It's sad some OLD members don't.........

Still banging your head against the wall huh!?!?


Has to be a smaller hill out there that you could be king of...


Enough of that...it makes perfect sense to me....there are lots of posts going back years where players complain of a distance phenomenon that occurs somewhere around the 5 or 6 iron...they have consistent gaps between clubs from wedge to the 6, but then they hit the 5, 4 and three more or less the same distance...

Part of that has to do with clubhead speed...if you don't have it you're better off taking the long irons out of the bag and hitting lofted fw or hybrids as the speed to lift the ball with a longer iron isn't there (there was a rule of thumb posted here once upon a time and Haney has one in his Last golf lesson that you'll ever need book, can't remember it exactly but it was something like a three iron should be dropped if you don't have a driver ss of at least <100mph, 4 iron for 95mph, 5 iron for 90mph)...besides the speed issue, good contact has to be made to keep distance gaps consistent and it is MUCH easier for an average golfer with a 15 handicap like yourself to hit wedges than a 4 iron (I'll include all golfers in this...shorter the shaft the easier it is to hit the center of the face)....

Various degrees of comprimise can be achieved to maintain distance at the long iron end of things...hybrids, which I find less controllable but much more consistent distance wise are one solution as are lofted fw's...another solution would be to accept reduced distance gaps and do like OnePutt is experimenting with...less gaps between clubs but more distance consistency...another would be to maintain the larger gaps between clubs and adjust lofts to compensate...lots of ways to approach the goal of having reliable distance control and consistent gaps from driver to wedge as evidenced in the bags of tour pros to local hacks to the multitude of clubs available and their options associated so that a player can tailor their set to their game...


Why you insist on trying to belittle an approach to solving this is beyond me, and using your game and abilities as a blueprint for all golfers is naiive...experienced players know that with equipment and play there are lots of ways to skin a cat...trick is to find a way that works for you and to that end we discuss things here, build our collective knowledge which provides the group more options to see what "fits"...


Don't mean to be condescending and give a lecture on Golf Forums 101, but apparently you don't get it...just trying to save you some on asprin from that wall you keep beating on...

Dear Golf vs.Wife,

Please provide us with some substance, or pack it up!

Thank you!

Regards,

S2

Oneputt

Just out of curiosity, in regard to the 3i being the 5i length, would the 3i shaft be trimmed the same as the normal 5i to keep the same (eg regular) flex properties?

Once you add weight to the head to bring it back up to swingweight would the way the shaft flexes/responds be affected due to the extra weight at the head end?

Stuart S; With the 3 iron being the same length as a normal 6 iron, there would be two ways to trim the shaft. One would be to tip trim all the shafts, starting with the normal tip trim for a 9 iron, and then tip trim all the rest at 1/4" intervals. This would be my first choice. The second would be to just butt trim a set of shafts to get the final length. If you have a set of pre-trimmed shafts, like a set of Project X shafts. this would be a lot easier than tip trimming each shaft the small amount required. If you tip trim the 3 iron shaft the same way you would a standard 6 iron, and then add weight to the head so it's the same weight as a 6 iron head, the shorter 3 iron should respond and flex the same as a normal 6 iron. It would be the same length and weight, so it should play the same way. At the moment, this is where I"m at, deciding how I want to trim the set of shafts I have. I pulled the set of shafts from a set of irons, and now I can either tip trim all the shaft with 1/4" gaps, or just butt trim to final length. There are advantages and dis-advantages to both methods, and I haven't decided which way to go. I also have to decide on how I want to add weight to the head to bring the swing weight up to D4 on all the clubs in the set. Adding weight to the tip of the shaft is real easy and it seems to be working okay in my test 3 iron, but I'm thinking adding the weight behind the sweet spot of the head would be better, just much harder to do. Adding some 22 grams of weight to a 3 iron head would take a lot of work. Adding the same amount of lead inside the tip of the shaft is very easy.

Hi Oneputt

Thanks for the reply, that all makes sense. I cannot help on the trimming of the shafts, my club repair only goes to regripping at the moment, but will keep an eye on this thread as I am interested on how things progress

Stu

Still handing out advice......it's to bad your experiment didn't work..