toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
To describe the shaft as "flexible " is a big step from what I am envisaging. My John Woods mallet does have a degree of give in the shaft and is certainly not stiff and solid. It is the lack of stiffness that I find useful and helpful.
On 13/02/2013, at 2:09 PM, Arthur Sawilejskij wrote:
On 13/02/2013, at 12:38 PM, Max Murray <murram@...> wrote:
Hello WalI agree - you should try both.
My views are opposite to those given by Arthur.
I am short and need all the help i can get when playing a shot to go any distance (like across court) . I have a John Woods mallet and chose the design which gives me some whip in the shot i.e not rigid. I find that most useful and helps me a lot.
It's really up to you to decide and to do this I suggest you get two different mallets and try and sort out what suits your game best. If you are in Adelaide, Fenwick Elliot should be able to allow to try out both versions which i think you should do before you buy.
But, having said that, I've not seen many low handicap players using a flexible shaft.
Also, I'm not sure about the whip being better than a stiff shaft for length across the court.
Some of the force generated by the mallet head must get dissipated in a whippy shaft - whereas in a stiff shaft more of the force generated by the mallet moving forward is be transmitted to the ball.
They can, I've done it - a simple fine hack saw does the job.
Sorry if this confuses the issue. As regards length I am not sure that Fenwick Elliot mallet handles can be just cut down in length.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo!7 Groups Links