I’ll give the stock shafts a good try.
Persimmon Woods Comeback....
Maybe, instead of the ball roll back, the USGA could have outlawed all hollow-body head construction (irons &/or woods - whether filled with goo or not). 
CallMeAl Anybody want Ping laminated woods?? Call Whirlaway in Methuen or maybe Haverhill MA… they are the biggest outlet for crap you’ve ever seen. I call it “The Golf Museum”. So they have a one of those Al Czervick golf bags FULL of them. This is the place that still has original sets of Ping Eye 2 irons.
garyt1957 Agreed many players from the past (Nicklaus etal) have said instead of ball reel back take the 460cc behemoth driver size down to 250cc and that would cut down on the huge misses spray and pray. Most good PGA guys would use a 3 wood like club go from 350 yards to 275 - 290. Manufacturers would quickly put that down.
scotts33 they won’t go that short, the deep face 3 woods are still cannons. I still use the original “fankenwood”, x-hot 3-Deep, I occasionally get it over 3 bills and that’s on courses that are no where near as tight and fast as they play.
I agree in principal, manufactures want to advertise distance, so they aren’t giving up selling their golden goose. They are just going to hope the rules go to a tour ball instead of applying to everyone.
DC300 they won’t go that short, the deep face 3 woods are still cannons. I still use the original “fankenwood”, x-hot 3-Deep, I occasionally get it over 3 bills and that’s on courses that are no where near as tight and fast as they play.
Agreed and since fairway woods aren't under any COR rules they are hotter than drivers.
- Edited
I was thinking that fairway woods were subject to the COR limit. It took me some searching, but I found this written by Tom Wishon on a post on GolfWRX.
When the COR rule first went into effect in 98, it was created specifically for heads of 15* loft and lower, meaning it was aimed at drivers, chiefly because the USGA believed wrongly at that time that it would be impossible to make a fairway wood or any other head type to have a high COR face. They felt that the typically smaller size/area of fwy wood heads, iron heads, etc would never allow designers to achieve as high of a COR as was possible with drivers with their far larger size/area for the face.
.
That was proven wrong in 2004 so from that point on, the USGA's COR rule was extended to cover ALL clubheads. So it is possible today for a fwy wood, or a hybrid or even an iron to be designed with a COR in excess of the 0.830 limit and if so, it will be declared to be non conforming.
- Edited
sdandrea1 I even built my own whipping station. I still have whipping thread and the associated tools.
I did that also about 20 years ago. I used a BBQ grill rotisserie motor, what did you use? I didn't whip the end of
the shaft though, I used it to whip the hosel end of the head instead of a ferrule. I ended up also using it to whip
a pool cue grip. that worked too. It turned slow enough that I could follow along with the thread, keeping it tight
as the clubhead or pool cue turned. I think I may still have it somewhere in my basement, not sure though.
7 days later
- Edited
I received my new Eye irons. Matching 3-W. Pretty decent shape all the way around.
They are black dot and are pretty flat by my standards. But I can play them.
Specs:
1 16.0° 58.0° 39.75"
2 18.5° 58.5° 39.25"
3 21.5° 59.5° 38.75"
4 25.0° 60.0° 38.25"
5 28.5° 61.0° 37.75"
6 32.0° 61.5° 37.25"
7 36.0° 62.5° 36.75"
8 40.0° 63.0° 36.25"
9 45.0° 64.0° 35.75"
PW 50.5° 64.5° 35.50"
SW 57.5° 64.5° 35.25"
LW 61.0° 64.5° 35.00"
sdandrea1
Have you ever played these Steve? In looking at them, I think they will be higher-flying than the Eye 2. They are really low profile. When I had the Eye 2+ (that I bought from you), I was impressed by the flighting. The short irons did not fly high like a typical GI iron does. It was very unique. OTOH these Eyes look like launchers.
I won't find out for a week or more.