Talk:Golf club

Initial comments

Terminology.. or is it kidology? I keep seeing the term oversize when referring to clubs. As a 6ft 4inch giant I am interested in clubs that are oversize ..i.e. longer - but the term oversize seems to be splashed around as marketing speak to cover large head size can an explanation of the term be added?Pete Yates (86.141.74.91 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As a non golfer i have found these pages useful. However a defn of a Niblick and a Mashie would be useful, as would help understanding "sweet spots" shaft stiffness and why the cc of a wood head is important. Rich Farmbrough 21:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, could some one who knows about these things add in a treatise on perimeter weighting and blade clubs - and explain the diffference between the two types of golf clubs. also a discussion about the different types of putters out there: from the heel-toe to the various others (i forget their names) would be very helpful.-Ben

This article contradicts itself

The fourth paragraph starts out: "A typical set of clubs generally consisted of 3 woods, 2 wedges, a putter, and 8 irons, numbered 3-9, and a pitching wedge." That totals 15. The opening sentence says "A golfer is allowed to carry up to fourteen clubs." If these are both true, then we must assume that the typical golfer carries more clubs than is allowed. This is why I stay off golf courses, to stay away from all those cheaters, not because of any deficiency in my game ;-) Chris the speller 15:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gave everyone a chance to fix the glaring error, but ended up fixing it myself. Chris the speller 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording was a little vague, but it really IS 14 clubs. 3 woods, 2 wedges, a putter = 6. plus 8 irons: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW. I'll fix it back.

As a completely novice golfer living in a very remote area, I have found it almost impossible to get good advice about what to look for when buying my first set of clubs. What is the difference btween mens and womens clubs, what is included in a basic set, how much does a persons height/weight affect their choices etc. can anybody out there explain things reasonably clearly? _____

I keep 17 clubs in my bag for normal play/practice. 1-9, pw,gw,sw,lw - Drv, 3hyb and 4hyb. When entering a tournament or engaging in some type of match play I pull three clubs from my bag. Sometimes 1,2&3 irons. I have even played all irons and left Drv 3 & 4 Hybrids out. Depends on course and wind conditions. The driving range does not provide the real experience you need with a club to trust it in a clutch situation. My playing partners know I am over during "fun rounds" and know I play only 14 during the real deal.

Hybrids

Should hybrids be considered a type of golf club or a sub-type of the wood type? Just like wedges are sub types of irons.

_____

Hybrids are half iron - half wood... and I mean purpose or usage of club not the materials used in construction. It is therefor neither a sub-type of wood nor iron but something new evolved from the two.

__________

I agree that this article contradicts itself. When describing Forge Clubs vs. Casted Clubs, in one paragraph it says that casted irons are preferred by low-handicappers and forged are preferred by high-handicappers. In another paragraph, it's said that forged clubs have more workability. Workability is a characteristic that is desired by low-handicappers, who according to this article prefer cast irons.

Low handicappers may prefer forged irons for their better feel, but this is by no means a standard. Some pro's still play cast iron cavity backs because they provide some extra forgiveness. The forging process doesn't create more workability and the casting doesn't make a club more forgiving - that's done by varying clubhead design.

It is, however, easier to create large cavities by casting. Try hammering a large cavity in the back of a molten piece of metal without totally messing it up. A muscle back cast iron won't be easier to hit than a forged muscle back. It's just that if you're good enough to hit a muscle back properly, you'll most like want that extra feel that comes with forging. So many companies use casting for their game improvement irons and forgings for their players irons, hence the belief that better players prefer forged irons and higher handicappers prefer cast irons. Which is wrong - if you are a great ball striker but have a terrible short game, you might prefer forgings and still have a high handicap, and vice-versa. Now someone correct the article.

why dont YOU correct it and stop spamming this page with your golf related crap. Tell it to someone who wants to hear, this isnt a forum.

Removed "trigraph" reference.

I couldn't find ANYTHING on google about trigraph shafts or triangle shafts, outside of wikipedia or articles that directly copied it. Therefore it's now gone.

Removed reference to "Bennett Club".

I have neither heard of nor could find a single reference to any golf club called a "Bennett Club" (checked Google and Yahoo). Even if it were to exist, it would not be a standard name for a golf club. Also, the paragraph was unecessary and only an attempt at humor, given it's reference to someone missing a bus and screaming after it. It has been removed. Thunderstorm144 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland golf bad link

The wiki link for Cleveland Golf should be http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cleveland_Golf

I don't know how to change it. Do the honors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Putters

Should something be mentioned about long putters and belly putters?Vince220 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long?

This article is getting a bit long. There is lots of information here, but I'm not sure that an article on general golf equipment should go into as much detail as it does. That being said, the information seems to be very good and for the most part correct (Thanks, Liko81!). So, I propose that the article be split into articles such as Wood (golf), Iron (golf), Shaft (golf), etc. I'd hate to see this information go to waste (either by being reverted or by getting lost in the depth of this article), but I do think that this article's scope is currently too broad. Regards, Rahzel 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have to admit the article's getting there. What if this article is generalized to contain only summary information about the construction and function of a golf club that applies to all clubs (which would reduce the article to a third of its current length at least), then create iron (golf), wood (golf), and putter (golf) articles with the specifics of design, construction and purpose for each class. This article will then only need a short paragraph with the barest summary of the class of club and a reference to the main article for each class. The more specialized variations of club (wedges, belly putters) can be sections of their parent type. While players know that hybrids are really a class unto themselves, there isn't a lot of information in the article about them, so I'm hesitant to give them their own article. I think overall their design has more directly in common with woods, so my vote is that "hybrid clubs" becomes a section in the wood (golf) article.Liko81 13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this solution. I would even go so far as to say that creating an individual article on Hybrids would not be a bad idea--we could certainly fill it with plenty of information (history of hybrids, similarities and differences to irons/woods, etc). But I could go along with putting hybrids in with the woods article, as well. Let's see if anyone else chimes in with opinions, but I think all this sounds pretty reasonable! Regards, Rahzel 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one else has any bright ideas. If you think you can find enough information on hybrids for it to become its own article, the resulting structure would be more normalized. I will leave that article to you and work on developing irons and woods. Liko81 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The golf types should have their own articles, while you keep golf club construction and characteristics in the main article. Very simple. JAF1970 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the (50?) links to golf club that were intended to be to a non-existent article about golf country clubs should be moved to country club leaving this article only about the equipment, which should be renamed Golf club. I think that when people were say writing about Winged Foot Golf Club and they wrote, Winged Foot Golf Club is a 36-hole golf club they saw the link turn blue and never checked to see that it went to a disambiguation page instead... Come on folks, always check where a link goes! 199.125.109.58 (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the move. Neither the institution nor the piece of equipment is overwhelmingly the common useage. Andrewa (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even an article about the institution, other than a one line poorly crafted/erroneously worded stub that was recently created. I'm not sure how you can even consider there to be any comparison between the two. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm a bit surprised that the golf club (institution) article is so recent and basic, but it's a start, and there's no reason we shouldn't have one, as we have for yacht club for example. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I'm not sure why this is even debated. The fact that we have no other article named golf club is an indication of the primary usage. The other kind of golf club is covered by country club and golf course, and the fact that so many erroneous links were made - and it's not as if we're breaking them, they never went to the right place - is not an argument against moving. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - in fixing the links, some were moved to country club and some to golf course, as appropriate. I left the Winged Foot article as an example of what was done wrong. The rest have been fixed. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). To me, 'the fact that so many erroneous links were made' indicates the term is ambiguous . --Kusunose 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word baseball is ambiguous, but no one would think of using it as a disambiguation page. Same for football, or basketball. It is the responsibility of editors to check to see if a link goes where they think it goes. There weren't that many links that got changed. There were more links to golf club which referred to golf club (equipment) and were not changed, in anticipation of the article being moved. Giving odd names to articles will not help. This article is clearly the primary use of the term golf club - after all it has already been split into four subarticles. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Under "Club Types" heading, why are there two sub-headings labeled "Wedges"?

It seems like they should be combined, or one eliminated. Usuallylogical (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic names

The Club names and attributes section has a lot of redundancies with earlier sections, the distances don't add much, and the misuse of archaic names of clubs is totally unacceptable. The spoon, mashie, and niblick deserve mention in this article, but in a history of golf clubs section, not here. I'm deleting this section, and will write the club history section soon. Eaglebreath (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable physics

"These shafts offer the same flex throughout most of the shaft, in order to attain the "whip" required to propel the ball properly..." Show me the physics behind this sentence! Since golf swing is a constantly accelerating movement through the impact zone there cannot be any whip-like effect. Right? --192.100.124.218 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

grooves do not impart backspin to the ball, it is friction between the ball and clubface which does this. in fact, a grooveless sandblasted wedge can provide greater spin under dry conditions. what the grooves do is to take in liquified grass and mud which is trapped between the ball and clubface at impact, thus maintaining direct contact between the two. this is essentially the same as the treads in a car tyre channelling water away - note that slick tyres are used in races under dry conditions, as they maximise surface area and therefore friction (or grip)93.147.34.155 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

References

^ Insert footnote text here

Requested move ('11)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. No article is located at Golf club (institution), and disambiguation is possible via hatnote, so no extra clicks are added for readers seeking Country club. - GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golf club (equipment) → Golf club – Primary topic. Page views: (equipment) 31,890, (partial topic match) 7,352. A hat note ought to clear up the disambiguation. Marcus Qwertyus 09:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I not believe that either Golf Club (an organisation or location for playing golf) or Golf Club (playing equipment) have primacy over the other. In normal use they are distinguished by context - "my golf clubs are at the golf club".WhaleyTim (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Golf club (institution) isn't even an article (it's a redirect), making a disambiguation page wholly unnecessary. Just make this the primary topic and have a prominent hatnote to Country club. Powers ^T 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary topic, as shown by the stats above. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golf club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105015829/http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0%2C28136%2C1596949%2C00.html to http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0%2C28136%2C1596949%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golf club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209053433/http://www.usga.org/about_usga/history/USGA-History-1911-1930/ to http://www.usga.org/about_usga/history/USGA-History-1911-1930/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Putting wedge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Putting wedge and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Putting wedge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anieukir (article contribs).