Shaft over sweet spot

Okay, this may seem like a silly question, but why aren't clubs made with the hosel and shaft directly over the sweet spot, instead of L-shaped clubs? The conventional L shape isn't a balanced configuration, even though we're all used to it. It creates a tendency for the club face to open up, and in fact when there is heavy rough it *does* open up. It seems to me a center-shafted club would be inherently more stable, and that could only lead to better ball striking.

Todd

Good question.

My initial thoughts are that for this configuration the hozel or shaft would need to have a sharp crank or bend so that the heel would sit correctly at address and create the correct lie angle to allow you to grip it.

Due to the varying lofts the clubface would need to get thicker and heaver as loft increased so the hozel could be attached square to the back face.

I need to give it a little more thought.

Seems to me you could have a hook so that the shaft attaches to the club head directly behind the sweet spot. It sounds weird, but I have to wonder if a club whose shaft points directly at the impact point, and with the club head evenly balanced around that point, wouldn't be more accurate, once you got used to it.

Todd

With a conventional club, the shaft line is parallel with the leading edge of the the clubface and the bulk of the clubhead is "behind" the shaft.

It seems that the physical design issues in how to go about attaching a clubhead with any loft in the centre of the clubface, rather than at the heel could be too great a hurdle to negotiate...

Take one of those old "bullet" style putters where the shaft is centre (or sweet spot) mounted and then imagine bending it to give the face the loft of say a 5 iron. Leading edge of the clubface is now notionally ahead of the line of the shaft.

What this all means of course I have no idea...

Interesting question though...

__________________
Look at the Target, Look at the Ball, Swing... Dr Bob Rotella...

Hmm. I might be being too literal about this, but isn't the rather boring but literal answer to this, "tradition"?

When golf started, presumably they weren't dealing with swing theory and grip clinics - those first clubs looked kind of like spatulas, didn't they? And since then, part of the R&A's efforts have been to preserve some sort of adherence to that tradition - hence one of the rules about club manufacture being about it being 'substantially golf-club shaped', or something, and about how only putters can be centre weighted.

Of course, there's then the whole argument about whether tradition is a good reason for doing anything, but in a society where we annually celebrate the immortal son of an invisible father rising from the dead, we're on a bit of a sticky wicket from the start

__________________
~_~_~_~_~
Personal bests 2007;
Best 18: 78 (+12)
Best 9: 37 (+4)
Best Stableford: 45 pts
Best total putts: 28
Best total length sunk putts (ft): 54

Club tourney history this year: Captain's Day - 1st; Club foursomes - 2nd; Dimex Stableford - 2nd; Club Championship - 13/28 gross, joint 5/28 nett; Ferebee Shield - 2nd; Sept Medal 2nd; Autumn Stableford - 1st

Noice Bulldog...

And as the preacher said to the congregation......

"Here endeth the lesson...!"

This rule seems to scupper the idea although there is still the scientific consideration of whether such a club would be advantageous.


c. Attachment to Clubhead
The shaft must be attached to the clubhead at the heel either directly or through a single plain neck and/or socket. The length from the top of the neck and/or socket to the sole of the club must not exceed 5 inches (127 mm), measured along the axis of, and following any bend in, the neck and/or socket (see Fig. VI).

Exception for Putters: The shaft or neck or socket of a putter may be fixed at any point in the head.

__________________
Best Regards
Brian

________________________________
Funny o'l game!

I would think you need the shaft at the heel to aid the rotation of the clubface through impact. You would still get rotation with a centred shaft but no where near as much.

You would have the same degree of rotation in the swingpath, the only change would be differential swing radius from the centre to toe as from the heel to the toe.

I have to wonder whether the exception for putters was introduced only when golfers decided that center-shafter putters would be a Good Thing. If so, something similar might happen for other clubs, if in fact there were good reason to do so.

I agree that there would be clubhead rotation through impact, but the amount of rotation would be less, and this in itself seems like it would be a Good Thing. Pushes and pulls would be less dramatic, maybe.