I stand by my statement. Miss a cavity-back sweet spot by 3/8" or more and you’ll definitely know it…unless you just started playing golf, then you’re just trying to figure out which hand goes on the end of the grip. But a far more common mishit (swing error) by a handicap golfer that is learning to swing a club is throwing the clubhead ahead of the shaft. The cavity-back iron will report this back to the golfer very effectively…along with all the other swing errors you can think of. It’s not like a cavity-back iron cannot be mishit, or does not report back a mishit or bad swing to the golfer. It’s not THAT forgiving!
GolOw,
what about upright lie angles?
we know industry standards have shifted considerably more upright over the past 20 years…why?..for what/who’s benefit?
we here at ABS really believe this lie angle situation to be a detriment to most people’s games…do you know why we would take such an idea to heart?
as it is again another factor of recent design that is really at the core of is change for the better with all these equipment ideas…such as the need for lighter clubs/longer clubs/less lofted clubs/perimeter weighted clubs/lower COG/square grooves/ and the countless other things they have altered …they all intertwine…can you alter one thing without being abusive to another excellent part of club design that didn’t need altering?
It’s such a subjective argument, and as I’ve said, to each his own. I choose to use Hogan gear from the 80’s and a driver that’s about 12 years old… but that’s my choice and it’s not necessarily “right”.
What I find interesting in these discussions (and I understand they’re just that… internet forum discussions involving multiple participants with quite divergent points of view) is the equal weight we give to anyone who chooses to post. At some point don’t we defer just a little to the “experts”? In this case I’m talking about those who have played at a very high level through a couple of decades in which we saw a dramatic change in the equipment. I’m not talking about going from hickory to steel, but rather another era in which the equipment changed quite dramatically. Maybe it’s just me, but when the discussion becomes this subjective and I have to choose sides I’m going with those who I feel are in a position to provide some level of OBJECTIVE opinion, based on personal experience!
No offense to Styles (brother… I appreciate your opinion and your quest to get to scratch) or to Go Low (I’m not sure exactly what your skill or experience levels are…it seems you have a reasonable handle on the game), but I’m a bit surprised at how the opinions of Lag and Twomasters are sort of brushed off as if they were just your ordinary everyday golf forum posters espousing personal opinions. 
I don’t think there are many internet sites out there that have professional event winners POSTING regularly. Manzella.com doesn’t, LBG.com doesn’t, Iseek.com doesn’t, Hardy.com doesn’t, Medicus.com doesn’t, etc. Not that it’s a pre-requisite for having a website, but in my opinion it is a differentiating factor when it comes to certain topics.
Bottom line… for some arguments I defer to those who in my opinion have earned the title of expert.
robbo
Some people are not going to “get” the flat gear concept. There is this ingrained belief that clubs should be fit to a players swing… their existing swing. So they get fitted … end of story as far as gear, then it’s all about making THAT swing work with their upright gear. If someone hands them a flat club, the hit like garbage because their swing is based upon upright gear, and yes… they hit the ball way right, often fat with horrible toe heavy divots.
If you question flat gear you should… just like anything in life. However, just because you question it, does not mean it is incorrect. It might be because you simply don’t understand. If you were to instead question upright gear, then you are making the first move toward better ball striking.
Someone once questioned that the world was flat. That question was very much against the popular opinion of the time. But it was the right question to ask… if you wanted to know or work toward the truth. Columbus or Magellan. It took some guts, some determination and some faith to prove it. I am sure there were many naysayers that claimed he just parked the ship out of view down the coast and returned 8 months later.
You simply won’t know the truth, even your own truth until you both understand, and learn to apply properly the principles of flat lie angles.
There a geometric reasons. There are physics reasons. There are biomechanical reasons. There are health reasons (back)
There is also an array of historical support for the concept.
1 Like
Go Low…can you reconcile your two statements. Now before you do however, keep in mind I am sacrificing my Bishop as your Queen is in the crosshairs…checkmate in three posts, maybe four, if you fail to move properly.
Gotta love this…Golfchess on Christmas Eve 
RR
Once someone understands the geometrical advantages (alone) to going flat, then there is simply only one way to go. Unless you want to make the game tougher than it needs to be of course, which would make no sense at all. 
1 Like
For me, the best way to compare cavity backs and frying pans would be to compare riding a bicycle to riding a tricycle.
A young kid could start out on a trike or a bike. Overall, a tricycle is less involving. Less coordination, less
mobility, less fear of falling over, less skill and balance needed to get from point A to point B. Just like golf.
If you grew up riding a trike, and saw the big kids riding them also in college, and then the pros riding them into million dollar mansions… then you might just stick to the trike, ride it around and learn to do tricks on it and so forth.
Does that mean however, that you can ride a two wheel bike? No, it does not. Same with golf.
Could the modern tour players play gear that is more difficult to master as effectively as players from 30 years ago? It’s simply an unknown. Some I’m sure could, just fine… others might not so well, and some might be really horrible if not totally incompetent. Take away the training wheels, put them on an obstacle course and less that perfect putting surfaces and the whole thing would change in a hurry… if both the men and woman tour pros where to suddenly have to get around the golf course on two wheels.
Golf is not the same game. There is a reason you hear all this stuff from guys like Johnny Miller, and Faldo, and Nick Price
because they know.
Two different things.
New clubs will not improve or correct a poor swing. If you don’t make changes to improve or correct a poor swing…you will swing the new clubs just as poorly.
Using a forgiving club will allow the student to see improvement as they attempt to improve their swing while still receiving feedback from their mishits…caused by a poor swing.
Two,
Your opinion, which I respect but happen to disagree with, is counter to 99.999% of all the professional golfers, clubmakers and instructors/swing coaches around the world. Why? Let’s forget about the handicappers, the hackers with poor swings that might find some help with overly upright lie angles or hook-faced drivers. Let’s focus instead on the elite golfers of the world, the top instructors and swing coaches in the world, the highest quality clubmakers in the world. Why do the best professional golfers in the world play with (+ or - 2*) standard lie angles, which you believe are way too upright? Could they all be ignorant? Are they unwilling to try 6* flat lie angles? Why do they oppose your view? Why do the best instructors/swing coaches oppose your view? Why do the clubmakers oppose your view?
My turn…
Go Low…Two individuals come to you for lessons accompanied by their families, but you can only fit one of those individuals into your schedule.
One person is blind and the other deaf. Which one would you choose to work with, and why? 
RR
But why do you disagree about upright lie angles? Why do YOU think they are OK…not what the industry says about them.
Do you firmly believe they are healthy? If so then you don’t understand the golf swing properly
Coaches of the swing don’t have a clue because they weren’t good players themselves, so they base their teaching on observation not their own self testing
Equipment has slowly become cast and unbendable over the years giving golfers no option but to try and adjust to ill fitted equipment
Clubmakers oppose this view because when they make clubs they set them up in design with the chopper in mind. A young golfer gets his first set from his parents. they are light and upright …so he knows no better… it is a cycle that has been happening for over 20 years or more hence today’s players using this stuff because 1) they know no better…2) they are offered no other option and 3) the coaches of today learned from books and not from real life playing experience
man…just sit outside your mind for a second and think about another viable view instead of believing what you have been told.
Go Low, just curious …
In the case of:
flatter lies vs. upright lies or
blades vs. cavity backs,
you seem to prefer the opposite of what the bulk of the people at ABS seem to prefer. That in itself is perfectly fine, but it also tells me that you either don’t agree with or understand (or perhaps want to understand) the reasoning behind ‘flatter lies’ and ‘anti-perimiter weighting’. MMmhhh, maybe you work for Ping or Callaway 
Furthermore, your argument that the world’s best players play 2degrees upright lies for instance just doesn’t cut it for me. It’s an assumption that their setups are optimal for them. We don’t know the reasons behind their decisions to play these setups. For all we know the manufacturers might have persuaded or convinced them to play these upright lies because some number on a computer screen says that’s what they should use. I’m not saying I believe this, but just that we don’t know what we don’t know.
On the blades vs. cavity back debate, I’d like to suggest you take a look at Michael Lavery’s Whole Brain Power stuff. Can you relate to what it is he is trying to convey?
Not Two, but I hope you don’t mind if I respond. GoLow, its a completely understandable question but again it seems driven by a belief that elite players of this generation have better golf swings than their predecessors. Do you believe that this is true? 
All things being equal will you take Westwood over Hogan, Mickelson over Snead or Woods over Trevino as far as the model of how to strike a ball from point A to point B is concerned? This is not to demean the abilities of the modern names I have mentioned though I am sure those who choose to interpret it as such will do so 
It is simply the case that the elite players of this generation have developed swings and overall games that maximise the equipment on offer and which best suit the tournament courses and conditions that they play. Good for them, no one can or should blame them for that. So upright swings tend to be good for distance and today’s tour courses, in relative terms, put a primacy on distance and a very sharp short game over driving accuracy or long iron play. One only has to check that lack of linkage between driving accuracy and ranking on tour to see that is the case. The long iron has been almost eliminated from the modern game. So if driving accuracy and long iron play (so long the hallmark of great ball strikers) is relatively less important than in the past it is no surprise that the types of swings we see now reflect that. So to come back to your questions I would personally be happy to concede that the best current professional golfers choose to follow the path that will bring them the most success. But whether the swings of elite players today represent the high point of technical proficiency the golf swing has ever reached, I’m not so sure.
Happy Xmas to you.
Arnie
robbo,
I kind of gathered you were thinking along those lines.
You are correct, these discussions are just that - just discussions. I believe Lag is okay with having discussions, and actually welcomes it…which is healthy. If not, of course, he can say so.
I have praised Lag for his fabulous communication skills and his fantastic abilities to convey “body feels” and “intentions” in the written word. I think he’s dead-on the mark. I have no problem with the swing method he teaches. I admire him for his truthfulness when he talks about his own experiences with swinging versus hitting. It appears to me that Lag is well-versed and really understands the wide range of methods to propel a golf ball. It’s also clear to me that Lag would prefer to draw a line in the sand and cap things as they were 30 years ago…and he also (obviously) has a strong love affair with persimmon and old blade clubs. I think that’s great!
I do not, however, believe Lag’s swing method requires the use of persimmon and old blade clubs, which is something Lag has agreed is not [absolutely] necessary to learn his method of hitting a golf ball. Nor do I believe abnormally flat lie angles are required to learn Lag’s swing method, which is something I believe Lag almost certainly disagrees with me about. We do not fully have the same view about modern-day golf courses. And we do not have the same view about modern-day equipment. That’s okay however because it’s just a view…an opinion. Lag is an intelligent man and he knows people have differing views and opinions about things, including golf related things (courses, equipment, swings, rules, etc., etc.). Again, it’s a discussion. It’s not him, or me, saying “you are wrong”.
If you, as an ABS student (I’m assuming), want Lag’s ABS message board forum to only have like-mined opinions and views - or only be made available to ABS students only, then that’s something that is between you and Lag. Keep in mind however, I am not criticizing anything - and in particular I am not criticizing the main purpose you are an ABS student (I assume), which is to learn Lag’s swing method. As you probably already know there are numerous golf related message board forums that have cliquish members. They only want like-mined members so they can always agree with one another - and preach to the choir. Do you really want that? Does Lag want that? Would it be healthy? I’m sure Lag has an opinion about that…and if I was to place a bet I’d say he welcomes a difference of opinion with a mature discussion.
As for “choosing sides”. There’s no need to choose sides - there’s nothing to choose sides about! Do you “choose sides” when you are making a choice between ordering lasagna or spaghetti and meat balls, or when choosing between a Titleist golf ball or a TaylorMade golf ball? I can answer that for you - no you don’t “choose sides”. What you do is experiment over time to determine which you like better. There is no right or wrong decision. Swinging or hitting - both methods are effective. You may have an opinion on which swing method is best for you, but you are not “choosing sides” or (hopefully not) saying that one method (or someone’s opinion) is right or wrong.
As for “going with those who I [you] feel are in a position to provide some level of OBJECTIVE opinion, based on personal experience”, I’ll say this. Both Lag and Twomasters have tremendous personal experience, but (with reference to training and playing with persimmon woods and old blade irons as well as really flat lie angles) they are the only two “experienced” people I’m aware of that endorse such a thing. Are they wrong? Nope! This is what they suggest and encourage based on their beliefs and experience. Does there view agree with any other experienced people such as top 100 golf teachers, tour player swing coaches, professional tour players, clubmakers in recent decades? The answer is no. I’m not putting Lag or Twomasters on any lesser experienced level than those thousands of people just mentioned, but the truth of the matter is - there is a definite difference of opinion wouldn’t you say? Do you “choose sides”? No, you logically access and experiment. Who knows, maybe 30 years from now all golf club makers will be making clubs 6* flatter, or all the pros will be playing with 6* flatter clubs and the hackers will be playing with 6* more upright clubs.
I would choose the blind individual because I could communicate with him or her.
My swing, as well as the swings of many others (including PGA tour players) works just fine with standard lie angles…or within a couple degrees of standard.
A better choice to ask that question of would be the top 125 players on each tour worldwide. It’s my understanding they are pretty good at what they do…and like most experts they are never satisfied and always looking for improvement, thus I can only assume they have experimented with flat lies clubs as well as numerous other changes and alterations to better their swing and better their game. Do you have any thoughts on what the best tour players in the world would say in response to your questions and statements?
I play modern blade irons myself, just not the old stuff.
I never said “the world’s best players play 2degrees upright lies”.
I think the reason for the ABS abnormally flat lie angles is to get on (or close to) the flatter elbow plane, which is desirable when the swing is more radial (circular arc) with the club coming from well inside and powered by a very aggressive lower body pivot drive and active hands with a left pull-in movement post impact in an attempt to sustain a rearward lagging club shaft through impact (the latter of which is not possible in my opinion) - with the mental thought of actually increasing the clubhead’s accelaration rate beyond impact with the ball (which is not possible in my opinion).
Hi Arnie,
We agree that current players should “maximize the equipment to best suit the tournament course and conditions they play”. However, I purposesly left out of your quote that they should maximize the equipment “ON OFFER”. The pros can (and most often do…especially in the case of top players) play with whatever clubs they wish that best suits them. They have choices. It’s totally up to them to choose what equipment they play. They are not puppets.
Comparing modern players to older players will never be answered or known. My guess is that all the top players of yesteryear would blend-in (interweave in ranking position) with all the top players of today and shove the lower ranking players even lower in ranking. My guess is also that the greats of yesteryear would adopt very nicely to modern equipment and course conditions and be just as competitive. Likewise, my guess is that the current greats would adopt very nicely (but not quiet as quickly) to the old equipment and course conditions and be just as competitve. But…who is to say for sure one way or another. Woods, at his best, may make Hogan or Nicklaus or Palmer, at their best, look less then what we remember of the old greats. Nicklaus has said so. Palmer too. Who knows? No one ever will…
Merry Christmas to you! 
I believe clubhead “impact” with the golf ball will slow a 100mph clubhead down to about 66mph from what I recall. When we strike a golf ball with the clubhead the clubhead slows down. The intent or mindthought may be to actually increase the clubhead speed or rate of acceleration, but it’s not possible according to experts.
Also, according to experts the club shaft does is not lagging when the golf ball is hit, but actually bends forward of the shaft’s CL axis. In a good swing it “feels like” the shaft is lagging, but in reality it’s not. Maybe it takes a zillionth of a second to transmit the feel to our brains. Dunno. I think there’s a lot of “feels” and “intentions” that play a significant part in effectively swinging a golf club.