Why Club fitting is important

[BigLeftyinAZ]

The clubs sold in retail shops and pro shops are mass-produced without standards for lie angles or shaft flex.

For instance, the lie angle of a Ping five-iron might be two degrees different from a Cleveland five-iron. The stiff shaft on a Taylor Made driver could be an inch longer and equivalent to an extra-stiff on a Titleist.

When you buy clubs off the rack, you don’t know what you’re getting. I've had one guy come in with a stiff shaft and I tested it. It measured out to the equivalent of a ladies’ regular flex.”

Some club fitters say it has been difficult to spread the word about the importance of a proper fit because equipment manufactures are reluctant to change production. It’s more cost efficient to mass-produce clubs than it is to fit each golfer.

But manufacturers would like to increase the number of custom clubs they sell. Taylor Made, for instance, has 3,600 custom-fitting carts at courses and retail shops across the nation.

“We’d like to see everybody get fit, but that’s not practical,” said John Hoeflich, senior director of business development for Taylor Made. “We encourage customers to find fitting carts and try a club fitter.”

“We point out to every golfer that there are different swing types and the most important thing is to find a club that fits your swing.”

Dynamic fittings are the only way.

Custom-fitting golf clubs, a once simple process that has evolved into a complex, high-tech science. Launch monitors and swing analyzers have replaced tape measures and swing-speed radar guns as the tools of the trade, helping fine-tune club specifications.

Professional golfers very familiar with their swings demand equipment specifically matched to their swings and benefit greatly. The question is, how much of a difference will custom clubs make to a 15 – handicapper?


It becomes almost more important.The key is to reward golfers when they make good swings, but if your clubs don’t fit, you won’t get rewarded. That will encourage swing manipulations and bad habits.

Proper club fitting can shave four or five shots from the average golfer’s handicap and it can add 20 to 30 yards on driver distance. But those searching for an instant cure to their swing woes might be in for a surprise.


Custom club fitting used to involve a golfer standing with arms hanging to the sides and measuring the distance between palm and the ground to determine proper shaft flex.

A tall player with a fast swing would need clubs upright and with stiff shafts, according, to then-accepted industry standards. Dynamic fitting, during which the golfer hits balls, is quickly replacing those antiquated methods.

It’s like measuring somebody’s height at 6 feet and telling then they need a 42 regular suit. You can’t determine of it will fit by those measurements. You have to try on the suit. The same with golf clubs.


It's all in the fitting process. In this era of technological advance, simply getting measured is not enough.

You can’t really do an effective static fitting ,It doesn’t quite work that way.

You should go through a series of tests, all of which involve hitting balls. Golfers hit balls with different clubs, shafts, lie angles, grip sizes and launch angles, each change measured on machine similar to those used by pros.


Plus,you should go through a ball fitting as well to determine the one best suited to your swings.



Why,is this so true?

People always see that the pros are using this driver and that ball and automatically think that must be the best stuff. Well, it might be for one person, but not for another.

 

[JPsuff]

I understand what you're saying, but to me, taking a beginner or mid to high handicap player and setting them up in a launch monitor and then addressing every single aspect of their swing is a little like putting a racing camshaft into 200,000 mile engine - it can certainly be done, but why bother?

Many people in this category can be fitted according to all of the data harvested from the launch monitor session or even from an actual driving range session. But I'll bet the rent that the swing they were fitted with will have changed quite a bit in a few weeks and then will change again a few weeks after that. Without a consistent base from which to work, how can anyone recommend anything other than basic gear? Once a player develops a consistent swing, then it's possible to begin recommending specific shafts, with specific specs and so on. But until then, I think it's a waste of time.


You know, many thousands of people spanning many decades have become good at this game long before there was anything even remotely similar to what's available today in terms of diagnostics. How did they manage to do that? I think a big problem with fitting today is the cliched canard: "It allows more people to enjoy the game". But I submit that fitting someone with a lousy swing just reinforces the lousy swing. The best way to get better at this or any other game is to practice the fundamentals until they become second nature.
Of course, there's no real money to be made teaching fundamentals, but there's a gold mine in selling people all kinds of gear based on numbers derived from various technologies and that, in my opinion, is what's driving the whole "fitting" craze.
The fitting industry (and I think it can now be called an industry) relies on selling people the dream of playing great golf with no more effort on their part than spending an hour hitting golf balls at a screen and then reaching for their wallet in order to be able to purchase all the great stuff they're told they need to play great golf.

Prior to the computer age, everyone was "fitted" in about the same way; they were measured, they were asked to hit some balls off of a piece of wood and things like shaft flex were decided upon by people who knew the game, knew how to build clubs and knew "golfers" just by watching them. When a player began to show signs of improvement and consistency, that's when various modifications were made to their gear. The computer age has certainly helped make THAT step a lot more deliberate and has eliminated a lot of the guesswork in that regard. But then just as now, the common denominator was that consistency and without that, you're just shoveling sand against the tide.


-JP

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

The only aspect that changes is the lie angle. Regardless of their talent,he/she should and can be fitted for proper length,shafts,flex of shaft and weight of shaft.If you want to take it another step then it would also include balance points.

When I fit on of these golfers,I find the best medium for their lie angles.Everything else wil be perfect for them.

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

I understand what you're saying, but to me, taking a beginner or mid to high handicap player and setting them up in a launch monitor and then addressing every single aspect of their swing is a little like putting a racing camshaft into 200,000 mile engine - it can certainly be done, but why bother?

Many people in this category can be fitted according to all of the data harvested from the launch monitor session or even from an actual driving range session. But I'll bet the rent that the swing they were fitted with will have changed quite a bit in a few weeks and then will change again a few weeks after that. Without a consistent base from which to work, how can anyone recommend anything other than basic gear? Once a player develops a consistent swing, then it's possible to begin recommending specific shafts, with specific specs and so on. But until then, I think it's a waste of time.


You know, many thousands of people spanning many decades have become good at this game long before there was anything even remotely similar to what's available today in terms of diagnostics. How did they manage to do that? I think a big problem with fitting today is the cliched canard: "It allows more people to enjoy the game". But I submit that fitting someone with a lousy swing just reinforces the lousy swing. The best way to get better at this or any other game is to practice the fundamentals until they become second nature.
Of course, there's no real money to be made teaching fundamentals, but there's a gold mine in selling people all kinds of gear based on numbers derived from various technologies and that, in my opinion, is what's driving the whole "fitting" craze.
The fitting industry (and I think it can now be called an industry) relies on selling people the dream of playing great golf with no more effort on their part than spending an hour hitting golf balls at a screen and then reaching for their wallet in order to be able to purchase all the great stuff they're told they need to play great golf.

Prior to the computer age, everyone was "fitted" in about the same way; they were measured, they were asked to hit some balls off of a piece of wood and things like shaft flex were decided upon by people who knew the game, knew how to build clubs and knew "golfers" just by watching them. When a player began to show signs of improvement and consistency, that's when various modifications were made to their gear. The computer age has certainly helped make THAT step a lot more deliberate and has eliminated a lot of the guesswork in that regard. But then just as now, the common denominator was that consistency and without that, you're just shoveling sand against the tide.


-JP

I see your point.But a proper fitting will help reward the golfer when he does make his good swing. Getting fitted is to emphasize our good swings

 

[JB]

I see your point.But a proper fitting will help reward the golfer when he does make his good swing. Getting fitted is to emphasize our good swings

You are 100% right. Many that do not get fitting or never have, think a fitting is about opening and closing a face, etc...and putting band-aids on problems. That is not it AT ALL. It is about finding proper equipment to work with for your body, strength, and more.

 

[JPsuff]

I see your point.But a proper fitting will help reward the golfer when he does make his good swing. Getting fitted is to emphasize our good swings

Absolutely.

But to me, "proper fitting" is still what it's always been: Club length, Lie Angles, Basic Shaft Flex and you could even throw in grip thickness and swingweight. But that's what fitting has always been and it certainly makes sense to have clubs that "fit" in the same way that a person buys a pair of shoes based upon a common shoe size. But anything more detailed than that needs to wait until a person develops a measurable consistency before going any further.

Take shaft flex, for example. There are still three basic flexes used in golf shafts which are of course Regular, Stiff and Extra Stiff. Most people from the outset, fit into the Regular or Stiff category. But that's as far as it need go at the beginning. With a beginner or high-handicap player, dealing with the minutia of torque specs, tip specs, flex "profiles" and so on, are details that are largely unnecessary at this point and are better suited to a person who has developed the consistency needed to be able to derive any real benefit from these aspects of shaft design.

My whole point is this: A person can swing like Happy Gilmore. But as long as every swing is like Happy Gilmore, they can be fitted in a detailed manner and will thus be able to draw the last ounce of performance from that swing.

But if someone swings differently from week to week (or even hole to hole), then anything other than a "basic" measurement-oriented fitting is, in my opinion, a waste of the fitter's time as well as the client's money.

I'm not saying that "optimization" is bunk - quite the contrary. But in order to optimize anything there first needs to be a constant from which certain quantifiable data can be derived which can then be used to outfit a person with what will likely become a truly custom fitted set of clubs that will allow that person to perform to his or her potential.


-JP

 

[JB]

Take shaft flex, for example. There are still three basic flexes used in golf shafts which are of course Regular, Stiff and Extra Stiff. Most people from the outset, fit into the Regular or Stiff category.

That is not really true anymore. While R or S may be what most fit in, there is no standard as to what those are. Some companies R can be WAY different than another companies. That is a major problem in that most consider that they are either S or R and with OEM's picking the stock shafts it is not always the case.

In fact some shafts work great in some driver heads and not in others.

 

[timbertoes]

I've had one guy come in with a stiff shaft and I tested it. It measured out to the equivalent of a ladies’ regular flex.”

.

quite interesting.

I have a suspicion, that Stiff is perhaps Stiff-minus, since the club makers figure in the "macho factor" buying habit

And in Irons... when you are bump and run/long chip, hitting a 5 6 or 7 at half or 3/4 for effect, then the shaft flex is... ??

What strikes me as important is people saying a stiffer shaft (than needed) is more accurate. If its true, then seems thats good do you all agree?

What I also recently found interesting:
Cut my driver down 1" off the grip end. Supposed to lower swing weight, and some say decrease distance, a little bit.

For me it turns out ,my distance increased noticably!! (yay)

I have heard a club maker remark that loft and lie are often not quite in spec.

 

[JPsuff]

That is not really true anymore. While R or S may be what most fit in, there is no standard as to what those are. Some companies R can be WAY different than another companies. That is a major problem in that most consider that they are either S or R and with OEM's picking the stock shafts it is not always the case.

In fact some shafts work great in some driver heads and not in others.

That's true for graphite shafts, but for steel shafts the R,S,X classifications are still pretty stable.

But what I'm referring to is a general bend profile which can be classified as R,S. or X. So in the case of graphites, a "basic" fitting might have a set of frequency numbers replacing a letter designation. So if you're fitting "Charlie" and you decide that he's most likely going to do well with a R flex, then you can choose from a group of shafts which all have frequency numbers that correspond to the R category.

When Charlie develops a consistent swing, then you can look at those numbers more closely and also include torque specs, tip specs, etc. and thus begin to actually "fit" Charlie to a specific set of specs. But if Charlie is just learning how to strike a golf ball, or hasn't yet developed a reliably repeatable swing, a shaft which specs out as "close enough" is all that's needed at that point.


-JP

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

Absolutely.

But to me, "proper fitting" is still what it's always been: Club length, Lie Angles, Basic Shaft Flex and you could even throw in grip thickness and swingweight. But that's what fitting has always been and it certainly makes sense to have clubs that "fit" in the same way that a person buys a pair of shoes based upon a common shoe size. But anything more detailed than that needs to wait until a person develops a measurable consistency before going any further.

Take shaft flex, for example. There are still three basic flexes used in golf shafts which are of course Regular, Stiff and Extra Stiff. Most people from the outset, fit into the Regular or Stiff category. But that's as far as it need go at the beginning. With a beginner or high-handicap player, dealing with the minutia of torque specs, tip specs, flex "profiles" and so on, are details that are largely unnecessary at this point and are better suited to a person who has developed the consistency needed to be able to derive any real benefit from these aspects of shaft design.

My whole point is this: A person can swing like Happy Gilmore. But as long as every swing is like Happy Gilmore, they can be fitted in a detailed manner and will thus be able to draw the last ounce of performance from that swing.

But if someone swings differently from week to week (or even hole to hole), then anything other than a "basic" measurement-oriented fitting is, in my opinion, a waste of the fitter's time as well as the client's money.

I'm not saying that "optimization" is bunk - quite the contrary. But in order to optimize anything there first needs to be a constant from which certain quantifiable data can be derived which can then be used to outfit a person with what will likely become a truly custom fitted set of clubs that will allow that person to perform to his or her potential.


-JP

You'll have a hard time selling someone that concept. People want to see results and fancy equipment if they are going to shell out any money.

People want to see how this or that may or might not work with their own eyes.They don't like to be told what they should play.You have to proved to them why they need this or that.

People will have no problem buying a $500 suit and then spend the money to have it tailored.Why,cause they want it to fit. But, these are the same folks who won't spend the money to fit themselves to that $600 set of irons.Just makes no sense to me.

Because I know how oems build,I would never play a set off the wall or even a set ordered to my specs from an OEM. They just can't get it right.

 

[Geezer]

Because I know how oems build,I would never play a set off the wall or even a set ordered to my specs from an OEM. They just can't get it right.

That's all well and good for a scratch golfer, who (probably) has a solid, repeatable swing. Take me though, for example, there are probably 1001 things wrong with my swing, and I for sure don't want a set of clubs set up to optimise performance from my crappy swing. I'd rather take lessons, get the swing sorted out, and then get clubs to fit an improved swing.

Or maybe there is just something wrong with the way I'm approaching it all, and that's why I've still got a crappy swing and you're scratch

 

[JPsuff]

You'll have a hard time selling someone that concept. People want to see results and fancy equipment if they are going to shell out any money.

People want to see how this or that may or might not work with their own eyes.They don't like to be told what they should play.You have to proved to them why they need this or that.

People will have no problem buying a $500 suit and then spend the money to have it tailored.Why,cause they want it to fit. But, these are the same folks who won't spend the money to fit themselves to that $600 set of irons.Just makes no sense to me.

Because I know how oems build,I would never play a set off the wall or even a set ordered to my specs from an OEM. They just can't get it right.

Well, I think a lot of that stems from the fact that fitting is marketed to the public as some sort of magic elixir and that's the problem.

I think that playing golf and fitting for golf is very similar to learning an instrument.

When someone wants to learn to play the piano, they're taught to play "Chopsticks" and given simple exercises and simple instruction so that they can learn the basics of where the keys are, what fingers go where and so on.

When they get to an intermediate level, they're taught to play light classical or light jazz pieces and when they become advanced, they're taught complex classical and complex jazz.

In golf and in fitting for golf, it's very similar.

When a person first learns the game, they're taught basics and how to make contact with the ball and make it go somewhere. Intermediate golfers learn more detailed aspects of the game and advanced golfers begin to delve into the finer points of shotmaking.

I think the fitting that goes with that really ought to be a three-phase process. Basic measurement-oriented fitting, then a more detailed fitting based upon a stable and mostly repeatable swing and finally, "Optimization" which draws the last few percentage points of performance potential from a person's swing.

A beginning piano player doesn't need a $50,000 concert grand piano to learn how to play. An intermediate piano player might make some beautiful music with it, but only an advanced player can make that concert grand really sing and produce the sound it was designed to produce.

I mean, look at the golf ball itself. "Tour" balls are presumably designed so that they offer good performance for average players but only a powerful swing with solid contact and high clubhead speed can activate the deep core to produce optimal distance.

Fitting is only known to the general public because it's been marketed to them. But the problem with it is that it's being marketed in a "one time" sense when it really should be an evolving thing like learning to play the piano, where each stage gets more detailed.


-JP

 

[JB]

I mean, look at the golf ball itself. "Tour" balls are presumably designed so that they offer good performance for average players but only a powerful swing with solid contact and high clubhead speed can activate the deep core to produce optimal distance.



-JP

I disagree with most of your analogy, but the ball itself is not what you are calling it. There are quite a few "Tour" balls that can easily be compressed for amateurs with slower swing speeds. Things have changed with the golf ball and your assumptions were true 5 years ago but not now. The B330RX and the Srixon Z-star are both "tour" balls but geared for people with average swing speeds (85-90) and can quite easily be compressed.

As for your analogy with the piano. Your analogy works if you are talking about what kind of equipment beginners should by, but has no bearing at all in regards to fitting. Should a brand new golfer spend $500 on a driver? They dont need to. Similar to the piano.

But any piano player beginner or advanced wants their piano tuned appropriately. That works well as the analogy for fitting.

 

[provisional]

A repeatable swing is the bench mark for all lower handicap golfers. With a repeatable swing you know where the ball is going, and how far it is going. With a repeatable swing, using non fitted clubs, the ball may go left, right, or center most of the time, based on what the club is doing through out the swing. It is my belief that the same thing can happen with fitted clubs, but not having a repeatable swing. The club fitter says you need this or that based on a few swings, but with out a repeatable swing, the club fitter won't be able to narrow down the actual specs needed for a golfer. Ball flight might be more consistent, only when the golfer swings like the swing used while being fitted.

My swing has changed over the years from a stiff flex, standard lie, to a regular flex, and 2* up right lie. I don't hit the ball as far as I use to, but I still have a "some what" repeatable swing, which gives me a "some what" repeatable ball flight. The only time my ball flight changes is when my swing (rhythm) tempo, timing, set up and/or ball position changes from my repeatable norm. Since I do not play, or practice everyday, I do not have a 100% "repeatable " swing every time I make a full swing. I'd be happy having a "repeatable" swing 40% of the time. :clapp:

 

[JPsuff]

I disagree with most of your analogy, but the ball itself is not what you are calling it. There are quite a few "Tour" balls that can easily be compressed for amateurs with slower swing speeds. Things have changed with the golf ball and your assumptions were true 5 years ago but not now. The B330RX and the Srixon Z-star are both "tour" balls but geared for people with average swing speeds (85-90) and can quite easily be compressed.

As for your analogy with the piano. Your analogy works if you are talking about what kind of equipment beginners should by, but has no bearing at all in regards to fitting. Should a brand new golfer spend $500 on a driver? They dont need to. Similar to the piano.

But any piano player beginner or advanced wants their piano tuned appropriately. That works well as the analogy for fitting.

JB disagrees with JP... what are the odds?

(that's meant to be funny, JB)

Perhaps my analogy wasn't as clear as I intended, but the point I'm trying to make is that the more skillful a player becomes the more he or she benefits from delving into the deeper and more detailed aspects of the swing and the equipment they use.

A beginning golfer has enough trouble bringing the clubhead to the ball in the first place, so what type of shaft they have in their driver is of little consequence. The more a player develops, the more they will benefit from specific types of shafts and specific types of clubs. Finally, if and when that player rises to a level at which their swing is nearly perfect (or at least extremely consistent), then optimization is the final "step" in dialing in their equipment and specifications to draw the last few decimal points of performance from that swing.


-JP

 

[Craig Mac]

opcorn:








(If you reread the posts you'll see you guys are all agreeing just at a different level)

 

[Fourputt]

That's all well and good for a scratch golfer, who (probably) has a solid, repeatable swing. Take me though, for example, there are probably 1001 things wrong with my swing, and I for sure don't want a set of clubs set up to optimise performance from my crappy swing. I'd rather take lessons, get the swing sorted out, and then get clubs to fit an improved swing.

Or maybe there is just something wrong with the way I'm approaching it all, and that's why I've still got a crappy swing and you're scratch

+1

This is the crux of the issue. Big Lefty is a scratch player. His swing is nearly the same for every shot. As a weak 12.2 index, I doubt that I could tell the difference if you fitted my AP-2's to me, as opposed to the stock setup I'm now using. I so rarely make the same swing twice in a row that spending money for fitting would just make an already expensive game more so with little or no reward for the money spent.

I see this as mostly another way to separate the desperate golfer from more of his disposable income. :confused2: Just my opinion.

 

[JB]

JB disagrees with JP... what are the odds?

Perhaps my analogy wasn't as clear as I intended, but the point I'm trying to make is that the more skillful a player becomes the more he or she benefits from delving into the deeper and more detailed aspects of the swing and the equipment they use.

The odds are pretty good when your analogies keep making little sense. Your point I am guessing here is that as a player gets better, than they will be able to tell the differences more clearly in equipment. To me that seems kind of obvious.

But comparing buying a piano to getting fitted is apples and oranges to me. To compare apples to apples it would be buying a piano and getting it tuned and I am not sure any expert in pianos would suggest that, just like no experts in golf suggest buying golf equipment without getting it fitted.

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

JB disagrees with JP... what are the odds?

(that's meant to be funny, JB)

Perhaps my analogy wasn't as clear as I intended, but the point I'm trying to make is that the more skillful a player becomes the more he or she benefits from delving into the deeper and more detailed aspects of the swing and the equipment they use.

A beginning golfer has enough trouble bringing the clubhead to the ball in the first place, so what type of shaft they have in their driver is of little consequence. The more a player develops, the more they will benefit from specific types of shafts and specific types of clubs. Finally, if and when that player rises to a level at which their swing is nearly perfect (or at least extremely consistent), then optimization is the final "step" in dialing in their equipment and specifications to draw the last few decimal points of performance from that swing.


-JP

That is so far off it's funny. Getting fitted can reduce 4-5 strokes.I'm sorry but fitting a 4 handicap isn't going to make him scratch.

Getting fitted is designed to help make every single club feel the exact same.This gives the golfer confidence to make good swings/shots

Being fitted helps reduce the margin of errant shots.

a scratch golfer can just about play with any set out there.He/she has the talent to adjust to them.But, why should a person have to adjust to their golf clubs.- this is the part most of you are missing

Obviously you are not in the industry and you have no intention to help others with their game. I'm unsure why you have such hatred toward the industry that is trying to help golfers play their best game.

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

+1

This is the crux of the issue. Big Lefty is a scratch player. His swing is nearly the same for every shot. As a weak 12.2 index, I doubt that I could tell the difference if you fitted my AP-2's to me, as opposed to the stock setup I'm now using. I so rarely make the same swing twice in a row that spending money for fitting would just make an already expensive game more so with little or no reward for the money spent.

I see this as mostly another way to separate the desperate golfer from more of his disposable income. :confused2: Just my opinion.

Are you kidding me? I give away my services to golfers,just to help their game. Golfers who have been fitted by me and bought a set of irons get free adjustments for as long as they own that set.
Golfers who have been fitted and had their current set adjusted for them,pay me $100 every year for new grips and loft and lie checks along with the adjustments. I'm sorry but I'm giving away my services.

You are missing the point.Custom fitted clubs do me the least benefit. I can play with any set of clubs and be close to par. Fittings are designed for everyone at any skill level.The higher cap's will benefit the most.

Your thinking is why golfers today are not shooting lower scores then golfers 10 years ago.
Technology has come a long way.Why not take advantage of that to help your game?

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

A repeatable swing is the bench mark for all lower handicap golfers. With a repeatable swing you know where the ball is going, and how far it is going. With a repeatable swing, using non fitted clubs, the ball may go left, right, or center most of the time, based on what the club is doing through out the swing. It is my belief that the same thing can happen with fitted clubs, but not having a repeatable swing. The club fitter says you need this or that based on a few swings, but with out a repeatable swing, the club fitter won't be able to narrow down the actual specs needed for a golfer. Ball flight might be more consistent, only when the golfer swings like the swing used while being fitted.

My swing has changed over the years from a stiff flex, standard lie, to a regular flex, and 2* up right lie. I don't hit the ball as far as I use to, but I still have a "some what" repeatable swing, which gives me a "some what" repeatable ball flight. The only time my ball flight changes is when my swing (rhythm) tempo, timing, set up and/or ball position changes from my repeatable norm. Since I do not play, or practice everyday, I do not have a 100% "repeatable " swing every time I make a full swing. I'd be happy having a "repeatable" swing 40% of the time. :clapp:

Everybody's swing changes over the years.But, do they check their clubs to see if they still fit them? NO.

Lower handicap players play with fitted clubs to take advantage of all this new technology.Why?Cause they want every edge to stay competitive.It helps us the least,but we do it for consistency

Why don't most gofers do the same for their game? One,they just don't understand what it can do for them.
Two, they rather spend the money elsewhere,like more Beer.

three, they believe like you and JP and Fourputt ,that club fittings are for the lower cap players.When they are for everybody and helps the higher cap guys the most.. Maybe you guys need to go visit a clubmaker and talk directly to them.You will learn a ton and then wonder why you never did it sooner/

 

[JPsuff]

Getting fitted is designed to help make every single club feel the exact same.This gives the golfer confidence to make good swings/shots

And so does swingweighting, which is a helluva lot less expensive or involved as fitting.

Being fitted helps reduce the margin of errant shots.

No it doesn't. Practice does that.

When I was playing to a 2 handicap, I was using a late 80's vintage TaylorMade metal driver and 3-wood, a set of MacGregor blades and an "off the rack" T.P.Mills putter. The only thing I was ever "fitted" for was clublength and lie angle. I myself decided on swingweight (which back then I set to D-7 with a little time, some lead tape and an "economy" swingweight scale from Golfworks) and I changed to X-100 shafts because I reasoned that the S-300's I was using were causing an annoying fade because the first-step dimension was too far away from the hosel leaving the clubface open at impact (I was right).


That was the extent of my "fitting".

So how did I get to a 2 handicap?

Practice,
Practice,
Practice.

I'm not saying that fitting won't benefit someone by being able to draw the last ounce of performance from their equipment, but anything beyond the basics of lie, length and shaft flex will not make anyone play better.

Only practice can do that.


-JP

 

[JB]

And so does swingweighting, which is a helluva lot less expensive or involved as fitting.

No it doesn't. Practice does that.

When I was playing to a 2 handicap, I was using a late 80's vintage TaylorMade metal driver and 3-wood, a set of MacGregor blades and an "off the rack" T.P.Mills putter. The only thing I was ever "fitted" for was clublength and lie angle. I myself decided on swingweight (which back then I set to D-7 with a little time, some lead tape and an "economy" swingweight scale from Golfworks) and I changed to X-100 shafts because I reasoned that the S-300's I was using were causing an annoying fade because the first-step dimension was too far away from the hosel leaving the clubface open at impact (I was right).


That was the extent of my "fitting".

So how did I get to a 2 handicap?

Practice,
Practice,
Practice.


-JP

Actually both do that. But let me see if I understand this right. You are arguing something that you have never done and never experienced and obviously know very little about?

:confused2:

 

[BigLeftyinAZ]

And so does swingweighting, which is a helluva lot less expensive or involved as fitting.



No it doesn't. Practice does that.

When I was playing to a 2 handicap, I was using a late 80's vintage TaylorMade metal driver and 3-wood, a set of MacGregor blades and an "off the rack" T.P.Mills putter. The only thing I was ever "fitted" for was clublength and lie angle. I myself decided on swingweight (which back then I set to D-7 with a little time, some lead tape and an "economy" swingweight scale from Golfworks) and I changed to X-100 shafts because I reasoned that the S-300's I was using were causing an annoying fade because the first-step dimension was too far away from the hosel leaving the clubface open at impact (I was right).


That was the extent of my "fitting".

So how did I get to a 2 handicap?

Practice,
Practice,
Practice.

I'm not saying that fitting won't benefit someone by being able to draw the last ounce of performance from their equipment, but anything beyond the basics of lie, length and shaft flex will not make anyone play better.

Only practice can do that.


-JP

Clueless,clueless. Am I saying getting fitted will get a golfer to get them to a 2 handicap?NO

Fitted clubs will and should take a 12 cap to a 9,the rest is on his training.



How much is the basic fitting vs a full on fitting in your area.In my shop it's the same price.So, why wouldn't a golfer take advantage of getting something for less money?

You can go to Golfsmith or golf Galaxy and pay them their fitting fee of $49 for irons.Which I feel is worthless.That's just your basic Length and stuff.

 

[bama]

I was sharing a bag of popcorn with CM while reading and have a question....
What do you think of the 1IronGolf concept??
Same length irons for everything???
It takes out a variable for the recreational golfer...
I realize the distances would be based solely on the loft....

Just wondering your opinions how that would play into this fitting converation??