How does the DIVNICK™ compare to other adjustable golf clubs?
There have been over 100 patents for adjustable loft golf clubs since 1895. We discuss this in more detail on the development page. But only a couple made it into the modern era which we will discuss on this page.
We also want to mention that we wholesale our clubs to some resellers who market them under a different name. For instance, the "All-In-One" adjustable is our club. The only difference is they charge a lot more. We also supply our clubs to some gift and flight catalogs.
Multiple Head Sets
Over the years, various companies have offered different ways to achieve portability. Several companies have had one shaft with a bag of different heads. One of the first to do that was called Voyager about 1990. You can click to enlarge the photo of their set to the right. A more recent version of that approach was made by DV8 and included a backpack. This approach still includes a relatively heavy bag, took time to change the heads between every shot, and would still have to be checked as baggage and paid for.
You can imagine how time-consuming it would be to change heads on the course. And the cost is several hundred dollars. So they haven't been successful solutions.
Semi-Adjustable Loft Sets
Others have offered a reduced number of clubs with 2 or 3 lofts per club with mixed results. One example are "Walking Sticks" shown on this page. Each of the 3 clubs is a different length shaft to more closely resemble the lengths in a full set. We like the fact that they promote walking the course. However, their clubs do not telescopic so are not beneficial for travel, and you still have to carry a bag or lay the clubs in the grass when you make your shot. When customers purchase our "3-Club Set" they also have to set their clubs down when making shots. But because our Adjustable performs all the iron tasks very well, we think that adding a telescopic Tee & Fairway Driver and a telescopic putter provide a lot more 3-club versatility with a greater chance to reach greens in regulation and putt with a conventional feel. You can read more about our 3-Club Set recommendations here.
About the Walking Sticks...from Jimmy Berley, South Carolina
"I have used your adjustable club since 2016 and have played a lot of rounds with it. It is very durable and surprisingly solid. It hits about 10 yards farther than my Cobra irons. When I saw the Walking Sticks, I thought I should try them. They are well made, but feel heavy and hit about 10 yards shorter than my Cobras, and quite a bit shorter than yours, so I returned them. And like you have said on your website comparison page, they ADD to the number of clubs to carry. If someone is going to do that, it makes more sense to add a driver and a putter which are going to do things the adjustable club doesn’t do quite as well. But for me, I use your adjustable club for everything and often beat the people I play with. It is an amazing club."
The rest of this page will focus on single clubs with full adjustability.
A few years after we introduced our Whole-In-One, a mail-order company made a direct copy. In fact, they made their molds right off of our club...didn't even try to change the look. We were able to persuade them to cease and desist. A couple others have come and gone over the years.
However, even the direct copies did not include several of the most important features of the Divnick such as the half-loft transmission which is very difficult to cast, our proprietary telescopic shaft, and the blend of durable alloys.
Telescopic Shafts: Telescopic shafts have been attempted before. But they used a .375" tip-diameter iron shaft that is cut into two sections. So they collapse down to only about 28" in length and are very stiff. Logically, when you overlap a few inches of shaft sections, it stiffens up the shaft dramatically. So a shaft that is designed for an iron head-weight ends up being way too stiff and yields unrewarding shots.
We designed our head to fit on a .335" tip-diameter driver shaft. Ordinarily, if it was a one-piece shaft, that would be too flexible. But we cut the shaft into 3 sections with 2 overlapping portions. Not only does that collapse down to a shorter 17" length which is much more convenient for travel, the overlapping sections stiffen it back up to a normal flex which produces a rock-solid shaft, majestic shots, and a great feel. We also include a short proprietary carbon steel inner piece that strengthens the tip at the hosel.
Lofts: Most other adjustable clubs have only had odd lofts (3, 5 ,7, 9) because they do not have a "ring gear" transmission which is quite a bit more expensive to make. Also, they mold their heads out of 300-series stainless which is not tough enough for the number of teeth necessary for a transmission, while ours is 17-4 stainless allow blend...a more expensive and more rugged material.
Lever: Some others have used levers that are chrome-plated plastic. Because plastic flexes, the chrome is vulnerable to flaking, so it is not a good engineering option. It also adds weight to the heel area where weight is not helpful. Our lever is glass-filled nylon, which is designed for the automotive industry in various high-heat and strength environments, so it is very rugged. The lever is pressed over a grade 8 nut, so the lever is only providing a little leverage for tightening. The nut provides the actual locking.
The Divnick uses a proprietary machined stainless steel collapsing cap that is pressed onto the end of the shaft. As shown in the accompanying picture, a portion of it extends up through an enlarged hole in the end of the grip. So the impact from striking it on a hard surface during the collapsing process (see instructions) is transferred directly into the shaft to make collapsing very easy.
Previous telescopic clubs did not use a collapsing cap so the soft end of the grip cushioned the impact and absorbed the force making it very difficult to collapse their shaft. It also made the club "bounce" back up which can cause injury, or "cookie-cut" through the end of the grip after only a few collapsing attempts.
Center of Gravity
The prior patents had their gear mechanism high and on the back of the head. The reason they did this was so that the mechanism would not hit the ground on the steeper lofts. However, in all of the designs, the mechanism would begin to hit the ground on about the 9-iron loft. This forced the bottom leading edge of the face up into the ball rather than allowing it to slide under thereby interfering with ball-contact on all the steeper lofts rendering the short game next to impossible. Also, it resulted in a very high center of gravity. Can you imagine the hand-stinging feel of hitting a club like the one pictured here? We discuss the center of gravity in more detail in our side-by-side photo comparisons linked further down this page.
For a couple of decades prior to our introduction of the DIVNICK™, perhaps the best design was being sold as the "Super Stick". Patented in 1974 by Donald Moore (now deceased), it was strongly-built and replicated the traditional lofts.
Its drawbacks were that it did not have perimeter weighting, the mechanism was high on the back of the head which produced a high center of gravity and caused it to interfere with the ground on steeper lofts, the shaft alignment was behind the head rather than offset in front as with modern clubs, it required a coin to loosen and tighten, had 3 confusing index marks and numbers to line up, and the 2 piece shaft was a stiff .395" diameter that fit over-the-hosel. It could not collapse any shorter than 23" which is too long to fit into a brief case or other small carry-on luggage.
A few years after we came out with the DIVNICK™, the originator of the Super Stick adapted some of our design features on an improved version of Super Stick which he called the "Walker". He later changed the name to the "Universal". We have side-by-side photo comparisons linked at the bottom of this page.
We believe the Universal was an improvement over the Super Stick and was the best of the other adjustables on the market. But it still had some important weaknesses. It still included the stiff .395" shaft and 23" closed length. The shaft exposed a critical performance difference. As mentioned above, normal iron shafts are .375" diameter at the tip which is epoxied into a female hosel socket. The Universal used an extra large .395" tip shaft that fit OVER a male stud which was easier to manufacture. When it was cut to make it telescopic, the overlapping sections resulted in an even stiffer shaft.
The Universal replicated each of the traditional lofts while the Divnick can be set on twice as many because it includes half-lofts.
We have had many customers who have previously purchased a Universal and have offered some direct comparison feedback which we have linked in this paragraph. In addition to the DIVNICK™ hitting farther and more accurately, which will be discussed below, the most common report is that the DIVNICK™ is much easier to use. The reasons for this will become more evident in the photo comparisons. Click here to read some reports from customers who have used both clubs.
Robot Laboratory Comparisons
Golf Laboratories, the premier club performance laboratory in the world compared the DIVNICK™ and the Universal producing 16 pages of graphs and tables. We invited the Universal manufacturer to participate in the tests...sort of a "may the best man win" competition, but he declined. So we purchased one of their Universals and paid for the testing ourselves.
The testing protocol used a robot to hit 30 balls on 3 different lofts (3-iron, 5-iron, and 9-iron) with 10 balls each on the center, heel, and toe. A second test was done two weeks later on all three lofts with center hits only to validate the first test. The input energy of the robot was the same for all swings. Distance, dispersion, and spin-rates were plotted for every shot.
Golf Labs reported an early problem with not being able to keep the telescopic Universal shaft from rotating on each hit. They tried two different Universals, and neither one would hold. So the shaft sections were epoxied so that the robot would not need to be reset for each swing.
The Universal and DIVNICK™ were then alternated throughout the testing period to minimize wind or other environmental effects. The only measurable wind gave a slight tail-wind advantage to the Universal while testing their 3-iron.
Total distance was very similar. The DIVNICK™ hit a couple yards farther. Since both clubs are about the length of a 4-iron, similar distance was expected as there is nothing magic about delivering mass and club-head speed to a ball with the perfect swing of a robot.
The total dispersion (accuracy) shows the DIVNICK™ 38% more accurate! Of the center, heel, and toe comparisons, the largest difference was on toe hits with the DIVNICK™ being 138% more accurate. Since that is where the majority of amateur golfers hit the ball, this gives the DIVNICK™ an extraordinary advantage. This is a result of the design which places much more perimeter weight toward the toe of the DIVNICK™.
The ball spin-rates (rpm) show the distinct advantage of the lower center of gravity of the DIVNICK™. The total center-hit spin rate of all the Universal hits was 16,920 and the DIVNICK™ was 17,920 which is almost a 10% increase. The advantage for the Divnick was even greater with heel-hits at 20% and toe-hits at 23% for a total average of 17% greater spin rates. Of course, higher spin rates result in getting the ball to stop more quickly. The only time it is desirable to reduce spin rates is with a driver.
Since the goal of hitting irons is to be able to predict the place you want the ball to land and stop, the 38% tighter shot pattern and 17% greater spin rate results in a huge advantage for the Divnick. Click here to read more about the original Golf Labs test of the Divnick.
Click here to read testimonies from customers who own both a Universal and a DIVNICK.
- Disadvantages with the Whole-In-One Adjustable
- Telescopic Drivers and Putters
- Operating Instructions and Parts
- Divnick's Patent from the United States Patent Office
- Is the Divnick Adjustable "legal" for tournament play?
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Rep Program