Fad, Hype, or the Real Deal?

The Breakthrough Golf Technology RedZNE wedge shaft has become a sensation among the golf equipment obsessed.  I saw great results in my testing [full review HERE], and I know several prominent fitters who swear by it.

But as someone who always wants to see the data, I thought we should test the RedZNE more rigorously.  BGT’s strong claims of “10% tighter dispersion,” “92% better distance control,” and “lower launch” are like a ready made Golf Myths Unplugged, so we took the RedZNE into the lab.

The Myths

Myth #1 – BGT’s RedZNE improves distance control for most golfers

Myth #2 – BGT’s RedZNE improves dispersion for most golfers

Myth #3 – BGT’s RedZNE lowers launch for most golfers

Myth #4 – BGT’s RedZNE increases spin for most golfers

How We Tested

For this Golf Myths Unplugged, we built three wedges.  Each one used an identical Edison 2.0 head at 55 degrees [full Edison 2.0 review HERE].  One was shafted with the BGT RedZNE shaft at 115 grams; the other two with leading steel wedge shafts, also 115 grams.  Each wedge used the same grip and was built to the same length and swing weight.

Our test panel consisted of five players, all with handicaps below ten.  Each player made five full swings with each of the three wedges.  They repeated that process with a partial swing.  Each player tested the wedges in a different order.  All shots were captured by Trackman.

All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

Before getting into this, it’s important to acknowledge that the way the myths are worded always has an impact on their final grade – confirmed, busted, etc.  It’s our hope that golfers will read our full findings rather than just looking at the graphic, because 99% of the time, there’s nuance that can’t be captured in a simple graphic.

Get ready for something you’re going to read a lot: the results here were a mixed bag.  

Looking at full swings, the RedZNE was the clear winner.  Three of five testers posted their best distance control numbers with it, and it had the lowest total distance dispersion when we averaged the whole group.

However, when we moved to partial shots, the picture got murky.  RedZNE was best – by a wide margin – for one tester.  It performed well with the other four, but was not the best for them.  Looking at the group average, it was tied for first.

Overall, the BGT RedZNE did show strong overall distance control, but we did not see anything to support their claim of “92% better distance control.” 

Dispersion is the area where the RedZNE lived up to BGT’s claims and most plausibly fulfilled the myth.

On full swings, the RedZNE had the tightest left-right dispersion for four of our five testers.  The one shaft that bested the RedZNE only did so by two yards – the RedZNE won some of its tests by as much as seven.  RedZNE was also the winner for the group average.

RedZNE claimed the crown for best dispersion on partial swings, too.  Three of our five testers produced their best dispersion with the RedZNE, and it claimed the best group average again.  In the most extreme example, the RedZNE’s dispersion was over 50% tighter than one of the competitor’s.  This far exceeds BGT’s claim of “10% tighter dispersion.”

While this myth scored a “Busted,” it should be noted that we saw very minor differences in launch angle among these three shafts.  On partial swings, the gap from highest to lowest launching was less than a degree for each tester.  On full swings it was as much as 1.7 degrees but averaged less than a degree.

On full and partial swings, the RedZNE was the lowest launching shaft for just one player.  Interestingly, it was not the same player.

Similar to the dispersion and distance control myths, the results on spin were mixed but generally positive for the BGT RedZNE.  Also, as we saw with launch angle, the differences in spin from shaft to shaft were small for the most part.

On full swings, the BGT RedZNE produced the most spin for three of our five testers.  For partial swings, RedZNE won for two of those three players.  The RedZNE was never the lowest spinning shaft, and it was close to winning for every player – it lost two trials by just 100 RPM.  On the other hand, the RedZNE’s wins weren’t huge either, averaging around 200 RPM.

Tester Feedback & Opportunities for Further Testing

Our testers universally loved the BGT RedZNE shaft.  “This thing throws darts” and “It looks so cool” were among the comments I recorded.  While not every player was looking to make the switch immediately, all of them liked the feel of the RedZNE, noting the combination of consistency and action or kick.

As for our testing, it’s always worth noting that larger sample sizes would yield more robust conclusions.  It might also be interesting to see how the RedZNE interacts with other wedges.  It’s possible that the unique properties of the Edison 2.0 enhanced or diminished the benefits of the RedZNE.  We would also like to test the other weights of the RedZNE against each other and other wedge shafts.

The Takeaway

Will the Breakthrough Golf Technology RedZNE wedge shaft turn your wedges into laser-guided missile launchers?  Not necessarily.  They’re very impressive, particularly with regard to left-right dispersion, but, like any piece of golf equipment, they need to be properly fit.  Whether it’s with the RedZNE or another shaft, working with a fitter like Club Champion is the best way to put more consistency into your short game.

The post Can the RedZNE Improve Your Wedge Game? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

A Quick Fix for Inconsistency?

With the return of Anthony Kim to the world of professional golf, choking up on the golf club is front and center.  Not coincidentally, a reader recently asked us whether it would be worthwhile to build their clubs over-length so they could choke up on every shot.  That sounded like a Golf Myths Unplugged if ever we’d heard one, which brings us to today’s question: Does choking up improve ball striking?

Note: some people prefer “choking down” or “gripping down” to “choking up,” but all these terms describe the same thing: effectively shortening the length of the club by gripping it closer to the club head.

The Myths

Myth #1 – Choking up improves ball striking

Myth #2 – Choking up improves accuracy

Myth #3 – Choking up reduces distance

Myth #4 – Choking up will flight the ball down

Myth #5 – Choking up improves consistency

Myth #6 – Choking up is better than playing a shorter shaft

Myth #7 – Choking up on a longer shaft is better than playing your fitted length

How We Tested

For this test we brought together six golfers with handicaps ranging from scratch to ten.  Each player selected their gamer iron shaft in their fitted length as well as +1/2″ and -1/2″, relative to their fitted length.  Every player in our test hit four sets of seven shots: one each with the -1/2″ shaft, the standard length, the standard length choked up, and the +1/2″ choked up.  The order of testing was different for every player.  Each player performed this test with the PXG 0317 CB iron head. [review HERE].

Every shot was measured on Trackman.  Testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

For this myth, we looked at smash factor.  Smash factor is ball speed divided by club head speed, essentially a measure of how effectively you transmit energy from the club to the ball.  This is the best single metric we have for evaluating the quality of a strike.

For all of our six testers, choking up on their fitted length club improved their smash factor.  The differences were substantial with two players seeing jumps of 0.05 and 0.06.  For a player with an 85 MPH swing, those improvements would translate to approximately 5 MPH more ball speed!  The smallest improvement we saw was 0.03 which is still worth about 3.5 MPH with an 85 MPH swing.

The conventional wisdom holds true: choking up will make it easier to find the center of the club face more often.

To evaluate accuracy, we looked at two things: the dispersion of a player’s shots from left to right and their distance from the center line.  These both need to be taken into account to get a complete picture of accuracy.  A player might have a very low average distance to the center line, but their misses could coverage a huge range from left to right.  Alternately, a player could have a very tight grouping that’s thirty yards left of the target.

Looking at left to right dispersion, we saw an even split in our test group.  Half the group had a tighter grouping with the choked up golf club, half were better when swinging the club at its full length.  That said, averaging out the group’s numbers tilted things slightly in favor of choking up.  The players who were better with the full length club were better by a small amount.  Those that were more accurate with the choked up club were better by a larger amount.

Switching to distance from the centerline, choking up won a more convincing victory.  Five of our six testers hit their shots closer to the centerline when choking up, and the margins were substantial.  For three of our testers, the standard length choked up set was their most accurate of the four sets.

On balance, it seems plausible that choking up would improve a player’s overall accuracy, though it was not true in every case.

Choking up on a golf club is most often used to “take something off” the shot, but does it actually work?  Myth #1 showed us that choking up typically adds ball speed, so this seemed worth investigating further.

We looked at the average carry distance for our six testers and found that choking up did reduce distance, though typically not by much.  For two of our testers, the difference was less than one yard.  Only one tester saw a difference that was in line with conventional wisdom – seven yards less when choking up.

Two things explain these shorter carry distances in the face of improved smash factor.  First, all of our testers saw a slight reduction in club head speed when choking up.  Second, the ball flight changed.

Finally, it’s worth noting that we asked our testers to try to make full, equal swings regardless of the club length.  It is often the case that players pair choking up with a smaller, less effortful swing.  While our testing did confirm this myth, the results might have been more in line with conventional thinking if players were allowed to do what they normally do when choking up.

Another reason that players choke up on the club is to lower their ball flight.  Our testing confirmed that choking up will flight the ball down.

Each of our testers produced a lower launch angle when choking up.  On average, launch angle was reduced by 1.78 degrees.  One player dropped their launch angle by 2.7 degrees.

Turning to spin, five of six testers produced less when choking up.  On average, our testers created 475 RPM more spin with the club at full length.  The one tester who had more spin when choked up only had a gap of 100 RPM.  The maximum spin reduction we saw when choking up was 900 RPM.

These differences in launch and spin translated to an average peak height that was 14 feet lower when choking up.  The smallest difference in apex was 5 feet and the largest was 23 feet.  I would add that, as with our previous myth, this gap might be even larger if players were using an 80% swing.

“Consistency” is a magical word in golf, but it’s rarely well-defined.  For this myth, we looked at both the accuracy and the distance dispersion to get an overall picture of how predictable a player’s shots were.  Distance dispersion is the gap between a player’s longest and shortest shots.

Since we already found it plausible that choking up improves accuracy, we’ll go straight to distance dispersion.  The picture here is similar to what we saw with accuracy: a mix of small losses and big wins for choking up.  Half of our testers had less distance dispersion with the full length club, but they were only better by a few yards.  The half that was better when choking up saw substantial improvements, sometimes cutting their dispersion in half.

Overall, we can’t go beyond “Plausible” for this myth.  While some golfers did see significant improvements in consistency, others did not.

For this myth, we compared the fitted length choked up to the -1/2″ data set.  Two things stood out clearly.  First, all of our testers achieved better smash factors with the choked up club.  The gap was not as wide as when we compared choking up to standard length, but it was consistent across our entire group.  Additionally, all players flighted the ball lower – though, again, the difference was not huge – when choking up.  This came from universally lower launch angles and spin rates.

The rest of the data was more muddled.  Some players were longer with the -1/2″ club, others with the standard length choked up.  We saw that same mix when it came to distance dispersion, left-right dispersion, and distance from the centerline.

Overall, this leads us to say that choking up is not better than playing a shorter shaft, though there does seem to be something different about it as evidenced by the lower ball flight and improved smash factor.

Finally, we compared the data from our players hitting their fitted length shaft to hitting a longer shaft (+1/2″) and choking up.  We were surprised to see the same trends continue almost perfectly.  All of our testers had lower launch and spin when choking up, and all but one had higher smash factor (one saw no difference).

Turning to distance, only one of our testers hit the longer, choked up club farther.  That player gained 2 yards of carry.  The other five testers lost an average of 4 yards of carry.  As before, this is due to the ball flight being lower than optimal.

Where things got really interesting is when we looked at the accuracy and consistency.  Four of our six testers improved their distance dispersion with the longer, choked up club.  On average, our group shrank the distance between their best and worst shots by 4 yards.  For left-right dispersion, five players were better with the longer, choked up club, and the one who was better at standard length was only better by two yards.  Finally, four players placed their shots closer to the center line with the longer, choked up club.

While there is a lot of data here to recommend playing a longer shaft and choking down, it’s not clean enough to call it “Confirmed.”  Few players are going to want to give up half a club of distance, and most golfers don’t need to hit the ball lower.  That said, the improvements in smash factor and overall dispersion are compelling.

Notes from the Test Panel

This was one of the best test panels we’ve ever had it terms of ball striking quality and how efficiently they got through the testing.  However, they were also quite terse, offering little commentary.  These two things are probably related – they were more focused on hitting their shots than expounding on the feel differences between plus or minus 1/2″.

That said, I was able to coax a couple of interesting notes from the group.  A couple said that when they were choked up they felt like they were “fighting the club.”  This was particularly true with the +1/2″ club.  It would be interesting to dig into this more and find out how often they hit shots like that on the course.  My hypothesis is that these players hit almost all their shots at full length.

Another player said that they felt that the choked up shots were more prone to go left.  This was not supported by the data, though it’s impossible to know if that player started adjusting their swing to compensate.

Finally, for those interested: each additional half inch of length added approximately 3 swing weight points.

The Takeaway

While choking up definitely has an impact on ball striking, it’s not clear that everyone should build their clubs over-length and play like Anthony Kim.  The improvements in smash factor are compelling, but the lower ball flight and shorter carry distances aren’t going to appeal to most players.

The post Does Choking Up Improve Ball Striking? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

More Yards and More GIRs

Last month, we unveiled the first half of one of our biggest Golf Myths Unplugged tests yet [get caught up HERE].  After extensively testing different combinations of iron heads and shafts, we busted several myths about how to hit your iron shots higher and with more spin.

In Part 2, we’re bringing you the data on what you’re really chasing: distance and accuracy.  Are game improvement irons all they’re cracked up to be in terms of forgiveness?  Could you hit more greens with a more “challenging” iron?  Let’s find out.

The Myths

Myth #1 – Game improvement irons are always the most consistent

Myth #2 – Heavier iron shafts always improve shot consistency

Myth #3 – Game improvement irons always produce longer shots

Myth #4 – Lighter iron shafts always produce longer shots

Myth #5 – Game improvement irons always produce straighter shots

Myth #6 – Heavier iron shafts always produce straighter shots

How We Tested

For this test, we brought together seven golfers with handicaps ranging from 0 to 14.  Each player hit five shots with each of nine combinations – a matrix of three shafts and three iron heads.  Every player used the same matrix but hit the combinations in a different order.

The three shafts were all the same flex but had different weights and flex profiles.  For our purposes, we will refer to them as Heavy, Medium, and Light.  The three iron heads all came from the same OEM and were set to stock specifications.  They will be referred to as Blade, PD (Players Distance), and GI (Game Improvement).

All shots were recorded on Trackman.  All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

More than distance or accuracy, game improvement irons promise improved consistency.  They claim to take the sting out of mishits and turn your bad swings into playable results.  And while there is no argument that some GI irons have tremendous stability and amazing face technology, do they always produce more consistent results than any other type of iron?  The answer is no.

Take this “Busted” with a grain of salt.  The game improvement irons were the most consistent irons in our test.  However, they were not the most consistent for every golfer, every time.

To evaluate consistency, we looked at the range of ball speeds, smash factors, carry and total distances, and left-right dispersion that each golfer produced with each combination.  Roughly two thirds of the time, the game improvement iron was the most consistent, but there were cases where it was the worst.  Most of the additional tests were won by the players distance iron iron, but the blade did squeeze out one victory.

An old saw in club fitting is that a heavier shaft will slow you down, improve your tempo, take the “hit” out of your swing, and generally improve your consistency.  We found no evidence to support this in our testing.  The Heavy shaft produced the most consistent results in about one third of the tests, which is the same as the Medium and Light.

This is a “Busted” you can take to the bank.  You need to find the shaft weight that works with your swing.  Adding extra weight arbitrarily will not improve your consistency.

Can choking up improve your consistency?  Find out HERE

Similar to what we saw with consistency, the GI iron won the majority of our distance testing, but failed to compile a perfect record.  In spite of having the strongest loft and the most forgiveness, the GI iron lost over a third of our tests on carry distance and over a quarter on total distance.

Looking at carry distance, the GI iron won thirteen tests.  The PD iron won eight, and the Blade actually grabbed one victory despite having the weakest loft (yes, this adds up to 22, there was one perfect tie).  Switching to total distance, the GI racked up more wins because of its low spin and superior roll out.  GI won fifteen tests with PD winning the other six.  Interestingly, on total distance, every player produced their best distances with the same iron head regardless of shaft weight.

What this result speaks to is the impact of the iron on a player’s ball striking.  An iron’s look, size, and weighting can have a tremendous impact on a golfer’s ability to find the center of the face.  On paper (or on a robot), the game improvement iron is the longest every time.  In reality, many players will be longer with other types of irons.  

The logic behind this myth seems incontestable: a lighter shaft should allow you to swing the club faster, which should, in turn, produce longer shots.  The reality isn’t so simple.

When we looked at carry distances, we had a surprising barbell result – eight tests won by Light, five by Medium, and eight by Heavy (again, there were ties).  For total distance, it was similar with Light winning eight tests, Medium winning six, and Heavy winning nine.  There was only one sweep across carry and total distance testing.

You may be thinking that these results aren’t too unusual – many players aren’t used to a light shaft, so they weren’t able to convert the extra club speed into ball speed.  But here’s the kicker: the Light shaft didn’t even produce the most club head speed.  Light won just four of twenty one tests for club head speed, and, in some cases, lost by over 2 MPH!

This result continues to make the case that shaft weight is a critical variable in club fitting, and one that can’t be “solved” with old adages.  Try a lot of different shaft weights – the results may surprise you.

While the results haven’t been perfect, the GI irons have been holding their own so far.  Despite two “Busted” myths, the GI irons have proven to be the longest and most consistent, on average.  When it came to accuracy, however, the GI irons were in last place.

I had predicted that the GI iron – with its strong loft and low spin – might not fare well, but I was surprised to see it win just three of the twenty one trials.  The big accuracy winner was the PD iron.  With a slightly weaker loft but still packing a lot of stability, PD won thirteen – over half – of our tests.  The blade iron won five tests, showing that the additional loft and spin can somewhat make up for forgiving technology, at least when it comes to accuracy.

The results of our shaft testing have been remarkably consistent in their myth busting.  Not only was the Heavy shaft unable to sweep the accuracy portion of the program, it didn’t even win.

Looking at average distance from the centerline as well as the total left-right dispersion, the Light shaft was the most accurate, winning ten of our tests.  Heavy came in second with seven wins, followed by Medium with four wins.

I’ll say it again in case the third time is the charm, shaft weight matters a lot, and you can’t easily predict what weight will work best for you.

Opportunities for Further Testing

As if often the case, these results left us hungry to do more testing.  One avenue we’d like to explore is testing with different OEM’s iron heads.  While we would not expect to see much difference in the performance of the blades, it would be interesting to see how different OEMs dial in and contrast the performance of their GI and PD offerings.

The other change we could make would be equalizing the lofts.  Not doing so was an intentional choice for this test for a variety of reasons.  First, most golfers play stock specs, so we used stock specs to make this data applicable to the majority.  Also, we wanted to test the clubs in the way that the OEMs designed them.  Finally, we did not want to open the question of what lofts we would use and how that would bias the test.  For example, if we bent everything to the PD lofts, that could give those irons an advantage due to their offset, bounce, and address look being the way it was designed to be.

If you’re interested in reading about different types of iron heads being tested at the same specs, we have two previous Golf Myths Unplugged where we did that with a focus on distance.  Click on the titles below to read more.

Are Distance Irons Really Longer? from 2014

Are Distance Irons Longer than Blades? from 2019

The Takeaway

To return to the headline question from Part 1, our data suggests that you shouldn’t choose an iron based on your handicap or the shot height you want.  Our testing showed that game improvement irons were not always the highest flying, the easiest to hit, the longest, or the straightest.

Turning to today’s question, yes, game improvement irons can be very helpful, but that doesn’t meant they’re the best choice for any given player.  We saw players who were longer, straighter, and more consistent with “less forgiving” options.

And let’s not forget the importance of the shaft.  Being fit for the right shaft weight can have just as much impact on consistency, distance, and dispersion as choosing the right club head.

The post Do Game Improvement Irons Actually Help? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

A New Perspective on Choosing Irons

One of the best things about hosting the Plugged In Golf Podcast is getting information that I didn’t ask for.

Not long ago, I spoke with two people from Titleist –  Marni Ines, Director of Iron Development, and JJ VanWezenbeeck, Director of Player Promotions – about the new T Series irons [listen HERE].  During that interview, I asked what handicap levels should consider each model, and their response was (I’m paraphrasing), “Don’t think about it in terms of handicap, think about height.”  They went on to explain that their Tour players used to put different shafts in their long irons to achieve higher ball flights, but now they use different heads.

This view on iron fitting is at odds with the way most golfers think, so we decided it would make for an excellent Golf Myths Unplugged.  We weren’t wrong: we got so much data, we’re breaking this into two parts.  Enjoy.  Read Part Two HERE

The Myths

Myth #1 – Game improvement irons always create the highest shot apex

Myth #2 – Lighter shafts always create the highest shot apex

Myth #3 – Heads change apex more reliably than shafts

Myth #4 – Blades always create more spin more than game improvement irons

Myth #5 – Lighter shafts always create more spin 

How We Tested

For this test, we brought together seven golfers with handicaps ranging from 0 to 14.  Each player hit five shots with each of nine combinations – a matrix of three shafts and three iron heads.  Every player used the same matrix but hit the combinations in a different order.

The three shafts were all the same flex but had different weights and flex profiles.  For our purposes, we will refer to them as Heavy, Medium, and Light.  The three iron heads all came from the same OEM and were set to stock specifications.  They will be referred to as Blade, PD (Players Distance), and GI (Game Improvement).

All shots were recorded on Trackman.  All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

We start things off with an unequivocal “Busted” for the idea that game improvement irons will always create the highest shot apex.  In our testing, we saw the GI produce the highest apex in five samples, the PD in nine, and the Blade in eight. GI clubs produced the lowest apexes of any club type.  Each club type also recorded one “sweep” where a given tester produced the highest apex with that club regardless of shaft.

Lighter shafts followed in the wake of GI heads, proving an unreliable way to raise ball flight.  In our tests, we saw the Light shaft record the highest apex nine times, Medium four times, and Heavy eight times.  This “barbell” distribution was interesting to us, though it was one that we do not have an easy explanation for.

The effect of shaft weight was a bit more scattered than club head.  With club heads, every tester saw significant apex differences in every data set.  That was not the case with shaft weight.  In a few cases, the difference between the three shafts was only a couple feet.  However, most data sets did have significant differences and some were in the 20% range.

What we saw across all of this testing is that neither the club head nor the shaft are predictable ways to raise or lower apex.  This data supports something we say frequently, “You can’t fit golf clubs on paper.”

If you’re looking to modify your ball flight, you should examine all options: heads, shafts, and specs.  Also, keep all the important metrics in mind as you’re tinkering.  Changing the shaft might raise your ball flight but hurt your consistency.  A larger head might launch the ball higher, but the look might impact your ball striking.  Try to make the smallest change so that you can maintain consistency throughout your set.

The myths put one in the win column: our Blade iron was higher spinning than the GI iron in every test.  We can attribute this to two factors: the higher CG of blade irons and the weaker lofts.  The Blade iron was the highest spinning in thirteen of our twenty one trials with the PD iron winning the other eight.  Additionally, the Blade iron produced a sweep for three of our seven testers.

The spin gap between the Blade and GI irons was substantial.  In eleven of our data sets, the Blade spun over 1,000 RPM more than the GI iron.  The closest the GI iron got to the Blade was 400 RPM.  While we would still never endorse fitting on paper, it is fairly safe to say that moving from a Blade to a GI iron will reduce your spin.

Opportunities for Further Testing

As if often the case, these results left us hungry to do more testing.  One avenue we’d like to explore is testing with different OEM’s iron heads.  It would be interesting to see if different companies favor higher or lower ball flight with different combinations of CG and loft.

The other change we could make would be equalizing the lofts.  Not doing so was an intentional choice for this test for a variety of reasons.  First, most golfers play stock specs, so we used stock specs to make this data applicable to the majority.  Also, we wanted to test the clubs in the way that the OEMs designed them.  Finally, we did not want to open the question of what lofts we would use and how that would bias the test.  For example, if we bent everything to the PD lofts, that could give those irons an advantage due to their offset, bounce, and address look being the way it was designed to be.

If you’re interested in reading about different types of iron heads being tested at the same specs, we have two previous Golf Myths Unplugged where we did that with a focus on distance.  Click on the titles below to read more.

Are Distance Irons Really Longer? from 2014

Are Distance Irons Longer than Blades? from 2019

The Takeaway

Is changing club heads an effective way to add height to your iron shots?  It can be.  Changing shafts can be, too, but neither one is a guarantee.  As we have consistently seen across our Golf Myths Unplugged testing, a player’s reaction to a given combination of equipment is unique.  If you’re trying to add height to your approach shots, the only surefire way to do so is to get a club fitting and test a variety of heads and shafts.

In part two, we’ll be examining the effects of changing head and shafts on distance, accuracy, and consistency.  Stay tuned!

The post Should You Fit Irons By Handicap? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

Can a Putter Shaft Unlock Your Potential?

For the last couple years, putter shafts have been one of the hottest topics in golf equipment.  They’ve even been the focus of two previous Golf Myths Unplugged – one exploring whether or not they make a difference [read it HERE] and another diving into the benefits of SST PURE for a putter shaft [HERE].

In this edition of Golf Myths Unplugged, we’re getting specific with putter shaft weight.  We know that shaft weight makes a huge difference in the long game, but does it affect putting, too?  And if so, how?  Let’s find out together.

The Myths

Myth #1 – Heavier putter shafts will perform better on short putts

Myth #2 – Lighter putter shafts will perform better on long putts

Myth #3 – Heavier putter shafts will improve consistency

Myth #4 – Putter shaft weight can alter your swing

How We Tested

This Golf Myths Unplugged test was done in two parts.  First, we tested short putts (eight feet).  Each of five players hit seven putts with each putter while being measured by SAM Puttlab.  This testing was done at Club Champion.  Next, we had seven players test each of our putters outdoors on a thirty foot putt.  The putt was straight and nearly flat so that experience did not play much of a role.

For both parts of the testing, we used three putters.  Each putter had an identical SWAG Handsome One head [review HERE] and was built to the exact same specs with the exact same grip.  The only difference was that the putters had a different weight Nippon NS Pro putter shaft [review HERE].  The three shafts weigh 120, 140, and 160 grams, respectively.  Players were not told which shaft was heavier or lighter, and every tester used the putters in a different order.

The Results

Some people preach (and sell) the notion that more weight in a putter will steady the hands, smooth the stroke, and lead to more made putts.  If this is true, we should see that most clearly at short range on a flat, straight putt.  However, that is not what we found.

Whether looking at the SAM Puttlab data or the simple metric of putts made, there was no correlation between heavier weight and superior putting.  Depending on the tester, any of the shafts could be the top performer or the worst of the group.

Our group didn’t see much variance when looking at made putts – these were lower handicappers who made at least five putts out of seven on every series.  Diving deeper into the SAM Puttlab data, we could see more variation from one shaft to the next, but, again, no single shaft was consistently better across our group.  

Just as no single putter shaft dominated our short putting, there was not a clear winner in the long putting.  Looking at the total feet remaining as well as the median leave, some of our seven testers were best with each of the three shafts, and no shaft demonstrated overall superior results.

On the longer putt, the testers expressed stronger feelings about the weights of the shaft.  Players who preferred lighter weight noted that the heavier shafts required too much effort; they didn’t feel that they could be precise.  They also noted that the heavier shaft felt like it gave the ball more speed, that the ball went further given the same stroke.

There were also players who preferred the heavier shaft.  They felt that it created a smoother stroke and that the lighter shaft was too easy to “lose” during the swing.  Also, the heavier shafted required less “hit” or effort to get the ball to the hole.

You can see that both groups are saying nearly the same things, but there’s a difference in which side of the coin they prefer.  Of course, we also had players who liked the middle weight option as it had some of the appeal of each extreme.

It’s worth noting again that every player used the putter shafts in a different order, so no shaft got the benefit of experience.  What we did find interesting is that experience did not seem to help.  The putt we used was almost perfectly flat and straight.  Even with that, we expected some improvement as players got a feel for the distance.  That did not prove to be the case.  Players were as likely to putt best on their first series as their third.

To evaluate this myth, we went straight to our SAM Puttlab data.  SAM Puttlab produces a single number for Overall Consistency for each player and putter that goes through the testing.  Our results – perhaps predictable after you’ve read this far – were mixed.

Two of our short range testers achieved their best Overall Consistency score with the heaviest putter shaft.  In both cases, the lightest shaft was also their least consistent.  Both players saw gains of over 15% by switching to the heaviest shaft.

On the other hand, two testers posted the exact opposite results.  They had their best Overall Consistency with the lightest shaft and their worst score with the heaviest shaft.

Our fifth tester was the Goldilocks of the group.  His best Overall Consistency score came with the middle weight shaft.  Both the lighter and heavier shaft hurt his consistency by roughly 10%.

As we expected, a heavier putter shaft was not better; a better fit putter shaft was better.

For this final myth, we again turned to the SAM Puttlab data.  SAM Puttlab provides information on stroke path, rate of rotation, and several other aspects of the putting motion.  In comparing the three reports that each player generated, we were able to see that putter shaft weight definitely can alter a player’s stroke.

For two of our players, we saw substantial changes to their club path and rate of rotation as we changed putter shafts.  Both players saw reduced arc in their stroke with the lighter shaft.  However, the lighter shaft led one player to keep the club face more square to path, the other was less square to path.  Further, one of these players was best with the light shaft (more made putts, better contact, better consistency), and the other got their worst result from the light shaft.

However, the other three players saw minimal stroke changes across the three series of putts.  Despite a change of as much as 40 grams in shaft weight, their swing stayed consistent.  The shaft changes did affect their quality of impact and their Overall Consistency score, but the stroke looked the same in terms of path and rate of rotation.

Additional Notes

We made several noteworthy observations during our testing.  First, every player was able to correctly identify the heaviest and lightest shaft.  They were not asked to do this, but they would spontaneously say things such as, “Oh, this is much heavier/lighter” with perfect accuracy.

Of further interest is the fact that each player noted a preference.  Some had stronger feelings than others, but every tester would indicate greater or lesser comfort with the different weights.

Most interesting of all is the fact that each player’s preference aligned to their best performance.  In many previous tests, this has not been the case (i.e. a player might prefer Shaft A but perform better with Shaft B).  Also, a player’s strength of preference was reflected in the performance gap.  If a player felt, for example, that the heavy shaft was far too heavy, their performance really suffered.  Players with mild preferences saw smaller gaps between the three shafts.

The Takeaway

The putter was already the most complex club to fit, and now we’ve discovered that there’s another element we need to consider: putter shaft weight.  Across all of our testers, we saw that changing the weight of the putter shaft can help or hinder their putting.  In some cases, the shaft weight can even change the shape of the putting stroke.

If you’re struggling on the greens and want a relatively easy, affordable way to try something new, experiment with putter shaft weight, and trust your feel.  Our test group showed that, at least in this case, golfers instinctively know what works best for them.

The post Does Putter Shaft Weight Matter? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

The Age-Old Battle: Graphite vs. Steel

Despite decades of success on Tour, SST PURE remains one of the most controversial topics in golf.  And since we at Plugged In Golf love nothing more than a spicy comments section, we decided this myth should include not only SST PURE but also the battle between steel and graphite shafts.  Is steel more consistent?  Does only graphite benefit from SST PURE?  Learn all that and more in this edition of Golf Myths Unplugged.

Find our giant SST PURE FAQ HERE

Golf Myths Unplugged puts PUREing to the test HERE

The Myths

Myth #1 – Steel shafts are naturally more consistent than graphite shafts

Myth #2 – Graphite shafts benefit from SST PURE more than steel shafts

Myth #3 – Shafts will PURE to their “logo up” position

Myth #4 – Stiffer shafts don’t need SST PURE as much as softer shafts

How We Tested

For this test, we randomly selected 36 iron shafts from Club Champion’s inventory.  They were a mix of graphite and steel representing all flexes, numerous weights, and almost every major manufacturer.  Each shaft was SST PUREd, and the results of each PUREing were recorded.

All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

The first data point produced by the SST PURE machine is the Load Symmetry Index.  This is essentially a measure of how round the shaft is, with a perfect score being 100.  By this metric, we found no meaningful difference between steel and graphite shafts. 

The average for the steel shafts was 95.2; the graphite shafts averaged 94.8.  Steel had a slightly larger range, and the best graphite shaft scored a fraction of a percent better than the best steel.  Overall, both steel and graphite are impressively consistent.

To test this myth, we looked at the SST PURE’s Out of Plane Oscillation Improvement.  This gives us the percentage improvement from the starting position to the PURE position.  In our sample, we found that graphite shafts did benefit from SST PURE more than steel shafts.

On average, the graphite shafts we tested improved their out of plane oscillation by 75.2%.  The range of improvements ran from 53% to 94.7%.  For steel shafts, the average improvement was 64.7% with a range of 46.4% to 79.9%.

While that is interesting, the bigger point is how much SST PURE improves the performance of both steel and graphite.  Even the very lowest number in the entire test – 46.4% – is a massive improvement.

This myth was shattered.  Among the 18 graphite shafts that we tested, the average SST PURE position was 75 degrees from “logo up.”  This means that if players are installing shafts “logo up,” they are often as far as possible from the PURE position!

Two shafts were two degrees from PUREing to a “logo down” position, but no other shafts were with 15 degrees of the logo.

This final myth also bites the dust.  In our test group, which included some of the same shafts in different flexes, we saw no correlation between flex and Out of Plane Oscillation Improvement.  In fact, a set of regular flex shafts was one of the most consistent in our entire test.

The Takeaway

Modern golf shafts are very high quality products.  To consistently produce shafts that are 95% round is an impressive manufacturing feat.  However, SST PUREing still makes a significant difference in both graphite and steel shafts.

To borrow an analogy that Nick Sherburne uses, modern golf shafts are like Mercedes automobiles.  No one would argue that they aren’t very good.  However, it’s similarly inarguable that a Mercedes-AMG is better.  SST PURE is that extra step, taking something very good and making it great.

Whether you’re playing steel or graphite, regular flex or extra stiff, SST PURE can help you get the most out of your game.

The post What Shafts Need SST PURE the Most? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

Slip Sliding Away…From Par

Lots of golfers take pride in being a “dew sweeper.”  As one of those golfers, I can attest that very little beats the feeling of being the first one on the course.  You set the pace, it’s quiet…what more could you want?

But is that dew spoiling your approach shots?  Can a heavy rain soak your chances for a good score?  For this edition of Golf Myths Unplugged, we tested how water affects approach shots, and the results left us scratching our heads.

The Myths

Myth #1 – A wet club face will reduce spin on wedge shots

Myth #2 – A wet club face will reduce spin on iron shots

Myth #3 – A wet club face will reduce accuracy 

Myth #4 – A wet club face will make shots less consistent

How We Tested

For this test, we brought together six golfers with handicaps ranging from scratch to ten.  Each player hit four series of five shots: wet and dry wedge shots and wet and dry 6I shots.  The same 6I and wedge were used for every player.  Each player hit their shots in a different order so as not to bias for or against any condition.  For the wet shots, the club face was sprayed with water immediately before the shot was struck.  Every shot was measured by Trackman.  All testing was done at Club Champion.

The Results

We’ve all heard about flyers – shots that don’t have their normal spin and soar beyond their expected yardage.  That’s what we expected to see when we soaked the club face in water before each shot…but it’s not.

All six of our testers produced more wedge spin with the wet club face than with the dry club face.  In some cases the difference was marginal – a couple hundred RPM on shots spinning at 8,000 or 9,000 RPM.  However, two of our testers saw increases of over 1,000 RPM.

This runs so contrary to our experience and intuition that we were hesitant to break out the “Busted” graphic, but the data is clear.  That said, we have some further thoughts which we’ll get into at the end.

We reached the same conclusion about the 6I as the wedge – the wet club face actually added spin – but the data was even stronger.  We had one player add almost 2,000 RPM and the smallest gap was 500 RPM.  The most common gap was a full 1,000 RPM.

Knowing that our wet shots spun more than dry ones, we expected that the accuracy would be at least equal.  For once, we were right.  Among our six players, no one was significantly more accurate with the wet or dry shots.  

This held true for wedge shots and 6I shots.  Our testers were equally divided.  Some were slightly better with a dry face, some slightly better with a wet face.  Also, several testers were better in different conditions for different clubs – i.e. they were more accurate with a dry 6I but a wet wedge.

To evaluate this myth, we looked at numerous pieces of data – spin, launch angle, distance, and landing angle.  We were focused on the ranges produced within each set of shots.  We found that in roughly 60% of the cases, the the wet club face produced a larger range of outcomes.

Looking at spin, we saw four of our players generate wider ranges with the wet club face.  For example, a player was between 4,200 and 5,000 RPM with a dry face, but 5,200 and 6,400 with a wet face.  Differences like that translate to larger gaps in carry and total distance.

What should be emphasized is that the biggest consistency killer was switching between wet and dry club faces, particularly with the 6I.  Our players saw carry distance gaps as large as 15 yards because of differences in launch and spin.

The Takeaway

There have been outcomes in the past that surprised us, but this left us completely confused.  It also leaves us hungry to do more testing.  One place to start would be with a different launch monitor.  Would a camera-based system like Foresight produce different numbers?  That’s something we plan to find out.  It’s also possible that flyers have more to do with the interference of grass and debris than water.  This would be a tougher test – indoors or out – but it’s worth exploring.

What do you think?  Do you have a hypothesis or another question for us to test? 

Let us know in the comments section.

The post Can a Wet Club Face Ruin Your Approach? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

Supple Lips + More Fairways?

We usually tackle serious fitting questions on Golf Myths Unplugged, but today we’re switching it up.  After hearing an almost-unbelievable story about a player cheating in a local tournament, we decided to investigate whether chapstick or vaseline on the club face can actually promote straighter drives.

The Myths

Myth #1 – Chapstick on the club face will eliminate slices and hooks

Myth #2 – Chapstick on the club face will improve accuracy

Myth #3 – Chapstick on the club face will reduce spin

Myth #4 – Chapstick on the club face will increase distance

How We Tested

For this myth, we brought together five golfers with handicaps ranging from scratch to twelve.  Each tester hit fifteen total drives with a driver that mirrored their gamer.  Five drives were hit with a clean face, five were hit with a thin layer of chapstick on the face, and five were hit with a slightly thicker layer of Vaseline on the club face.  The order was randomized for each player.  Every shot was measured by Trackman.

All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

*Before we get into it, please note that we’re using “chapstick” as shorthand for either or both of the face lubricants.  We did not find any meaningful distinction between the two substances in our testing.

To evaluate this myth, we started by looking at the curvature as measured by Trackman.  This first glance yielded a mixed result.  There were ten total sets of “lubricated” drives – two each for five players.  In five of these sets, there was less curvature than with the clean face.  Four sets had more curve than the clean face, and one was a tie.  It is worth noting that if we take into account margin of victory, the clean face was better.  The lubricants reduced curvature by a maximum of 10 yards; the clean face was better by as many as 32 yards.

This analysis didn’t take into account the quality of the swings being made, so we dug deeper into the data.  We analyzed the relationship between the Face to Path for each swing and the spin axis and curvature of the shot produced.  This gave us a clearer picture.  One of our testers saw slightly straighter shots with the lubricated face but three saw their shots curve significantly more relative to their Face to Path.

Taking all this into account, our data shows that putting chapstick on the club face does not eliminate or lessen slices and hooks.

The next myth required an analysis of the accuracy of each set of shots.  We started by looking at how close the shots finished to the center line.  In only three of the ten tests did face lubrication yield superior results.  The average gain among those three tests was 5.7 yards closer to center.  Among the seven tests where a clean face was superior, the average improvement was 9.9 yards.

We also looked at the left-to-right dispersion of each set.  Because this data point can be so heavily influenced by out poor swing, the results tend to be more unpredictable.  We found no discernible pattern in our data.  Two players had the smallest dispersion with a clean face, one with chapstick, two with vaseline.  Looking at group averages did not provide any additional clarity.

Overall, we can conclude that accuracy does not improve by putting chapstick on the club face.

For this myth, we looked at the total spin rate produced by each drive.  The expectation was that lubricating the face would reduce spin, but that is not what we found.  On average, the lubricated drives produced 90 RPM more than clean drives.  While one player saw significantly higher spin in both lubricated conditions, most players produced similar numbers with and without chapstick on the club face.

Since we now know that chapstick on the club face does not improve accuracy or reduce spin, we didn’t have much reason to believe that it produced longer drives, either.  Nonetheless, we examined the data.  Looking at total distance, we found that chapstick produced 0.3 yards more distance on average.  Taking this set by set, the lubricants were longer in five, shorter in three, and the same in two.

Interestingly, there was a bigger gap in carry distance.  On average, the chapstick gave our testers 3.3 yards more carry distance.  Drilling down, the lubricants were longer in seven of ten sets, shorter in three.

This difference in carry and total distance results is actually easy to explain.  The one thing that chapstick reliably did for every golfer was increase their launch angle.  Our testers saw a nearly-uniform one degree increase in the lubricated test conditions.  This produced more carry distance but less roll out, netting out to a negligible distance difference.

The Takeaway

I found this to be one of the most heartening results in the history of Golf Myths Unplugged.  Even if someone is cheating by wiping lubricant on their driver face, it’s not providing any real benefit.  They may gain a mental edge by thinking they have a magic driver, but that’s beyond our purview.  Our takeaway is that in the case of kissing your slice goodbye, cheating doesn’t pay.

The post Can You Kiss Your Slice Goodbye? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

A Sea Change or Just a Fad?

If you’ve been following wedges closely for the last few years, you’ve noticed a trend toward higher CG (center of gravity).  If you understand gear effect [learn about it HERE], the reasons for this change are obvious.  Higher CG promotes lower launch and higher spin, meaning wedge shots that look like those of Tour players.  But does it actually work in practice?  Will we see a reversion to low CGs in a couple years?  We did the testing to find out.

The Myths

Myth #1 – Higher CG creates lower launch angles

Myth #2 – Higher CG creates more spin

Myth #3 – Higher CG improves distance control

Myth #4 – Higher CG improves dispersion

Myth #5 – Higher CG creates more consistency

How We Tested

For this Golf Myths Unplugged, we tested three wedges.  One was a major OEM wedge with a low CG, one was a major OEM wedge that claimed a high CG, and the third was an Edison wedge, which has the highest CG available at this time.  All three were built with the same grip and shaft and to the same length, loft, lie specs.

We recruited six testers with handicaps ranging from +2 to 15.  Each tester hit a total of 45 shots – 15 with each wedge, 5 from each lie on the Wittek Tri-Lie Mat [review HERE].  The order of wedges and lies was changed for each tester.

All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

We start with the one unequivocal result in our testing.  Every tester from every lie launched the Edison (highest CG) wedge the lowest.  Additionally, in all but two cases, the lowest CG wedge launched the highest.

The gap between the lowest and highest launching wedges ranged from 1.7 degrees to over 4 degrees, depending on the lie.  From a tight fairway lie, we saw the smallest gap – 1.7 degrees on average.  However, the rough lies with the ball sitting up or nestled down produced differences of 4.1 and 3.3 degrees, respectively.  This indicates an even stronger advantage for the high CG wedge when you’re in trouble.

The takeaway here is simple: if you want to flight lower wedge shots, higher CG is your friend.

Turning to spin, we get a slightly murkier picture.  In five of the eighteen test conditions (six testers, three lies each), the highest CG wedge produced the most spin.  In ten it was in the middle, and in three conditions it was the lowest spinning.

Seeing more muddled results in spin makes sense because spin can be compromised by strike quality and interference between the ball and club face.  It’s also important to note that, in many cases, the gaps between the clubs were quite small.  For one tester, the gap between all three clubs was only 400 RPM out of a total of over 11,000 RPM.

Our distance control conclusion mirrors the previous one.  Out of eighteen test conditions, the highest CG wedge produced the tightest distance dispersion (gap between the longest and shortest shots) seven times.  In four tests it was the worst, in seven it was in the middle.  Again, the differences between best and worst varied.  Sometimes a couple yards separated top from bottom, other times the gap was much larger.

For this myth, there are a few other things to consider beyond the yardages.  First is ball speed.  The Edison wedge produced the highest ball speed and smash factor for every tester.  Our two lowest handicap testers picked up on this immediately and mentioned that it was different than what they were used to.

Another thing to consider is how the ball will fly outside.  It’s possible that the lower launch of a high CG wedge could improve performance in the wind, resulting in better distance control.  Our testing was done indoors, so this is only a hypothesis.

Our dispersion results were more polar than the previous two myths, leading us to deem this inconclusive.  One tester, who games a low CG wedge, could not control the high CG wedge whatsoever.  We had another tester, one of our low handicap players, who threw darts with the high CG wedge.  The other four showed very modest differences between the three wedges.  Three testers had best-to-worst gaps of only two yards.

The only additional note to add here is the same as was mentioned above.  It’s possible that a lower launching wedge shot could perform better in the wind, leading to tighter dispersion.  Again, this is only a hypothesis.

For this final myth, we looked at every part of the wedges’ performance – ball speed, spin, launch angle, and yardage.  While the high CG was not better in every single instance, its performance was strong enough that we rate this “plausible plus.”

The area where we saw the biggest consistency win for the high CG wedge was launch angle.  Especially from the rough, the high CG wedge produced a much more consistent launch angle.  In the most extreme example, a tester hit four consecutive shots within 0.2 degrees of each other, then saw a nearly 7 degree gap between shots with the low CG wedge.

We found similar results – though not as stark – with spin.  The high CG wedge produced tighter ranges of spin more often than not.  As we’ve mentioned, sometimes these differences were not that big – a few hundred RPM – but in a couple instances the high CG wedge produced spin ranges that were 2000 RPM tighter than the others.  The story was the same with ball speed.

Additional Notes

It’s my opinion that this test underrepresents the potential performance benefits of a higher CG wedge.  Of our six testers, four game the wedge we used as our low CG wedge.  One tester, after hitting a high CG wedge, stated that the low CG wedge “feels like home.”  These kind of preferences are unavoidable in human testing, but they should be considered when evaluating the data.

The Takeaway

While OEMs will continue to offer a range of options, I expect the march toward higher CG in wedges to continue.  Especially in the lower lofted wedges, higher ball speed and lower launch are too valuable in bridging the gap to modern iron sets.  If you’re gaming older wedges that aren’t producing the ball flight and consistency you want, it’s time to get fit and explore the benefits of higher CG.

The post Does Higher CG Make Wedges Better? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.

A Long Awaited Sequel

One of the best Golf Myths Unplugged that we’ve ever done was about the effects of PUREing a golf shaft [read it HERE].  I went in skeptical but came away convinced that every golfer should PURE their shafts.

It’s taken several years, but we’re back with a follow up: should you PURE your putter shaft?

How much difference does putter shaft weight make?  Find out HERE

The Myths

Myth #1 – PUREing a putter shaft improves impact location

Myth #2 – PUREing a putter shaft improves stroke consistency

Myth #3 – PUREing a putter shaft improves performance on mishits

Myth #  – Golfers can feel the difference between PURE’d and not PURE’d putter shafts

How We Tested

For this Golf Myths Unplugged, we used two pairs of nearly-identical putters.  All four heads were SWAG Handsome One putters [review HERE].  Two putters were shafted with KBS CT Tour shafts (steel) and two were shafted with Fujikura MC Smooth shafts (graphite, review HERE).  One of the Fujikura shafts was PURE’d, one was not.  One of the KBS shafts was PURE’d, one was not.

Thank you to SWAG, Fujikura, and KBS for their support of Golf Myths Unplugged.

Testing was done in two stages.  First, we had seven players test all four putters on SAM Puttlab.  Each player hit each putter seven times, aiming to make an eight-foot putt.  In the second stage, a different group of seven golfers tested the four putters on a twenty foot putt.  These putts were measured with Foresight CGQuad.

During all testing, the participants were blind to which shafts had been PURE’d and which had not.

All testing was done at and with the help of Club Champion.

The Results

On short putts, we found that PUREing a putter shaft improved the impact location for two of our testers.  PUREing the putter shaft did not negatively impact anyone, but five testers were equally proficient with PURE and un-PURE shafts.  These results were true for both graphite and steel.

When we tested long putts, our results were mixed also.  The PURE shaft outperformed the standard shaft for two testers and underperformed for one.  The other four testers did not show a difference.

This myth cannot be confirmed, but it is possible that that a given player will improve their strike location with a PURE’d putter shaft.

On the short putts with a steel shaft, we saw two players improve their consistency score by more than 2%.  The other five players were within that margin with both steel shafts.  With graphite, three players improved their consistency score by more than 2%.  Again, no player lost more than 2% consistency with the un-PURE shaft.

For our twenty foot putt, PUREing reduced the range of face angle-to-path numbers, though the averages and medians were nearly identical.  All other metrics were very similar.  With the steel shafts, PUREing shrank the range on angle of attack.  No metrics were negatively affected by PUREing.

Though this is not related to consistency, it was interesting to see that PUREing slowed the rate of closure for both steel and graphite shafts.

This myth also receives a rating of plausible, though it leans slightly closer to confirmed.  We saw only positive affects of PUREing, but they were not that large and they were not seen in all golfers.

Understanding this myth is much more straightforward, though the results were still muddled.  On our longer putt, we had players intentionally strike a series of putts on the heel and toe and evaluated the results.

With both steel and graphite, PUREing did not show any benefits for preserving distance or distance consistency.  This is one segment of the testing where a putting robot would have been useful, as I suspect some players unintentionally swung a bit harder to compensate for their mishits.  It would also be interesting to run this test again on an even longer putt.

For start line, we saw a slight advantage for the PURE’d graphite shaft.  With steel, there was not any difference.

Because start line is such a critical element in making putts, even a small improvement merits rating this myth as plausible.

After hitting both steel or graphite putters, I asked each player to identify the PURE’d shaft and rate their level of confidence.  Our testers spanned a large range with confidence – as high as 8 and as low as 3.  Regardless of confidence, not one golfer in our test correctly identified both PURE’d shafts.

Interestingly, our testers were no better at identifying the PURE’d steel than the PURE’d graphite.  Half were right about steel and half were right about graphite.  I suspected that given the lively feel of the Fujikura MC Smooth PUREing that shaft might make a bigger difference, but I was incorrect.

The Takeaway

PUREing your putter shaft definitely won’t hurt your performance, but you may not see any improvements either.  It should also be stressed that if there are improvements, they will be measurable but not noticeable to the naked eye.

My personal feeling is that if you’re going to invest in a premium putter shaft in the hopes of finding those marginal gains that add up over time, there’s no reason not to PURE it.  As with the shaft itself, the results won’t be as dramatic as finding the right driver shaft, but the margin for error on the green is much smaller, too.

The post Should You PURE Your Putter Shaft? – Golf Myths Unplugged appeared first on Plugged In Golf.