Question

805 viewsOctober 16, 2023

Christopher Snow 71 October 15, 2023 0 Comments

The longest (distance, not length) driver I ever had was a face weighted 9.5 degree Golfworks “Jumbo” driver. I played it then–it’s still shafted with the same shaft today–an EI-70 “Tour X” shaft. I believe it was Dynacraft which published a “shaft/shaft speed/shaft weight/shaft flex” guide about then, and IIRC, it was actually a mid-mid high stiff shaft. Not particularly expensive, and no cutting edge shaft or shaft tip dynamics. Can’t remember the launch angle, although I probably still have the Dynacraft publications somewhere among the old club-buildings/golf magazine collection.

The “Jumbo” head was probably a slightly sub-standard size even in footprint size then, and certainly compared to the new (then) Big Berthas. It was a Jumbo not because of it’s size, but because of the size of the golfer who popularized it it: Jumbo Ozaki. A BIG man for a Japanese, although perhaps only slightly larger than the average North American or European golfer of the same era. But also also fit. Not carrying much of a waist bag handicap as were some similar stars back then, and he rolled his driver a long way.

So, since I don’t–can’t–seem to find any such similar face thick/face weighted driver heads today, I’ll ask why they fell out of favor. Any particular reasons? Just not popular enough as far as sales? Was the idea just a “one-hit-wonder”/”flash-in-the-pan?”

I’ll ask this too because a lot of golfers still seem to prefer irons with little or no increasing progressive offsets. Among those offered by Golfworks are the DBM’s and identical (but for chrome finish) TE’s, both of which sport the same 0.100″ offset throughout the set.

[I currently play the DBM’s myself, FWIW]

If I understand things correctly, irons like these are effectively face-weighted even further than are progressive offset clubs as the lofts decrease, but this widens the gap even further too as you move to hybrids and then fairway woods–the C.G.s move further back in both the latter, so that gap is necessarily wider, unless I’m missing something.

So what AM I missing as to the reasoning why there are nothing like that ol’ (relative to today’s heads) face-weighted beasts from the past?

Britt Lindsey Answered question October 16, 2023

1 Answer

You are viewing 1 out of 1 answers, click here to view all answers.

Answer 1 · 2023-10-17T12:33:32+00:00

I would have to go back to see what we said about whatever driver you are referring to, specifically as to why it was promoted as “face weighted”. Been doing this a long time and don’t remember designing anything like that. Might have been before I got to The Golfworks. Of course there certain models that we try to keep the cg a little more forward than back, usually those targeting players that do not need to hit it higher. Still, that has nothing to do with the face thickness. For decades now, have high strength thin faces on drivers is what you have to have to produce the CT (Characteristic Time) you need to help generate the ball speeds and spin rates to get performance up to the limit that the USGA has designated. That’s the story on drivers.

On irons, the range or variation in forward or rearward CG locations in much less than in hybrids, fairway woods or drivers. That is fairly obvious I would think. Offset or a progressive offset does aid in moving it back some in the longer irons which is seen as a feature to help get the lower lofted long (or now middle irons) up in the air. That being said, loft is the major factor in trajectory for all clubs and in irons, difficult to move a cg far enough back to make a big difference in trajectory. It is a minor factor in irons. When we design offset, we look at many things when deciding if a consistent offset or a progressive offset is right for the specific design. It is usually less progressive or constant if the set is considered a “Players” design, or a more traditional “Blade” type profile.

I don’t think your missing anything, but a thick face on a driver will most likely not perform as well as a thin, high strength face driver. You don’t have to have a thick face to have a driver with the CG a little more forward. Currently, I am just not aware of a material that you can make thicker and still maintain high level performance on a driver. If one is developed, you might see a driver produced that way to help get he cg forward. Without it I just don’t see a reason to have a thick face.

Britt Lindsey

I’ve just had a look, and it doesn’t actually have a Golfworks identifier, but at that point in time Golfworks was the only source I ever used. So…I’m still 99.5% sure about that. It’s classic plain ol’ stainless steel–17-4, I’ll guess. Manufactured before maraging steel face inserts appeared, etc.

An NYT article about the club can be found here (re: Nicklaus, Floyd, Ozaki, circa 1990): https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/08/sports/sports-of-the-times-the-mysterious-magical-jumbo-driver.html

Without benefit of a way to measure the head volume, I’ll guess it’s about 250cc. Seems to be similar in appearance (and probably in design too) with the Dynacraft “Accu-steel,” which I think was 260cc. That was certainly part of the secret to clubhead speed then too. It’s just a small head, with lower wind resistance.

I’ve just set it down next to a pair of Maltby KE-4 #3 and #5 fairway wood heads, and it’s smaller than both, although it has a taller face, of course, being a driver. Seems to be even a bit shorter in face-length than the DBM 3 iron as well.

As with so many Golfworks designs, it’s also quite understated in terms of graphics, something I still appreciate today, and just one of the things I like about the DBMs.