DClown versus Tom Wishon
Let me first state that I have nothing against Tom Wishon. I'm sure he knows 100x more than me in terms of golf equipment. I do not claim to be an expert, but I do try to speak from firsthand knowledge of what I know to be fact and fact only.
He's certainly proven over the years that he is EXTREMELY knowledgable in the field of golf equipment expertise, however, a lot of his information is not only dated but incorrect in the world of modern clubs, especially shaft technology. His comments regarding shafts are not only alarming, but also dated, and I personally know more than a few OEMs that have been laughing at a few of his responses. Technology has passed many of his ideals by. In no way am I saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about...that's surely been proven 100 times over to be incorrect...what I'm saying is Tom should really be up on the latest and greatest before he publishes rules and absolutes based on shaft design that have been proven wrong by more than one OEM shaft manufacturer.
Simply put, clubfitting is not an absolute science. It's a BLEND of art & science. You can't just look something up in a book, read a chart, or fit based off what a computer screen tells you. There are so many variables in clubfitting nowadays that you have to take things like player preferences, personal feel, and the basic human mind into account. All the tools and technologies fitters utilize nowadays should be used as TOOLS, guidelines, and blueprints to the fitting process...but they should NEVER replace the human element, intelligence, and intimate knowledge of the product they are working with. Clubfitting doesn't have laws etched in stone or absolutes written on a golden tablet. While there are certainly many standards, nothing will ever replace a highly knowledgable and skilled fitter, not even a computer or a launch monitor can do that...and in some cases, the wheels of technology are turning faster than Mr. Wishon can write.
TOM WISHON
To Everyone on the Other Post About Square Drivers
I don't normally scan the threads and posts on this Forum but after getting an email this AM telling me I should, I decided to log in and see what all the fuss is about. Phew! Lots to set the record straight on, so I apologize in advance for this post being pretty long.
The article I wrote about square drivers that was quoted on the other thread came from my own company's email newsletter, TWGT E-TECHreport. That newsletter is written for the custom clubmakers so I apologize if some of you did not understand some of the terms or the MOI increment of measurement. I also write for PGA Tour Partners magazine, so in the next issue of that publication, I did a much shorter, less technical explanation of the square drivers and how to determine if one of them is right for you. I'm not against square drivers in general - I simply want golfers to understand what they'll be looking at, how to evaluate if one is good for you, and to make sure you don;t assume that just because it is square, it is better.
Swing Man did a really good job of "translating" some of the pertinent points from my article in his post on page 2 of the original thread on this subject. So if you want the plain facts, find Swing Man's post and you'll understand more clearly what I am saying about square drivers.
Having worked in the golf equipment industry since 1972 and having been a designer since 1986, it is truly unfortunate that so many golfers who all share the same love of this great game can get so angry or mean or just plain negative about something like this. I truly believe that I am fortunate to have found a career that I like so much and that I still get excited about every day I wake up. A long time ago I realized thatthere is so much misinformation in this business that can cause golfers to make the wrong buying decisions for their games. I simply have a passion to state the facts about golf clubs as I know it from my 20 yrs of design experience and 30+ yrs of clubfitting experience.
No, I am not right 100% of the time, but I am confident after this many years in the business that I am right in my technical explanations and assessments of golf clubs more often than anyone else in this business. Here's one reason why I can say that. In my side of the business, I have had to design models for product lines that each year had to have 6-8 new different models of woods, 6-8 new different models of irons, and a lot of wedges and putters - the reason is because that is how the big component companies do business. Baskin/Robbins 31 flavors so you can offer every material, form of manufacture, etc. Do that for as many years as I have and you tend to learn a ton about design, manufacturing and what design elements work and don't work for what golf swing and golfer type in a golf club. OEM companies design one new model each year, and have teams of people doing it, so no one person in an OEM company can possibly have the full, overall depth of design experience I do.
I don't think I pontificate as one of the posters said or at least I don;t want it to be perceived that way - I am admittedly VERY passionate about my work and about golf clubs in general and I can't stand it when bad information about golf clubs and fitting is put forth and believed by un-knowing golfers who think because the source is a big brand name company that it has to be factual. I fight hard for what I think is right, and I try to do that without being condescending or insulting. But I know I always debate technical points on the technical points and never on the brand or a commercial bent. If you read my book, The Search for the Perfect Golf Club, you'll see that it is only about the design/assembly factors in clubs and how they need to be selected for any golfer type.
For those of you who think companies who sell components are crap companies, in >90% of the cases you are absolutely right. It's too easy for someone to find open models or get knock offs from struggling foundries to sell and portray themselves as an "expert" when they are far from it. And because >90% of the component companies have no business being in this business, that certainly casts a negative pallor over us all. But in thinking that 100% of the companies who are in the component business are garbage, you're missing some pretty good designs and some decent information that might help you make a little better buying decision the next time you go shopping for a new club(s).
If I am so good in what I do, why aren't my designs on tour, in more golfers' bags, a part of an OEM product line? Those who ask this simply do not understand the BUSINESS of golf clubs. Money talks, and when you read DTown's post on the other thread about one OEM spending $162,000,000 in marketing over the past three years, wow, in the hands of marketing "experts", that much $$ certainly can sway a lot of public opinion. Mutiply that by the number of other "9 figure golf companies" out there and you will have a case of many people thinking, "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up."
As one of the posters said, I have had the opportunity to head up design for one of the biggest OEMs but I turned down the offer. I dislike big corporate attitudes and their rules/trappings, but most of all because I could not get my arms around the fact that if I did accept the position, I would be doing nothing but helping to provide golfers with yet another standard mass produced golf club design to be sold off the rack and never custom fit.
Some of the most enjoyable times in my career have been when I got the chance to design custom sets from scratch for Scott Verplank, Crenshaw, Lietzke and the last set that Payne Stewart played in competition before that terrible accident. I haven't designed for 50 tour pros because the companies I designed for just did not spend the money to hire a whole bunch of pros, but these pros liked what I created and so I guess I am the only designer from this side of the business whose designs have been used to win on the PGA and Champions Tours and in Ryder Cup competition.
I'm very proud that I was able to think up and create some design firsts before any other company - first draw biased metal wood in 95, first graphite + metal driver in 96, first titanium driver in the US in 94, and so on. They're listed on my web sites if you are interested. If you would like some verification of my knowledge, you can ask any of the equipment editors for any of the game's major publications what they think of the info I give them when they call - they talk to all the game's technical experts so they've had many chances to compare what I tell them to what they hear from the others. Call 'em and ask what they think of my knowledge.
I learned a long time ago in my work that real custom fitting, meaning building the set from scratch to have every possible specification matched as accurately as possible to each golfer's size/strength/athletic ability/swing characteristics, is better for ALL golfers than simply buying a standard made set off the rack. I have said this countless times - there is nothing wrong with the clubhead, shaft, and grip quality of the big brand name companies. I know that because in some of my past work I have been a paid consultant for two foundries who produced heads for Taylor Made, Mizuno, Nike, Wilson, etc - so I have seen first hand that their quality is good. These foundries hired me to help them stay up on the latest materials, solve manufacturing problems and help them get a little better at making the heads for their golf company customers because they liked the suggestions I would make when I was sheparding my own designs through their factories.
The only thing wrong about the OEMs is that their primary business model is to make standard clubs to sell off the rack in a "one size fits all" manner. Golfers who think that getting to choose a shaft flex you have no idea how stiff/flexible the letter on the shaft says it is within that one model of a shaft, or golfers who think choosing a driver loft between 8.5 and 11* is 'custom fitting', then they are very ill-informed about what REAL custom fitting is and what it really can do for all golfers.
Think about this for a second. . . .
Golf is the only "bat and ball sport" whose participants cannot buy their "bats" off the rack in a custom fit form to match their swing and manner of play. Look at baseball/softball bats. You head into any top sporting goods store and within each brand and model of bat, you will see a myriad of different LENGTHS, different WEIGHTS, different HANDLE DIAMETERS - bats are not all the same length/weight/grip size because the bat makers and the retailers all know people who shop for a bat won't and can't play with the same specs. Tennis too - all high quality brand name rackets are sold in different grip sizes and with no strings - again because the racket makers and retailers know that tennis players have to choose the right grip size, their preferred string type and the right string tension for their swing and how they play.
But not golf - despite the fact golfers come in all sizes, strengths, level of athletic ability and most of all, different swing characteristics. The reason you don't see in golf clubs what you do in bats and rackets is because we golfers have to buy and use 14 clubs, not ONE. From a pure business standpoint, can you imagine what a hassle it would be for the club companies to have to forecast, make, stock and ship the same club model but in different lengths, different weights, different face angles, different grip sizes, etc etc - and likewise can you imagine the retailers having to stock and display all these custom variations in 8 to 10 different brands?? Standard, one size fits all is the way it has to be done for convenience and all the marketing is aimed to tell golfers what pros use these clubs and how great they are right off the rack - and millions of golfers buy into that despite the fact they would play better and more consistently if they were truly custom fit.
The reason you do not see more component designs on tour or in fellow golfers' bags is because no component company makes the profit or volume to accumulate $162,000,000 in three years with which to market and sway public opinion. Most retailers of golf clubs do not want to have the mess of doing their own assembly, much less spend that much time building sets for golfers when they can just stock standard clubs that have real demand generated by $162,000,000 times 4 or 5 spent over three years. An OEM makes 5 times the profit on each standard driver they sell to a retail shop that a component company makes selling a driver HEAD in "ones and twos" to individuals who range from the best clubmakers on the planet to people who are lucky to know what end of the shaft to install in the head.
In my last position, I busted my chops trying to get the company to let me set up training and custom fitting programs for their retail division. They said no because of several reasons, 1) we only make 20-25% profit on each OEM club we sell so we cannot allow the sales staff to take more than 10-15 mins to make the sale, 2) we can't feature custom fitting because it takes too long for the profit it generates and besides, the OEMs would get mad at us for competing with them, 3) the sales people turnover is too great to merit spending the time/money to train them like that. Kinda sad, eh? And those are the people that sell many of you the golf clubs with which you play. Yes, there are a few retailers of golf clubs who do a fine job training and servicing their customers. But the operative word is few, not many because the emphasis today is more about sales than making sure every golfer walks out with the best clubs for THEIR game.
Sorry for the length of this. As I said, I am very passionate about this field and I really want to help golfers get the best for their game and for their money. Best advice I have is to go to amazon.com, Borders, Barnes&Noble and get a copy of The Search for the Perfect Golf Club or the other new one about drivers. Read it. You won't see "sales speak" or "marketing hype" in there and any of the advice I give in there can be done with an OEM club if you wish. All I care about is that golfers realize the facts of life about golf clubs and then go make an informed buying decision. Yes, I am very much PRO-CUSTOM FITTING because 30+ yrs of watching and working with golfers tells me GOOD custom fitting is indisputably better than standard off the rack when the goal is for the golfer to spend his/her money wisely and end up with a set that truly can offset some of the negatives in their swing and accent the positives.
But don't assume that a golf club is good for you just because the company is huge, or you see it in a tour players' bag, or you see it in ads and on TV. Please take the time to learn a little about the technology of how clubs really work for different swings - if you do you will be happier with your purchases and enjoy the game a little more. And if you have questions about things that confuse you, email me and I will be happy to offer the pros and cons from facts, not hype or marketing.
TOM WISHON
Thursday, January 4, 2007
BombsquadGolf's Todd Thrun vs. Tom Wishon part II
BombsquadGolf's Todd Thrun vs. Tom Wishon part II
This weeks entry started off just like almost every other skirmish on the site, with Todd wagging his tongue when he really shouldn't. Here's the relevant entry:
I was talking yesterday with one of the most influential individuals in golf and we were talking about high end fitting and custom high end product.
In other words he was talking to his business partner.
We were talking about off the rack clubs or used equipment, and he said to me and I quote...."I don't care about that guy. There's a place for him and it's called Golfsmith. The rest of them can worm around Ebay looking for next best deal. Frankly, we don't care about them." It's harsh, but it's true. That mentality works against playing better golf by proper fitting and superior equipment. The "old guard" just doesn't really fit into where BSG is going.
This is a very veiled reference to Tom Wishon.
As for Tom Wishon, good guy, smart guy, but even he made this statement in 1997. I received this from an Industry individual as example that we shouldn't pretend we know everything, and should always stay humble in the way we present our "opinions". "The Insider's Guide to Golf Equipment" written by Nick Mastroni. On page 38 of the 1997 edition Mr. Wishon is quoted as saying: "Rebound velocities- that's where the real mythsare about titanium. Ive heard a number of manufacturers tell customers that a titanium clubface actually rebounds backward at impact, then snaps forward, as if to'slingshot' the ball off the clubface. This is a load of hogwash! The material in a clubhead has a totally different coefficient of restitution than the golf ball does. Even if a clubface deformed somewhat at impact, which it doesn't, the ball would be gone before the clubface had a chance to re-form outward. This is something that does not happen, cannot happen, and is a total myth. There is no inherent difference in the way the ball comes of the face of a stainless steel versus a titanium driver." Take from it what you will, but not everyone knows everything, and we shouldn't act like we do. Mr. Wishon told us to buy his fitting book. What if I had bought this one. Just a joke....just a joke. Seriously, Tom is pretty much a class guy, and one of the pioneers of the industry, but the group of trolls that worship the man really reflect badly on that entire group of component oriented guys, and it's disappointing to see him bring a high and mighty attitude to MY site in response to a bunch of trolls getting him worked up. Fitting is art coupled with science. There is no "book" that tells you how to fit players perfectly. Most of it is opinion. I have mine, and others have theirs, but to imply that one is better than that other is ridiculous. Mine comes from a mix of sitting in on Tour fittings, being at OEM test and pro fitting facilites, and intimate understanding of the properties of our products. This isn't 1987 Lynx, and prolite shaft technology. It's a whole different world now. NASA aerospace engineers are designing golf clubs and shafts. It's not like it was 20 years ago. As I said before, I know Tour and super high end product and where that is going. Some guys knows components and are terrific at custom fitting. We both do what we do very well, but I shouldn't pretend to be all knowing about what they work with, and vise versa, because we will both come out looking ignorant if we try to do that.
IOW, Tom's take on the state of the industry in 1997 doesn't match the current reality. Stunning that!
Tom took a few days, but replied today with:
Your quote - Take from it what you will, but not everyone knows everything, and we shouldn't act like we do. Mr. Wishon told us to buy his fitting book. What if I had bought this one. Just a joke....just a joke.
My quote - "The Insider's Guide to Golf Equipment" written by Nick Mastroni. On page 38 of the 1997 edition Mr. Wishon is quoted as saying:
"Rebound velocities- that's where the real mythsare about titanium. Ive heard a number of manufacturers tell customers that a titanium clubface actually rebounds backward at impact, then snaps forward, as if to'slingshot' the ball off the clubface. This is a load of hogwash! The material in a clubhead has a totally different coefficient of restitution than the golf ball does. Even if a clubface deformed somewhat at impact, which it doesn't, the ball would be gone before the clubface had a chance to re-form outward. This is something that does not happen, cannot happen, and is a total myth.
Todd, I gather you are in your 20’s so you probably are not aware of the evolution of Ti as a driver head material. I’d like to tell you a few things about titanium woodhead manufacture, circa 1996, which is when Nick Mastroni contacted me for information for his 1997 book.
The number one reason golf companies began to look at titanium for making driver heads starting in the early 90s is because the companies could see from the original steel Big Bertha that bigger drivers were lighting up the industry. With its 4.5 g/cc density compared to 7.8g/cc for steel, titanium would enable them to make larger drivers than would ever be possible with steel alloys. No one really understood then what we learned in the late 90s about the relationship of yield strength and modulus to actually make the face flex, which in turn would make the ball compress less, lose less energy as a result, and leave the face a little faster.
When the top clubhead production foundries bought their first vacuum casting furnaces in the early 90s, they ALL had a heckuva learning curve to deal with. Stainless steel can be cast in open air. Titanium cannot because it oxidizes horribly, which ruins its mechanical properties. What’s more, molten titanium has a viscosity closer to molasses while molten steel’s is more like water. Casting titanium into very thin wall sections was a nightmare for these companies to learn and it took them YEARS to learn how to do that.
None of the big clubhead foundries even thought about forging titanium woodheads. Their expertise lay in investment casting, so that’s how they started to make Ti driver heads. Up until the late 90s, the few foundries that had the money to buy a vacuum casting furnace to make Ti driver heads ($1.2 million back then for ONE small vacuum furnace that would make only 150 heads per melt run) struggled with reject rates of 30-50% per run.
By 1996 with 2 yrs experience under their belts, reject rates were still 20%+ because of the sheer difficulty of casting titanium into porosity free heads. The FACES were cast as a part of the body, which NO ONE does today. To make these Ti driver faces withstand 120+mph swing speeds, the faces were all cast at 3.2 to 3.5mm in thickness. The only titanium alloy capable of being investment cast was 6/4. Even under the best processing, 6/4 has the same yield strength as 17-4 stainless steel, the alloy of choice for all cast steel woodheads then and still today. The largest of the Ti driver heads at this time were 250cc because the foundries simply could not make a Ti driver head any larger and have it stand up to impact due to the difficulty of casting 6/4 Ti to be porosity free.
Take a 250cc driver head made ALL from investment cast 6/4 with a face of 3.2-3.5mm thickness and you have a driver with a COR that was the same as what a well made 17-4 stainless driver of 200cc. Hence in 1996 when Nick Mastroni from GOLF magazine contacted me for a comment for his planned book, my comment was totally accurate for the time.
I gather that you have never learned anything that you found through further experience and study to be different today from what it was 10 yrs ago. Or in another form, why do you suppose a senior writer from GOLF magazine came to me for information for his book at the time when he had the whole industry to contact. I guess he figured I knew something about this stuff, even back then.
It was only when foundries started to turn to forging faces separately or plate forming to make Ti driver heads that we all discovered what the better strength to elasticity ratio of some TI alloys over steel could do to the face flexing and resulting decrease of the ball compressing against the face. And that is why no Ti driver heads have been made with cast faces since these other production methods were initiated and perfected. Cast bodies today, yes, but there are no cast titanium faces in woodheads anymore because of what we learned when you were probably still in high school.
Now hold on a minute because I have an offer to make to you.
Your quote - It's a whole different world now. NASA aerospace engineers are designing golf clubs and shafts. It's not like it was 20 years ago.
It’s obvious you seem to think that I am living in the dark ages of golf club technology with nothing but a few “trolls” who listen to what I have to say. I believe I am not, so here’s what I would like to do. I hear you guys live in Las Vegas, one of the top getaway destinations in the country. You go find a hotel and book their ballroom for a day – you pick the date – and you and I can sit down and have a discussion about golf equipment. If you want, you can promote it on your Forum to your members and if you like, charge a few bucks for admission. I’ll pay for the ballroom, soft drinks and snacks for everyone and you can keep all the money from admission from anyone who wants to come to listen to us. And we’ll just sit down and talk about golf clubs for how ever long you wish.
How about it? You name the date and I’ll be happy to be there so we both and any of your BSG members who join us might be able to learn a little more. OK? My email address is tww@wishongolf.com so let me know what works out best for you.
TOM WISHON
Once again Todd takes a swipe at Tom and Tom replies with class and an invitation to talk clubmaking. The fact that Todd doesn't understand the history of golf isn't all that surprising. In 1997 he was likely just trying to understand how to start his baseball card company. You could say that Tom has forgotten more about clubmaking than Todd has ever known, but I'm not sure that's true. I don't think Tom has forgotten very much. Then again Todd doesn't know very much.
Not surprisingly Todd pulled Tom's post shortly after it was posted.
Interestingly, after pulling the original post, Todd posts the following:
"Tom and I are actually discussing everything privately. In all honesty, I'd LOVE the chance to sit down with Tom Wishon and discuss golf clubs. He is one of the pioneers of our industry. Who WOULDN'T love the chance to sit with Tom Wishon and discuss clubs. I imagine I would just be listening most of the time. He and I do different things certainly, but when it comes to the dynamics of the golf club, few people know more than Tom Wishon. Maybe we could have Tom on a chat or something at some point in the near future if he's open to it.
As for calling me one of the "brightest brains in the golf club industry". That's a stretch. I know about the products I test and sell, and I am confident in my ability to fit my customers into those products, but you are giving me MUCH too much credit. My knowledge of making golf clubs isn't anywhere near Tom Wishon. Thanks for the compliment, but it's not deserved. I'm just a guy who runs a golf site and sells high end golf clubs.
Also, wanted to add that Mr. Wishon is REALLY a class guy. He also requested that all threads bashing BSG be removed from the forum he sponsors. First class move in my opinion. I'd like to take a moment to say I am sorry if anything I had ever said was taken the wrong way about the man. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Wishon and always have. As Mr. Wishon has asked that all BSG-negative threads be removed from other sites, I ask that none of my admins or mods comments on Mr. Wishon in the future. Let the members lead that discussion from here on out. Myself included."
Which prompted the following from Tom:
"Hmmm - did he say that I called him "one of the brightest brains in the golf club industry"?
I did NOT say anything of the sort in any email exchange I made with him this AM. I simply asked him to stop attacking me and my work in his posts, and if he did that I would disappear and not make any other responses or posts.
That is ALL I said in my email exchange with him this AM."
Todd is making up conversation with Tom to try and smooth things over, at least until the next time he sticks his foot in his mouth.
http://compgolfer.com/2006/11/bombsquadgolfs_todd_thrun_vs_t.html
The Reply
tomwishon Today, 02:31 PM Post #27
Gallery
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: March-17 06
Member No.: 26,128
Handicap:7
AZ Devil Cat:
I am sorry that I am not as coherent in this Forum's procedures/ways as I should be. Are you Todd who wrote the posts about my lack of shaft knowledge? Or are you someone who sent Todd's post to me to read and offer a response?
Anyway, since that post came to me and this thread has a request for a comment on this, happy to oblige - and then I have to get back to work!!!
(QUOTE) Tom Wishon huh? Wishon makes a fine component clubhead, but to be 100% honest, the shaft companies are looking sidways at him about his less than up to date statements on golf shafts. I doubt he even knows there IS a difference in Tour clubs. He is a COMPONENT maker. That's another hilarious thing about these loser morons. It's PROVEN that there are obvious CG differences in Tour heads, and ANY OEM that is being honest will tell you the same thing. It's really not even a debateable subject. It's like trying to refute the earth is round. Todd
(TW RESPONSE) Less than up to date statements about shafts?? Not according to Robin Arthur, he being the composites engineer who designed the Graffaloy ProLite and every Grafalloy shaft until TT bought them. I've also had off the record emails over the years from people who used to work for this or that shaft maker who told me that there are shaft companies out there today who really do not know precisely what the shaft does in the swing, and what swing movements have a direct effect on the shaft's bending and performance and feel.
(TW RESPONSE) I doubt he even knows there IS a difference in tour clubs. Wrong - not only my experience in designing sets for Verplank, Lietzke, Crenshaw and Payne says you're wrong there, but also my experience in having worked on the buy outs of Lynx and Snake Eyes gave me that experience in seeing all the different molds and heads from Lynx that had been specially made for their tour players. Also, some months back there was a thread about this very subject on GEA Forum that I commented on using my experience in this area. Just because I have chosen to work in the component side of the industry does not mean I don;t have real tour design experience - I do.
(QUOTE) What you are saying is correct. Different materials offer different combinations and thus do translate in performance. You can clearly limited to what you can do with steel. Mr. Wishon's point is that two shafts with the indentical weight, torque, balance point, length and overall stiffness will perform the same regardless of the material. How can that not be true? You can spec a shaft and rip it down, then recreate it. I know of one major shaft company who ripped down an Altus and recreated the bend profile and all specs precisely using the materials that they normally construct their products with. The result, while both shafts were identical in measurable specs, performed entirely differently when they put it on the Byron. Material differences allow construction in a way that cannot be replicated in some cases. You can replicate the specs and the profile, but not the performance.
(RESPONSE) If you're testing shafts with an Iron Byron, that's a mistake right there. Unlike the Golf Labs robot, Byron does not gear its swing from torque inputs, which is how a real human swings the club. Therefore, Byron will never replicate a human swing in the sense of the arms beginning to slow down when the release happens, which in turn sends centripetal force to the club/clubhead, which in turn combines with the slowing down of the arms in the swing to cause the clubhead to flex the shaft forward at impact. Byron can't do that and it is why all companies with Byrons are getting rid of them and replacing them with robots that have multiple servo-motors to more closely simulate a human swing.
(RESPONSE) Two shafts with the identical weight, torque, balance point, length and overall stiffness will perform the same regardless of the material. This is true in PERFORMANCE because we've done it a number of times in controlled testing. But PERFORMANCE is not the same as FEEL of the shaft. And when it comes to fitting accomplished players, FEEL IS HUGELY IMPORTANT in shaft fitting. In fact among most tour players, FEEL IS NUMBER ONE in shaft fitting because their confidence is so triggered by the feel they perceive when hitting any club/head/shaft. Fitting a shaft to match a specific FEEL requirement of a player is without question the most difficult task in all of clubfitting. It took me two years to learn how to do this for Scott Verplank because he has such a precise sense of feel for the action of the shaft. But when I figured out how to do it for HIM, then I had to learn all over how to do it for Payne, who also had a real precise sense of FEEL that was different than Scott's.
Enough, I'm done - going back to my work and will recommend that Todd get a copy of Common Sense Clubfitting to see if there is something in there that might help him learn a little more about this great craft of clubmaking and fitting.
TOM WISHON
This weeks entry started off just like almost every other skirmish on the site, with Todd wagging his tongue when he really shouldn't. Here's the relevant entry:
I was talking yesterday with one of the most influential individuals in golf and we were talking about high end fitting and custom high end product.
In other words he was talking to his business partner.
We were talking about off the rack clubs or used equipment, and he said to me and I quote...."I don't care about that guy. There's a place for him and it's called Golfsmith. The rest of them can worm around Ebay looking for next best deal. Frankly, we don't care about them." It's harsh, but it's true. That mentality works against playing better golf by proper fitting and superior equipment. The "old guard" just doesn't really fit into where BSG is going.
This is a very veiled reference to Tom Wishon.
As for Tom Wishon, good guy, smart guy, but even he made this statement in 1997. I received this from an Industry individual as example that we shouldn't pretend we know everything, and should always stay humble in the way we present our "opinions". "The Insider's Guide to Golf Equipment" written by Nick Mastroni. On page 38 of the 1997 edition Mr. Wishon is quoted as saying: "Rebound velocities- that's where the real mythsare about titanium. Ive heard a number of manufacturers tell customers that a titanium clubface actually rebounds backward at impact, then snaps forward, as if to'slingshot' the ball off the clubface. This is a load of hogwash! The material in a clubhead has a totally different coefficient of restitution than the golf ball does. Even if a clubface deformed somewhat at impact, which it doesn't, the ball would be gone before the clubface had a chance to re-form outward. This is something that does not happen, cannot happen, and is a total myth. There is no inherent difference in the way the ball comes of the face of a stainless steel versus a titanium driver." Take from it what you will, but not everyone knows everything, and we shouldn't act like we do. Mr. Wishon told us to buy his fitting book. What if I had bought this one. Just a joke....just a joke. Seriously, Tom is pretty much a class guy, and one of the pioneers of the industry, but the group of trolls that worship the man really reflect badly on that entire group of component oriented guys, and it's disappointing to see him bring a high and mighty attitude to MY site in response to a bunch of trolls getting him worked up. Fitting is art coupled with science. There is no "book" that tells you how to fit players perfectly. Most of it is opinion. I have mine, and others have theirs, but to imply that one is better than that other is ridiculous. Mine comes from a mix of sitting in on Tour fittings, being at OEM test and pro fitting facilites, and intimate understanding of the properties of our products. This isn't 1987 Lynx, and prolite shaft technology. It's a whole different world now. NASA aerospace engineers are designing golf clubs and shafts. It's not like it was 20 years ago. As I said before, I know Tour and super high end product and where that is going. Some guys knows components and are terrific at custom fitting. We both do what we do very well, but I shouldn't pretend to be all knowing about what they work with, and vise versa, because we will both come out looking ignorant if we try to do that.
IOW, Tom's take on the state of the industry in 1997 doesn't match the current reality. Stunning that!
Tom took a few days, but replied today with:
Your quote - Take from it what you will, but not everyone knows everything, and we shouldn't act like we do. Mr. Wishon told us to buy his fitting book. What if I had bought this one. Just a joke....just a joke.
My quote - "The Insider's Guide to Golf Equipment" written by Nick Mastroni. On page 38 of the 1997 edition Mr. Wishon is quoted as saying:
"Rebound velocities- that's where the real mythsare about titanium. Ive heard a number of manufacturers tell customers that a titanium clubface actually rebounds backward at impact, then snaps forward, as if to'slingshot' the ball off the clubface. This is a load of hogwash! The material in a clubhead has a totally different coefficient of restitution than the golf ball does. Even if a clubface deformed somewhat at impact, which it doesn't, the ball would be gone before the clubface had a chance to re-form outward. This is something that does not happen, cannot happen, and is a total myth.
Todd, I gather you are in your 20’s so you probably are not aware of the evolution of Ti as a driver head material. I’d like to tell you a few things about titanium woodhead manufacture, circa 1996, which is when Nick Mastroni contacted me for information for his 1997 book.
The number one reason golf companies began to look at titanium for making driver heads starting in the early 90s is because the companies could see from the original steel Big Bertha that bigger drivers were lighting up the industry. With its 4.5 g/cc density compared to 7.8g/cc for steel, titanium would enable them to make larger drivers than would ever be possible with steel alloys. No one really understood then what we learned in the late 90s about the relationship of yield strength and modulus to actually make the face flex, which in turn would make the ball compress less, lose less energy as a result, and leave the face a little faster.
When the top clubhead production foundries bought their first vacuum casting furnaces in the early 90s, they ALL had a heckuva learning curve to deal with. Stainless steel can be cast in open air. Titanium cannot because it oxidizes horribly, which ruins its mechanical properties. What’s more, molten titanium has a viscosity closer to molasses while molten steel’s is more like water. Casting titanium into very thin wall sections was a nightmare for these companies to learn and it took them YEARS to learn how to do that.
None of the big clubhead foundries even thought about forging titanium woodheads. Their expertise lay in investment casting, so that’s how they started to make Ti driver heads. Up until the late 90s, the few foundries that had the money to buy a vacuum casting furnace to make Ti driver heads ($1.2 million back then for ONE small vacuum furnace that would make only 150 heads per melt run) struggled with reject rates of 30-50% per run.
By 1996 with 2 yrs experience under their belts, reject rates were still 20%+ because of the sheer difficulty of casting titanium into porosity free heads. The FACES were cast as a part of the body, which NO ONE does today. To make these Ti driver faces withstand 120+mph swing speeds, the faces were all cast at 3.2 to 3.5mm in thickness. The only titanium alloy capable of being investment cast was 6/4. Even under the best processing, 6/4 has the same yield strength as 17-4 stainless steel, the alloy of choice for all cast steel woodheads then and still today. The largest of the Ti driver heads at this time were 250cc because the foundries simply could not make a Ti driver head any larger and have it stand up to impact due to the difficulty of casting 6/4 Ti to be porosity free.
Take a 250cc driver head made ALL from investment cast 6/4 with a face of 3.2-3.5mm thickness and you have a driver with a COR that was the same as what a well made 17-4 stainless driver of 200cc. Hence in 1996 when Nick Mastroni from GOLF magazine contacted me for a comment for his planned book, my comment was totally accurate for the time.
I gather that you have never learned anything that you found through further experience and study to be different today from what it was 10 yrs ago. Or in another form, why do you suppose a senior writer from GOLF magazine came to me for information for his book at the time when he had the whole industry to contact. I guess he figured I knew something about this stuff, even back then.
It was only when foundries started to turn to forging faces separately or plate forming to make Ti driver heads that we all discovered what the better strength to elasticity ratio of some TI alloys over steel could do to the face flexing and resulting decrease of the ball compressing against the face. And that is why no Ti driver heads have been made with cast faces since these other production methods were initiated and perfected. Cast bodies today, yes, but there are no cast titanium faces in woodheads anymore because of what we learned when you were probably still in high school.
Now hold on a minute because I have an offer to make to you.
Your quote - It's a whole different world now. NASA aerospace engineers are designing golf clubs and shafts. It's not like it was 20 years ago.
It’s obvious you seem to think that I am living in the dark ages of golf club technology with nothing but a few “trolls” who listen to what I have to say. I believe I am not, so here’s what I would like to do. I hear you guys live in Las Vegas, one of the top getaway destinations in the country. You go find a hotel and book their ballroom for a day – you pick the date – and you and I can sit down and have a discussion about golf equipment. If you want, you can promote it on your Forum to your members and if you like, charge a few bucks for admission. I’ll pay for the ballroom, soft drinks and snacks for everyone and you can keep all the money from admission from anyone who wants to come to listen to us. And we’ll just sit down and talk about golf clubs for how ever long you wish.
How about it? You name the date and I’ll be happy to be there so we both and any of your BSG members who join us might be able to learn a little more. OK? My email address is tww@wishongolf.com so let me know what works out best for you.
TOM WISHON
Once again Todd takes a swipe at Tom and Tom replies with class and an invitation to talk clubmaking. The fact that Todd doesn't understand the history of golf isn't all that surprising. In 1997 he was likely just trying to understand how to start his baseball card company. You could say that Tom has forgotten more about clubmaking than Todd has ever known, but I'm not sure that's true. I don't think Tom has forgotten very much. Then again Todd doesn't know very much.
Not surprisingly Todd pulled Tom's post shortly after it was posted.
Interestingly, after pulling the original post, Todd posts the following:
"Tom and I are actually discussing everything privately. In all honesty, I'd LOVE the chance to sit down with Tom Wishon and discuss golf clubs. He is one of the pioneers of our industry. Who WOULDN'T love the chance to sit with Tom Wishon and discuss clubs. I imagine I would just be listening most of the time. He and I do different things certainly, but when it comes to the dynamics of the golf club, few people know more than Tom Wishon. Maybe we could have Tom on a chat or something at some point in the near future if he's open to it.
As for calling me one of the "brightest brains in the golf club industry". That's a stretch. I know about the products I test and sell, and I am confident in my ability to fit my customers into those products, but you are giving me MUCH too much credit. My knowledge of making golf clubs isn't anywhere near Tom Wishon. Thanks for the compliment, but it's not deserved. I'm just a guy who runs a golf site and sells high end golf clubs.
Also, wanted to add that Mr. Wishon is REALLY a class guy. He also requested that all threads bashing BSG be removed from the forum he sponsors. First class move in my opinion. I'd like to take a moment to say I am sorry if anything I had ever said was taken the wrong way about the man. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Wishon and always have. As Mr. Wishon has asked that all BSG-negative threads be removed from other sites, I ask that none of my admins or mods comments on Mr. Wishon in the future. Let the members lead that discussion from here on out. Myself included."
Which prompted the following from Tom:
"Hmmm - did he say that I called him "one of the brightest brains in the golf club industry"?
I did NOT say anything of the sort in any email exchange I made with him this AM. I simply asked him to stop attacking me and my work in his posts, and if he did that I would disappear and not make any other responses or posts.
That is ALL I said in my email exchange with him this AM."
Todd is making up conversation with Tom to try and smooth things over, at least until the next time he sticks his foot in his mouth.
http://compgolfer.com/2006/11/bombsquadgolfs_todd_thrun_vs_t.html
Just to check and see what someone posted vs what was really said on the inside.
http://www.bombsquadgolf.com/invboard_release/upload/index.php?showtopic=137311&hl=
The Reply
tomwishon Today, 02:31 PM Post #27
Gallery
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: March-17 06
Member No.: 26,128
Handicap:7
AZ Devil Cat:
I am sorry that I am not as coherent in this Forum's procedures/ways as I should be. Are you Todd who wrote the posts about my lack of shaft knowledge? Or are you someone who sent Todd's post to me to read and offer a response?
Anyway, since that post came to me and this thread has a request for a comment on this, happy to oblige - and then I have to get back to work!!!
(QUOTE) Tom Wishon huh? Wishon makes a fine component clubhead, but to be 100% honest, the shaft companies are looking sidways at him about his less than up to date statements on golf shafts. I doubt he even knows there IS a difference in Tour clubs. He is a COMPONENT maker. That's another hilarious thing about these loser morons. It's PROVEN that there are obvious CG differences in Tour heads, and ANY OEM that is being honest will tell you the same thing. It's really not even a debateable subject. It's like trying to refute the earth is round. Todd
(TW RESPONSE) Less than up to date statements about shafts?? Not according to Robin Arthur, he being the composites engineer who designed the Graffaloy ProLite and every Grafalloy shaft until TT bought them. I've also had off the record emails over the years from people who used to work for this or that shaft maker who told me that there are shaft companies out there today who really do not know precisely what the shaft does in the swing, and what swing movements have a direct effect on the shaft's bending and performance and feel.
(TW RESPONSE) I doubt he even knows there IS a difference in tour clubs. Wrong - not only my experience in designing sets for Verplank, Lietzke, Crenshaw and Payne says you're wrong there, but also my experience in having worked on the buy outs of Lynx and Snake Eyes gave me that experience in seeing all the different molds and heads from Lynx that had been specially made for their tour players. Also, some months back there was a thread about this very subject on GEA Forum that I commented on using my experience in this area. Just because I have chosen to work in the component side of the industry does not mean I don;t have real tour design experience - I do.
(QUOTE) What you are saying is correct. Different materials offer different combinations and thus do translate in performance. You can clearly limited to what you can do with steel. Mr. Wishon's point is that two shafts with the indentical weight, torque, balance point, length and overall stiffness will perform the same regardless of the material. How can that not be true? You can spec a shaft and rip it down, then recreate it. I know of one major shaft company who ripped down an Altus and recreated the bend profile and all specs precisely using the materials that they normally construct their products with. The result, while both shafts were identical in measurable specs, performed entirely differently when they put it on the Byron. Material differences allow construction in a way that cannot be replicated in some cases. You can replicate the specs and the profile, but not the performance.
(RESPONSE) If you're testing shafts with an Iron Byron, that's a mistake right there. Unlike the Golf Labs robot, Byron does not gear its swing from torque inputs, which is how a real human swings the club. Therefore, Byron will never replicate a human swing in the sense of the arms beginning to slow down when the release happens, which in turn sends centripetal force to the club/clubhead, which in turn combines with the slowing down of the arms in the swing to cause the clubhead to flex the shaft forward at impact. Byron can't do that and it is why all companies with Byrons are getting rid of them and replacing them with robots that have multiple servo-motors to more closely simulate a human swing.
(RESPONSE) Two shafts with the identical weight, torque, balance point, length and overall stiffness will perform the same regardless of the material. This is true in PERFORMANCE because we've done it a number of times in controlled testing. But PERFORMANCE is not the same as FEEL of the shaft. And when it comes to fitting accomplished players, FEEL IS HUGELY IMPORTANT in shaft fitting. In fact among most tour players, FEEL IS NUMBER ONE in shaft fitting because their confidence is so triggered by the feel they perceive when hitting any club/head/shaft. Fitting a shaft to match a specific FEEL requirement of a player is without question the most difficult task in all of clubfitting. It took me two years to learn how to do this for Scott Verplank because he has such a precise sense of feel for the action of the shaft. But when I figured out how to do it for HIM, then I had to learn all over how to do it for Payne, who also had a real precise sense of FEEL that was different than Scott's.
Enough, I'm done - going back to my work and will recommend that Todd get a copy of Common Sense Clubfitting to see if there is something in there that might help him learn a little more about this great craft of clubmaking and fitting.
TOM WISHON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
