Breakthrough Golf Technology extends their reach to the top of the bag

Breakthrough Golf Technology (BGT), the Richardson, Texas, company that introduced a composite-construction putter shaft, the Stability Shaft, in 2018, has jumped to the other end of the golf bag with their latest product, the Brava line of driver shafts.

Breakthrough Golf Technology (BGT) the makers of the multi-material Stability Shaft for putters, has added the Brava line of driver shafts to their product stable. At least they’re not pink…

The new shaft comes in four levels of stiffness – A, R, S and X (“R” for “Regular”, “S” for “Stiff”, “X” for “eXtra stiff”, I guess; I have no idea what “A” stands for, and it is not defined in the online information for the shaft) – for clubhead speeds of 75 mph, 85 mph, 95 mph, and 105 mph. Standard length is 46 inches, and the shafts weight in at 46 grams, 50 grams, 54 grams, and 58 grams, respectively.

The folks at BGT cite something they call “Speedflite NRG™ technology” (no explanation as to its meaning is offered) for the new driver shafts, which are constructed from “premium Toray™ carbon fiber”, which they claim  “translates to less energy needed when swinging” for “an exceptionally stable driver head for more distance and tighter ball dispersion.”

Their ad copy also claims that the Brava shaft is “Designed for maximum ball speed and smash factor because it delivers more center strikes and a better face angle.” Ball speed and smash factor are functions of club head speed and the properties of the club face and the ball, and are affected by the quality of the strike (hitting  the sweet spot matters…); just how a shaft is going to help the golfer hit the center of the club face is not explained; ditto with the face angle claim.

The new driver shaft is claimed to beat two premium driver shafts by up to 10 yards in distance and up to 60% in dispersion, information backed up by a pair of colorful graphs on their website but unaccompanied by any solid data or information about test protocols, etc. If you have read my June 2018 column on the Stability Shaft you may recall the skepticism I expressed at the claims made by BGT for that product and the data presentation they used to back it up. The same holds true for this new product.

The specifications table for the Brava range of shafts offers up data on “torque” for each shaft, a number that is used by shaft manufacturers to represent the torsional stiffness of their products. The term is a misnomer, because torque is a force input that produces rotation or torsion (circumferential stress), not the reaction to that force. That being said, these numbers do give a sense of the relative torsional stiffness of the four grades of the Brava shaft. The numbers that are advertised for this quality of the Brava line of shafts are – from “A” to “X”, respectively – 5.6˚, 4.4˚, 4.3˚, and 3.5˚, but these values cannot necessarily be used to compare this characteristic of the Brava shafts to driver shafts from other manufacturers because there is no uniform industry-wide test standard for obtaining this so-called “torque” measurement.

By the way – comparing the weight of each of the Brava shafts (see above) to the “torque” you can see that the extra 4 grams tacked on for the “S” shaft isn’t buying you much in the way of increased stiffness, by whatever measure is used.

Let’s get some data

My evaluation of the Brava line of driver shafts doesn’t stop at their marketing BUMF; the nice people at BGT (who may not have actually read my review of the Stability Shaft) set me up with an “S” flex Brava shaft for my Ben Hogan GS53 Max driver. (In a case of spectacularly bad timing, the Ben Hogan Golf Equipment Company had just closed its doors when I went to their website looking to buy a hosel for BGT to fit to a Brava shaft so I could swap it for the UST Mamiya Helium F4 shaft I had ordered my driver with. A timely suggestion from a Twitter acquaintance sent me to the OEM suppliers market, where I was able to purchase the needed item.)

I sent my Hogan driver off to BGT, and just a few days later I got it back, along with an S-flex Brava shaft fitted with the Hogan hosel I sent along with the driver (the “X” flex shaft wasn’t available at that time or I would have probably gone with that – the weight is closer to that of my gamer.) After regripping the Brava shaft with my preferred grip, a midsize Golf Pride Tour Velvet, I gathered some preliminary data about the two setups:

Shaft                               All-up shaft wt*    Full club wt    Swing wt

UST Mamiya Helium F4        139.8 gm             333.1 gm            D5

Brava 54G S95                      117.9 gm             311.1 gm**         D4

* (incl. grip and hosel)

** (22-gram difference is about the weight of $1 worth of quarters)

With these numbers and the two shafts, in hand, I went to my local Golf Galaxy to get some comparative performance data on the two shafts. (Shoutout to Steve Kobota, Operations Manager at my local Golf Galaxy store, for setting up and running this testing session for me.)

Numbers don’t lie – but sometimes they’re hard to understand

The first thing to know when evaluating launch-monitor data from shots taken by a 65-year-old 25-handicap who doesn’t play nearly as much golf as he should is that I am not Iron Byron. I am the first to admit that my swing is inconsistent. The launch angle and spin rate numbers that came out of my Trackman session bear that out, and I would not use them to come to any conclusions about the relative qualities of the Brava shaft and the UST Mamiya Helium shaft that I normally game.

As for smash factor and carry yardage, as I stated above, smash factor is more a function of the driver head, the quality of contact, and the ball being used (the hitting bay was not equipped with my usual Titleist pills) than it is of the shaft, and since carry yardage/total yardage is calculated by the Trackman system (it was an indoor session) and is not actual data, I think that the best indicator of the relative qualities of these two shafts to come out of my hour in the hitting bay is club head speed.

The bottom line – What am I getting for $399.99?

The club head speed numbers that I achieved with the two shafts were remarkably similar. I actually achieved my maximum clubhead speed with the UST Mamiya Helium shaft, the heavier setup of the two by 22 grams, which I swung second, when I was already a bit tired. The average club head speed was slightly higher (for a few more swings) with the Brava shaft, but only by a miniscule 2.2%.

Club-Avg-He	Club-Avg-Br
84.8	86.7
Max	Max
90.7	90.5

The shot dispersion patterns were quite similar between the two (but nothing to write home about, courtesy of my intermittent two-way miss—remember, 25 handicap.)

All in all, despite the small—but noticeable—weight advantage of the Brava shaft, in my hands its performance was essentially identical to the standard-option UST Mamiya Helium shaft I normally play, and such similar performance would make it difficult, in my mind, to justify the purchase of the $399.99 Brava shaft. The smart play, if you are interested, is to try the shaft yourself, but that might not prove to be easy to do as the number of brick-and-mortar stores that carry the line of Brava shafts is limited; they are mostly Club Champion locations, according to the BGT website, so if you have one nearby you are in luck.

************************

† (You may note that my average club head speed numbers indicate that I should be swinging the “R” shaft, but I have always held that the best option for consistent shots is the lightest/stiffest shaft you can handle. My explanation as to why this is true can be found in this post from September 2019.)

Graphite putter shafts, Part I: Why the big manufacturers with skin in the game are doing it wrong

I spend more time practicing putting (on the carpet in my office, which stimps at about 13, I figure) than any other part of my game, and I read with interest all the articles about putter design and the putting stroke that I come across. I also follow new developments in putter design, many of which turn out to be pointless, ridiculous, overhyped, or just plain wrong (see my review of the Stability Shaft by Breakthrough Golf Technology, on which more later in this column.)

In pursuit of better putting I have experimented with counterweighting by adding grip weights to my putters, for which there is a factual physical basis, unlike many of the spurious putting “innovations” which are touted in Golf Channel infomercials and even by big-name manufacturers. Extrapolating the concept of increasing stability by redistributing mass from the shaft to the ends of the club, the next thing that I wanted to do was to replace the steel shaft in my putter with a graphite shaft.

Changing from a steel putter shaft to a graphite shaft can save as much as 100 grams, freeing up that mass to be moved to the head and the grip end of the club while keeping the same total weight; a change which, as I explain in the counter-weighting article, increases the club’s stability in the long axis, which benefits speed control.

But before I talk about my putter-shaft experiment, let’s look at the current state of the art in graphite composite and multi-material putter shafts.

Who is making graphite putter shafts, and why?

There are three manufacturers that I know of that are currently marketing graphite-composite shafts, or shafts incorporating graphite-composite, for putters: Odyssey, with their Stroke Lab shafts (though not available as a retrofit item); Breakthrough Golf Technology (BGT) with their so-called Stability Shaft (retail cost $129.99 to $299.99); and LA Golf, which markets a line of graphite shafts up and down the bag, including three for putters (retail cost $419.00).

Of those three companies only Odyssey specifically cites the redistribution of mass as a benefit of the use of their graphite-composite shaft, and their Stroke Lab line of putters include the use of additional weights in the head and the grip of the club to redistribute the mass saved in the shaft. Both Breakthrough Golf Technology and LA Golf, however, cite the so-called “low-torque” characteristics of their shafts in preventing “head wobble” as the prime benefit.

These three manufacturers differ not only in the claims they make for the benefits of their composite shafts, but in the details of their construction. The Odyssey Stroke Lab shaft and the BGT Stability Shaft are multi-material units which combine a graphite-composite tube for the upper portion of the shaft with a length of conventional steel shafting for the lower portion which mates with the putter head. The Stroke Lab shaft uses unspecified means to bond the steel and graphite sections of their shaft together; the BGT design uses both an aluminum stiffener and a separate aluminum connector between the two sections.

The LA Golf putter shafts, on the other hand, are 100% graphite composite material, but like BGT, their advertising cites the “stiff, low torque” characteristics of their shafts in preventing head wobble or deflection that is “caused by traditional shafts” as the advantage of their product.

So let’s break it down:

Manufacturer            Construction Type                    Claimed Benefit

Odyssey                   Graphite upper/steel lower        Improved mass dist'n

Breakthrough Golf     Graphite upper/steel lower        Improved head

Technology                w/aluminum stiffeners and       stability

                                connector midshaft

LA Golf                     100% Graphite composite         Improved head

                                                                              stability

Both BGT and LA Golf claim that conventional steel putter shafts are weak—weak enough to twist in response to the forces exerted on them by the inertial forces resulting from the movement of the club acting on the mass of the club head.

The following quote is from the LA Golf website:

“Recent data shows that outside 12 feet, when a player begins forward motion the head wiggles slightly and that instability can change your putt line even if you read the line correctly and put the perfect stroke on it.

The head also wiggles when you strike the putt even fractionally off center (which everyone does) causing you to lose distance on the roll.”

It is, of course, utter nonsense to attribute the motions described in that quote to flex in the shaft; to do so is to reveal a complete lack of understanding of the magnitudes of the forces involved, and the ability of the structures being discussed to handle the forces to which they are subjected.

Of course, the people who want you to shell out anywhere from $130 to over $400 for a new putter shaft are counting on the average golfer taking their quasi-scientific marketing jargon at face value—but if you keep reading you will learn how they are leading you astray.

What do they mean when they say “torque”?

What the ad copy for golf club shafts refers to, incorrectly, as “torque”, is the torsional stiffness of the golf shaft. It’s measured by clamping the butt end end of the shaft in a fixed position and applying one foot-pound of torque—that is, a force of one pound acting at a distance of one foot from the center of the shaft—at a point further down the shaft and measuring how much the shaft twists. (The results obtained from this test can be greatly affected by the testing method—especially by the length of shaft between the clamping point and the point at which the force is applied—so comparisons between the data given by different manufacturers are not necessarily valid.)

This “torque” number can range from three or four degrees for a steel shaft to upwards of eight degrees for the more flexible graphite shafts—but these numbers are only really relevant for full-swing clubs: wedges, irons, hybrids, and woods; clubs in which the club face contacts the ball at speeds of up to 125 miles per hour (Note: PGA Tour pros average about 110 mph of club head speed with driver, and some go much higher.) Those high club head speeds produce very high resultant forces on the club head, and therefore, significant torsional forces in the club shaft.

For putters the force acting on the shaft, even as a result of impact with the ball, is orders of magnitude lower than for full-swing clubs, and the torque input to the shaft resulting from inertial forces acting on the club head before contact with the ball are so far below the threshold which would result in deformation of the shaft that they can be ignored.

The bottom line…

The claims that are being made by Breakthrough Golf Technology and LA Golf—that larger, heavier modern putter heads “overpower” a conventional steel shaft, and thus require their expensive, over-engineered offerings, which are actually no stiffer in torsion than a generic $9 steel putter shaft—are complete nonsense.

The all-graphite composite shafts from LA Golf are the right idea, but they appear to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason—and they cost waaay too much.

The sophisticated multi-component shafts such as the BGT unit and the Odyssey Stroke lab shaft introduce complexity where simplicity will do; the complexity adds no value, and actually compromises the potential effectiveness of lighter-weight graphite composite construction by the use of a steel lower shaft. The BGT Stability Shaft is the most egregious offender of the two, due to their use of two aluminum components mid-shaft, at the junction of the graphite and steel portions, which returns mass to the middle of the club.

In Part II of my look at graphite-composite putter shafts I will walk you through my home-workshop experiments, in which I modified my bargain-bin Tight Lies Anser-style putter as an experimental test bed.

Stay tuned.

Counterweighting: What it is, and how it will help you make more putts

Welcome to Part III of my totally unplanned three-part series on putting – counterweighting.

After the introduction to my review of the Stability Shaft turned into its own article on why putting is hard, and after spotlighting how counterweighting the putter I had rebuilt with that fancy new shaft helped bring back the feel I was accustomed to, I figured I owed it to my audience to expand on the advantages of counterweighting.

In this article I will explain, without, I hope, sounding too much like a science fair exhibitor, the physical effect that counterweighting your putter has on its performance, and why adding weight to the grip of your putter can help you make more putts.

**********************************

First, let’s talk about MOI

MOI, or moment of inertia, refers to an object’s resistance to rotation, and is a function of the distribution of mass. It is measured with respect to an axis of rotation, which is an imaginary line that passes through the object’s center of mass (commonly referred to as center of gravity, or CG.) The higher an object’s MOI, the greater the amount of force required to make it rotate; and the greater the force that is required to rotate an object, the more stable it is. As you can imagine, stability is a desirable trait in a putter.

MOI is a term that is bandied about quite a bit in connection with the design of putters, but it is usually spoken of in connection with the club head, not the entire club. The MOI of a putter’s club head is measured with respect to a vertical line through the club head’s CG. Move material away from the CG and the MOI goes up, reducing the club head’s tendency to twist around the vertical axis; that is, making it more stable.

Stability about the vertical axis is a good thing in a putter because it helps the face remain square to the swing path, which in turn helps to ensure that the ball comes off the club face in the intended direction. Putter designs have been taking advantage of this physical property ever since Karsten Solheim hit upon the idea of moving material to the heel and toe of a conventional blade putter, creating the ubiquitous Anser-style putter.

Coming to grips with moment of inertia

Stepping away from the putter’s club head, let’s look at the other end of the club – the grip. Putter grips typically range in weight from 50-55 grams to upwards of 124 grams – a fraction of the weight of the club head; the shaft connecting the two weighs, on average, about 110 grams or so.

In a hypothetical “typical putter” – thirty-five inches long, with a 350-gram Anser-style head, a shaft that weighs 110 grams, and a mid-range grip of about 60 grams – the total mass comes to 520 grams; a little over a pound. Nearly 70% of that mass is concentrated in the club head – the last inch of the total length of the putter – skewing the balance point, which is the CG of the full club, well down toward the head.

Add some weight at the opposite end of the club, in the grip, and the balance point moves closer to the grip – not by a lot, but it only takes a small amount to make a noticeable change in the way the club feels in your hands, especially in motion. But… while adding weight to the grip end of the club does affect the balance point, it is the effect on the club’s moment of inertia, its resistance to rotation about that balance point, that is the point.

It’s all about that mass – and where it’s at

Think of it this way: if you took a plain putter shaft and put the combined weight of the head and the grip of our hypothetical “typical putter” in the middle of the shaft, it would require little effort to rotate the shaft in a circle, like an airplane’s propeller, by holding it in the middle and rotating your wrist. Take that same mass (equivalent to about ten golf balls, by the way), divide it evenly in two and put the two masses at the ends of the shaft, like a barbell, and it would take much more effort to rotate that configuration – by my calculations, a bit over 10 times as much. 

Now think about what happens when mass is added to the grip end of a putter. With the mass more widely distributed toward the ends of the club, it has less tendency to rotate about the center of balance; it is more stable – like the “barbell” configuration in our example. Imagine hanging the “barbell” vertically by one end, and moving it through a putting stroke – with the mass so widely distributed to the ends of the shaft, the ends of the shaft move together, almost as one.

By spreading the main mass concentrations further apart along the length of the putter, increasing the moment of inertia, the putter moves more uniformly both backward and forward in the stroke, with less tendency for the grip to lead the club head. More stable, more consistent, motion means less lag, less head wobble, a more consistent strike in terms of both direction and speed – and as a result, better control of both line and pace.

When I transplanted the counterweighted shaft from my Odyssey Tank Cruiser into the club head of my bargain-bin Tight Lies putter, that 30-gram weight (plus a bit more for the threaded fitting in the end of the shaft) transformed a pretty good putter into a really good putter – more stable, and more consistent. Similarly, when I fitted the Stability Shaft in the re-shafted Odyssey putter with the 50-gram Super Stroke weight kit, I regained the smooth consistency that I had missed when the putter first came back with the new shaft. 

What’s the bottom line? Counterweighting works

The change in moment of inertia that is realized by adding 50 or even 30 grams of weight to the grip end of a putter makes a noticeable change in the feel of the putter in your hands – and has a positive effect on the level of control you have over the strike you put on the ball.

The result? Better control of ball speed, better control of direction – and all other things being equal, more putts made.

The Stability Shaft – how good for your game is a high-tech, multi-material putter shaft?

As I mentioned in my previous post – Putting is hard – but you already knew that, right? –  I bring years of experience as a mechanical engineer, and a naturally skeptical nature, to the task of reviewing and evaluating golf equipment. I am very critical of the performance claims that equipment manufacturers make for their latest design innovation, and I subject them to close scrutiny. Putters seem to be the worst offenders when it come to gibberish tech-speak, but many golfers still seem to eat it up.

Because of the difficulty of putting and the irrecoverable nature of poor performance on the greens, club manufacturers seem to be constantly introducing some new high-tech innovation that will help golfers improve their putting. Sometimes it’s a training aid, sometimes it’s a design tweak to the putter itself, but it seems as though there is always something new coming down the pike when it comes to putters.

The latest high-tech innovation to come to putters is the Stability Shaft, from Breakthrough Golf Technology, with the involvement of well-known golf club pioneer Barney Adams, the inventor of metal fairway “woods” – the original Tight Lies clubs. While I will admit that this is a fairly new approach – little has been done with putter shafts over the years – the needle of my skepticism meter started twitching as soon as I read the ad copy on their website.

Wait, it does what?

The four-part, multi-material Stability Shaft is made up of a carbon-fiber composite tube, which forms the grip end and most of the length of the shaft; an aluminum insert placed inside the carbon-fiber tube at its lower end to “reinforce flexural rigidity”; and a 7075 aluminum alloy connector which adapts the upper end of the shaft to the conventional stainless steel tube which mates with the putter head.

The main structure of the shaft is described as “Eight layers of high-modulus carbon fiber specifically layered, wrapped and widened, with a no-taper design to greatly reduce torque.” This statement makes little or no sense in terms of mechanical attributes of the structure, or the functional requirements of this portion of the putter shaft. The little loading, either in bending or in torque, that a putter shaft experiences is concentrated at the other end of the shaft, where it is joined to the putter head.

Regarding the aluminum insert, their ad copy says, “Through finite element analysis a light-weight, 22-gram aluminum insert was developed and precisely located to reinforce flexural rigidity.” (“Flexural rigidity” is an oxymoron, by the way.) If the high-tech “high-modulus carbon-fiber” main body of the shaft is so precisely designed to resist deformation due to torque loading (which is what they really mean by “…a no-taper design to greatly reduce torque”), why are they adding half the weight of a golf ball near the middle of the shaft to increase rigidity?

Another claim for the Stability Shaft is that it “…delivers the face squarer at impact for improved accuracy and solid feel…”. The forces acting on a putter are low at impact, even lower during the swing. The rigidity and stability of a putter shaft is concerned with forces that are substantially less than those encountered in a full swing club, so what forces do the designers of this shaft feel are acting to deform the shaft of a putter during the swing? The only rotation experienced by the putter face will be the result of rotation of the entire club, caused by variability in the player’s grip, and arm and hand movement.

Fancy data says what?

The website for Breakthrough Golf Technology offers a pair of graphs which are said to show the velocity of the heel and toe of a putter with a standard steel shaft and with the Stability Shaft. Represented as showing toe and heel velocity at a data rate of 2,500 frames per second, based on the “Frame Number” scale along the bottom of the graph, they depict a little over 1/10th of a second in the motion of the putter, about 3/4ths of which is before impact. The lines for toe and heel are fairly uniform preceding impact (though apparently offset, which must be for clarity, to differentiate between the two, because unless the putter is moving through an arc, they should be moving at the same rate), but after impact the graph for a “Standard Steel Shaft” shows significant deviation of the two lines from each other, represented as a difference in velocity between the heel and toe. The graph for the putter with the Stability Shaft shows much more uniform velocities for the heel and toe, ramping up again evenly after the expected drop at impact.

Putter with a standard steel shaft

Putter with the Stability Shaft

Leaving aside the other questions which these graphs raise (the unlabeled velocity scale, for example, and the lack of information about how the data was gathered), what value is there in uniform velocity between heel and toe, if indeed that is what is actually being depicted, AFTER impact? If the ball is no longer in contact with the club face, no movement that the club face undergoes has any effect on the motion of the ball.

The amount of time represented in the graphs after impact, again, based on the frame number scale along the bottom, is approximately 4/100ths of a second. The changes in velocity depicted on the graph – which are not quantified – occur in a very short timeframe, and there is no information offered as to the magnitude of the displacement which these “velocity changes” represent. If the concern is the squareness of the club face, it is obvious that the relative displacement, therefore the relative positions, of the heel and toe of the club would be of concern.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

The more I looked at and thought about the data that these graphs are supposed to represent, the more I came to be convinced that these graphs must depict vibration in the club head measured at the heel and toe ends, not the velocity of the heel and toe of the club head.

The graph for the steel shaft before impact shows tight, consistent data for the heel and toe, with after-impact data that is consistent with undamped vibration in a rigid material, such as a high-strength stainless steel shaft. The graph for the Stability Shaft depicts slightly less-regular behavior before impact compared to the steel shaft data, and a well-damped behavior afterwards. The latter is consistent with a system which contains a vibration-damping component such as a wound carbon-fiber tube.

How I evaluated the Stability Shaft

My experience with the Stability Shaft is based on the conversion of my Odyssey Tank Cruiser blade putter. Before sending it off to the people at Breakthrough Golf Technology, I swapped out the counterweighted original shaft (because I would not be getting it back) for the plain steel shaft from (ironically…) an old Tight Lies stainless steel blade putter. The Tight Lies received the counter-weighted shaft from the Odyssey.

Needless to say, when I got the Odyssey back with the Stability Shaft installed, it felt much different. Not bad, necessarily, but different. The balance was off, for instance, without the counterweight, and I noticed that the head was a bit wobbly in the take-away as a result. In order to make this as complete a test I could, after a few weeks of using the club as-is I decided to remedy that situation.

A trip to a local golf shop netted me a 50-gram counterweight kit for Super Stroke putter grips. Even though I don’t use that type of grip, I was able to install it securely in the grip end of the re-shafted Odyssey – and it transformed the putter’s performance.

Counter-weighting increases the inertial moment of the putter (its resistance to rotation) along the long axis from grip to club head, stabilizing the club during the takeaway and the down swing (such as it is with a putter.) I had noticed the difference with the Odyssey when I first got it, installing the grip counterweight after having used the club for over a year with no weight in the grip, and I noticed it in the Odyssey Mk II (as I am referring to it) with the Stability Shaft. I now own two counter-weighted putters – the Odyssey Tank Cruiser with the Stability Shaft, and the old Tight Lies which inherited the Odyssey’s original shaft – and frankly, it has become a toss-up which one I put into the bag when I play.

In conclusion

Unlike the folks at BGT, I don’t have high-speed video, or sophisticated data-gathering equipment of any kind, at my disposal with which to evaluate clubs – only my eyes, ears, and hands. What they told me over a few weeks of using my re-shafted Odyssey putter is that the Stability Shaft is not a miracle solution to anyone’s putting woes, whatever they may be.

My knowledge and engineering experience told me that the claims that are made in their advertising copy are suspect, and the time I spent with the re-shafted putter showed that, at best, after becoming accustomed to the altered swing weight of the putter, I was no worse off than I had been before. Further modifying the club with the grip end counter-weight improved the swing stability of the “Odyssey Mk II” – which reinforces what I had previously learned about counter-weighting, but did not substantiate any of BGT’s claims.

So – if you have the spare cash to drop $200 on a putter shaft, and really want to explore the option, you may find that the Stability Shaft feels right in your hands, and with your swing; but if a putter with the Stability Shaft works better for you, it’s more about balance and feel that works with your particular stroke than it is about any of the performance claims that Barney Adams and the people at Breakthrough Golf Technology are making.