Iron Fitting: Are We Doing It Wrong?

[DataDude]

I regularly listen to an economics podcast called EconTalk and this week there was an advertising executive on the show talking about market choice architecture and how that may lead people to make inefficient choices. Many of the examples he gave focused on the use of metrics and how they leave out a lot of things people actually value. He talked about the real estate web sites and how they focus on quantifiable things like # of rooms, # of baths, square footage, nearby prices, and school ratings which is fine, but these are certainly not all encompassing of the things people look for in a home. He mentioned layout, architecture, the scenery of the lot, etc. that cannot be measured. He started talking about products in general and mentioned how sometimes the algorithm for decision making can focus so much on measurable's that everyone starts making products that focus solely on the measurable.

I could not help but think about the market for selling irons in golf. The choice architecture is basically a hitting bay in a store and a selection of 7 irons. Of course there are a lot of numbers that come from this setup but the big number is always distance and thus the manufacturers have continued to spit out 7 irons that go farther and farther. Most people when they go to buy new irons think that they want a set that is easier to play and will help them play better golf, but what they end up buying is the set with the 7 iron they hit the farthest. Does finding the longest 7 iron match buying the best set of irons for your game? Are these answering the same question or have we set up the market for irons incorrectly?

 

[JB]

I genuinely dont think the majority of people buy clubs this way. I think investing in one's clubs is a pretty emotional purchase. Whether that be tour player, favorite brand, etc. Then go to the store, MAYBE hit 1-3 clubs and make the decision.

Then compound that with golf being a game of social credit and you have the algorithm to why things are picked up. In my opinion anyway.

To use an example. The average "open minded" driver shopper tests 3-4 drivers before making his or her purchase. How did they narrow down their choices? Usually the top brands make the cut leaving anything out of the mix on the cutting room floor.

Going a step further, I have a friend that loves TaylorMade. We went out recently and I had the new Cobra driver with me. I said give it a swing, his response was "Dont like Cobra". Why? His response was "their drivers dont perform for me". Okay, acceptable. Then I told him that R&D at TaylorMade for the club in his bag currently is the head of Cobra R&D now. So is he loyal to the tech or the logo, since the moving parts say he should love the design elements of the current Cobra offerings, right?

I always love these topics and can go on forever as I study buying habits nearly every day, but will leave it to the THPers for now.

 

[j_sizzle9]

I genuinely dont think the majority of people buy clubs this way. I think investing in one's clubs is a pretty emotional purchase. Whether that be tour player, favorite brand, etc. Then go to the store, MAYBE hit 1-3 clubs and make the decision.

Then compound that with golf being a game of social credit and you have the algorithm to why things are picked up. In my opinion anyway.

To use an example. The average "open minded" driver shopper tests 3-4 drivers before making his or her purchase. How did they narrow down their choices? Usually the top brands make the cut leaving anything out of the mix on the cutting room floor.

Going a step further, I have a friend that loves TaylorMade. We went out recently and I had the new Cobra driver with me. I said give it a swing, his response was "Dont like Cobra". Why? His response was "their drivers dont perform for me". Okay, acceptable. Then I told him that R&D at TaylorMade for the club in his bag currently is the head of Cobra R&D now. So is he loyal to the tech or the logo, since the moving parts say he should love the design elements of the current Cobra offerings, right?

I always love these topics and can go on forever as I study buying habits nearly every day, but will leave it to the THPers for now.

Very interesting story. What did your friend say when told that the guys who basically “designed” his gamer has not designed the new Cobra driver?

Buying gold clubs imo is as much data driven as it is an emotional purpose. Far too many of us buy clubs that the pros play rather than truly buying what is best for for our game at that given time. I am guilty of this myself at times.

 

[SquirrelyDave]

I think Brand Bias plays waaaaay more into most purchases than we'd like to admit. As well as looks bias and lots of others. Theoretically it could be performance driven, but to @DataDude's point, I think there's more to finding the "right" set than pure distance. Ideally we'd be able to test full sets on the course, at our specs before purchasing, however, that's generally not an available option for us. So we do what we can with launch monitors and 7 irons.

 

[JonMA1]

Does finding the longest 7 iron match buying the best set of irons for your game?

If I'm understanding the question, I think it's a reasonable compromise. The reality for those of us with slower swing speeds and less skill might be that a SGI 7i or 6i is the longest iron we should carry, while at the same time, wedges from a completely different players set might be a good fit.

One of my favorite shots to pull off is a purred 4 iron which will travel further than by best 4H. But hitting that club well happens so infrequently and the resulting misses can be so bad, it makes little sense to have it in the bag. To their credit, I think the industry is starting to make this adjustment and sell custom make-ups of sets.

Buying a product because of marketing claims, or because a pro has endorsed it, or because others own it, etc, is illogical. I'll go as far as saying that how a club looks at address shouldn't matter (for me, not for others).

Yet, I'm guilty of looking at a picture on the internet and deciding that's what I want. When it came time to put down the $700 I'd saved for new irons, I wanted Mizuno. I never really considered the TMs or Calloways I'd tried at the fitting, and I almost went with the forged version of my set (at least I was aware they were a little more difficult to hit). Even though I hit the Mizuno 6i well at the fitting, and even though I'm still very happy with the set, it was a stupid approach. For me, scoring lower is more important than anything else. I should have put more consideration towards the other options.

 

[Chef23]

I do think a large number of people make purchase decisions without getting seriously fit. I have a friend that plays with a large group of guys that are mostly 10-20 handicaps and they play twice a week and go on a couple of trips a year. I play with them very occasionally and I don’t believe any of them has been really fit. They will go to a golf store maybe hit a few clubs and pick something out.

For me I have very rarely selected the longest club when getting fit. I am looking for the most accurate/consistent fit with the best distance I can get meeting that criteria. About 10 years ago I got fit for a driver and one of the drivers about every 2-3 swings I would get a drive that went 10-15 yard farther. I couldn’t get it to be consistent. I kept coming back to it and couldn’t get the consistency out of it. I wound up going with a club that the average distance was shorter but I was much more consistent with it.

With fitting I do think sometimes the focus is on distance. I want to know where the ball is going and do sacrifice a few yards to get more accuracy.

 

[Snickerdog]

When I did my fitting last December, I could have made that decision to go with the "longer" 7 iron but chose not to as it wasn't the most consistent. I think most people will make the right choices when being fit if they are paying attention to what they need for their game.

 

[DataDude]

If I'm understanding the question, I think it's a reasonable compromise. The reality for those of us with slower swing speeds and less skill might be that a SGI 7i or 6i is the longest iron we should carry, while at the same time, wedges from a completely different players set might be a good fit.

One of my favorite shots to pull off is a purred 4 iron which will travel further than by best 4H. But hitting that club well happens so infrequently and the resulting misses can be so bad, it makes little sense to have it in the bag. To their credit, I think the industry is starting to make this adjustment and sell custom make-ups of sets.

Buying a product because of marketing claims, or because a pro has endorsed it, or because others own it, etc, is illogical. I'll go as far as saying that how a club looks at address shouldn't matter (for me, not for others).

Yet, I'm guilty of looking at a picture on the internet and deciding that's what I want. When it came time to put down the $700 I'd saved for new irons, I wanted Mizuno. I never really considered the TMs or Calloways I'd tried at the fitting, and I almost went with the forged version of my set (at least I was aware they were a little more difficult to hit). Even though I hit the Mizuno 6i well at the fitting, and even though I'm still very happy with the set, it was a stupid approach. For me, scoring lower is more important than anything else. I should have put more consideration towards the other options.

I am not sure that the bold is not one of the most important things honestly. We are constantly told offset doesn't make you hit it left, but IMO that is disingenuous because offset tricks your eyes into setting the club up with a closed face which is sure as heck going to make you hit it more left than if you set it up with a square face. Sure if I put an offset iron and a non-offset iron into a robot and that robot hit 10 shots with each the offset isn't going to cause the ball to go left, but humans aren't robots and the offset tricks our eyes into setting up with a closed club face unless we are very careful at address so it can certainly cause a human to hit it left. That said some golfers who hit it too far right are going to be "tricked" into setting up with a closed face and start hitting the ball straighter while others are going to be "tricked" into hitting it too far left.

Basically golf is such a mental game and so much stuff is going on subconsciously that I think what a club looks like to a golfer at address could be one of the very most important things in buying a new club. Picking the look you want and then testing the different offerings in that look for performance would probably be a decent way to buy.

 

[Templet0n]

As a fitter I am always amazed at a couple of things.

1. Brand Bias. 90% of people come in and will not try anything other than "their" brand. I don't care how good something else is or how I know that the fit will be better. They will stick to something else if it is within their brand. So now for the most part, I don't even try to sell them something other than what they want as it is unproductive. I try at times, to introduce things but for the most part I just try to make what they want work as best that I can.

2. More in line with the first post. You can talk all the nuts and bolts you want. The tech story. the injected this, or flash that. Milling here and hydrophobic there. Only your 1% low handicaps care about that stuff. Most just want something they can look at and looks good in their bag to show off to their regular four some. I can't tell you how many times in fitting I here. "Tom is going to freak when he see's this in my bag". I always think " Tom is going to be happy walking off the 18th with your money".

I would say the majority of golfers despite what brands are saying can buy of the rack stock sets of clubs and play just as well. If you cannot make repeatable swing, fittings are pointless in my opinion. I think the whole get fit craze has more to do with all these OEMs getting together and seeing that they can collaborate and upsell and make more money. If you cannot break 100 and are of average build you do not need to get fit is my opinion.

 

[GoldenBuff]

I'm not a fan of using the 6i or 7i only for fitting but it is better than no fitting. And the small business fitters I work with can't afford lots of options. As far as distance as a primary purchasing factor -- certainly can be a primary marketing point -- fitters I have been working with here (small businesses) have pushed me away from clubs like P790 and i500. I've also started hanging out and have watched some other fittings where in each case the person with a concerned face said something like "my 7i goes farther than this one." IDK how that plays out beyond my limited experiences, but they are at least interested in distance. I am too, of course. I would also like consistency, but that's apparently a personal problem.

Emotion, however, is a great thing in golf. Golf makes me happy. Equipment makes me happy. Having brand favorites and villains makes me happy. I'm not building an online personal brand and have zero, zero, zero media goals. I'm just a golfer. I don't need to be objective. I like to learn and my emotional preferences will change over time. Right now I like having Mizuno irons and Ping at the top end of the bag. That feels good to me and is driving what clubs I try. In a month that might all change. And the quest to find the perfect clubs that fit both data-driven outcomes and my biased emotional preferences will continue as long as I keep golfing. I like that journey.

 

[donny475]

I used to be a Brand biased guy, but i also believe that we were brought up to be brand biased in my day. My dad was a "ford" guy, my mom believed that Sears could provide anything....

When I started playing golf, young as i was, i thought you reared back and hit the ball with all your might and tried to figure out how to keep it somewhere in the paying field. It was fun and frustrating at the same time. That is where i assume the phrase came from, "That was the shot that keeps you coming back". because in our innocence we hit that one career shot when the stars aligned and we actually put the center of the club face on the back of the ball and it flew like never before that day.....and we came back.

Then when i started taking the game serious and fell in with a group of real golfers.....I learned. not as much as i should have or wish i had back then. but enough to spark something in me that built and grew to love the game. I became brand loyal wit what i played better with. Through the years I realized through time that technology helped, but more important, what felt good, made you play well. I also believe that when i dressed or wore what made me feel good, made me feel better about my game also, and i played better. weird huh?

I would rather go to the PGASS and try things, but better for me, was going to a few range days to actually try the clubs. Being lucky enough to get to go to the True temper event a try so many new heads with so many shaft combinations was awesome. Being able to try the shaft that works best for you, one the head that looks and feels good to you, Priceless! Get fit....try many things....Out side your comfort zone and brand zone.

 

[pattyboy21]

It seems when I get new irons that I have to "adapt" to them. You're right though, hitting a 7-iron into a net, or even hitting some of your buddy's clubs on the range, is a poor indicator of how a new set will perform.

In a perfect world, we'd be able to try a full set for a month or so and then by THAT set if we like it.

 

[JB]

It seems when I get new irons that I have to "adapt" to them. You're right though, hitting a 7-iron into a net, or even hitting some of your buddy's clubs on the range, is a poor indicator of how a new set will perform.

In a perfect world, we'd be able to try a full set for a month or so and then by THAT set if we like it.

We should try that with everything.
New cars.
New cell phones
New computers
New clothes

"Sir, I will not pay you for these items. I shall take them home and if I like them after a good workout, I will pay you then".

 

[kevin81002]

I think Brand Bias plays waaaaay more into most purchases than we'd like to admit. As well as looks bias and lots of others. Theoretically it could be performance driven, but to @DataDude's point, I think there's more to finding the "right" set than pure distance. Ideally we'd be able to test full sets on the course, at our specs before purchasing, however, that's generally not an available option for us. So we do what we can with launch monitors and 7 irons.

For some people more than others for sure. I'm pretty open to try any brand but I do have to like the way they look or I usually won't even give them a shot. I have a friend that will only play one certain brand. He tries and buys a ton of stuff every year from different OEM's, but goes right back to Brand A no matter how well the others performed for him. You do have to admire his loyalty. But I can't help but to think there's some performance left on the table doing that, just as I know there's some performance given up with my refusal to swing an ugly (to me) club.

When I go in to test clubs, I'm looking at distance, spin, looks, price, etc etc etc. Tons of variables for me as I have to budget my spending and save for golf equipment. Doing it this way keeps the wifey from knowing how much I actually spend playing this crazy game.

 

[Parrot]

When I had my fitting in April, I asked my fitter not to tell me what he was giving me to hit. I had always played Titleist irons. I knew I had preconceived notions about certain brands and wanted to get the best combination of accuracy and distance for me, notwithstanding brand. I had one model from a manufacturer that I never thought I would play that looked far different than what I thought I would pick that gave me the best combination of dispersion and distance. Looking back, I wish I had gone with another model that had really good dispersion and slightly less distance that felt better at impact. The irons I chose don't have that nice, crisp feeling at impact, even on the best struck shots. I'll readily admit that I was enamored of the distance the M6s gave me.

 

[Templet0n]

We should try that with everything.
New cars.
New cell phones
New computers
New clothes

"Sir, I will not pay you for these items. I shall take them home and if I like them after a good workout, I will pay you then".

 

[mancest]

I think it depends on the fitter. When I have gone to a demo day, we looked at flight, distance and some dispersion. It was outside, so you could see ball flight (also had trackman) but also using range balls and we got some decent data.

At what I consider a great fitter, we did it indoors, with a GC Quad using golf balls that I played. We did go with the longest iron/shaft combo I hit regularly, but not the one that I the longest on one shot. I hit multiple options and we threw out any where I hit 3-5 shots and only 1 or 2 were good even if those 1-2 that were good were better than the others.

For me, we went with the following parameters in order of importance

1) Quality of strike
2) distance
3) dispersion
4) Ball flight

If I was a better player, that order would probably change quite a bit (for a really good player, quality of strike is probably not going to be a concern, other factors would be much more important). So like all things, it depends on where you go.

 

[pattyboy21]

We should try that with everything.
New cars.
New cell phones
New computers
New clothes

"Sir, I will not pay you for these items. I shall take them home and if I like them after a good workout, I will pay you then".

Where is this perfect world?? lol

I remember when the first PING Tisi driver came out with the odd shaped .380 head. EVERYONE was buying them and while the hozel wasn't adjustable, you would have choices in loft, lie and face angle. I hit my friend's new driver on the range and just loved it - I went straight to the store the next day and bought one with the exact same set up. My new driver didn't perform at all like my friend's; I even hit them together at the range when I saw him again. Same exact club, completely different feel and results...

 

[JonMA1]

I am not sure that the bold is not one of the most important things honestly. We are constantly told offset doesn't make you hit it left, but IMO that is disingenuous because offset tricks your eyes into setting the club up with a closed face which is sure as heck going to make you hit it more left than if you set it up with a square face. Sure if I put an offset iron and a non-offset iron into a robot and that robot hit 10 shots with each the offset isn't going to cause the ball to go left, but humans aren't robots and the offset tricks our eyes into setting up with a closed club face unless we are very careful at address so it can certainly cause a human to hit it left. That said some golfers who hit it too far right are going to be "tricked" into setting up with a closed face and start hitting the ball straighter while others are going to be "tricked" into hitting it too far left.

Basically golf is such a mental game and so much stuff is going on subconsciously that I think what a club looks like to a golfer at address could be one of the very most important things in buying a new club. Picking the look you want and then testing the different offerings in that look for performance would probably be a decent way to buy.

I hear that a lot, but it would have to be demonstrated to me. While I do agree the mental side of golf is huge, I’d wager there are several physical faults in my swing that are holding me back more than anything mental. The GI clubs I play help to some extent, but it likely has less to do with the look of my clubs at address than it does the physics in the design. If the offset helps, it’s because of a physical fault, imo.

 

[olperfesser]

My question is why a 7i? I may hit a 7i once a round. I am more likely to hit an 8i. It is my go to for par 3s. What I wish is that once a fitter has determined what shaft is best for me, let me rent 2 or 3 different sets of clubs and let me try them out on the course. Hitting off a mat indoors is not a good method of judging how well I hit a club. But, on the other hand, I don't want to be like a buddy of mine who is on his 6th set of clubs this year, never finding one he can be happy with ( 2 Callaways, a Ping, a Titleist and 2 TMs) He was only fitted for one set, but keeps wasting his money on new clubs.

 

[DataDude]

As a fitter I am always amazed at a couple of things.

1. Brand Bias. 90% of people come in and will not try anything other than "their" brand. I don't care how good something else is or how I know that the fit will be better. They will stick to something else if it is within their brand. So now for the most part, I don't even try to sell them something other than what they want as it is unproductive. I try at times, to introduce things but for the most part I just try to make what they want work as best that I can.

2. More in line with the first post. You can talk all the nuts and bolts you want. The tech story. the injected this, or flash that. Milling here and hydrophobic there. Only your 1% low handicaps care about that stuff. Most just want something they can look at and looks good in their bag to show off to their regular four some. I can't tell you how many times in fitting I here. "Tom is going to freak when he see's this in my bag". I always think " Tom is going to be happy walking off the 18th with your money".

I would say the majority of golfers despite what brands are saying can buy of the rack stock sets of clubs and play just as well. If you cannot make repeatable swing, fittings are pointless in my opinion. I think the whole get fit craze has more to do with all these OEMs getting together and seeing that they can collaborate and upsell and make more money. If you cannot break 100 and are of average build you do not need to get fit is my opinion.

If they can convince you that fitting is ultra important then they effectively ensure you buy new instead of used and as a bonus they support their local retailers. I understand their stance on fitting. It's no surprise at all they are marketing it.

 

[Templet0n]

If they can convince you that fitting is ultra important then they effectively ensure you buy new instead of used and as a bonus they support their local retailers. I understand their stance on fitting. It's no surprise at all they are marketing it.

I agree.

 

[JB]

If they can convince you that fitting is ultra important then they effectively ensure you buy new instead of used and as a bonus they support their local retailers. I understand their stance on fitting. It's no surprise at all they are marketing it.

Yet while true, it also assures them that you are potentially optimized to play your best, which in turn will have you enjoying the brand more.

The marketing angle would be no different than Apple saying you should buy a new phone every month if you want the best battery life, or Ford saying that by having a new car you will get better gas mileage. Yes all of those things can be true, but I dont believe its being done as a marketing bait. Especially considering that by going to a fitter, other brands can be inserted into the spectrum, outside of say, Titleist Thursday.

 

[Templet0n]

Yet while true, it also assures them that you are potentially optimized to play your best, which in turn will have you enjoying the brand more.

The marketing angle would be no different than Apple saying you should buy a new phone every month if you want the best battery life, or Ford saying that by having a new car you will get better gas mileage. Yes all of those things can be true, but I dont believe its being done as a marketing bait. Especially considering that by going to a fitter, other brands can be inserted into the spectrum, outside of say, Titleist Thursday.

I agree with this as well. I am all for people enjoying their stuff. If it helps them feel better than great. it is just hard as a fitter to try and get through to people at times. I cannot say "look you hit every club above an 8 irons the same distance, and there is nothing that is going to fix your slice". I would not sell any clubs that way.

 

[DataDude]

Yet while true, it also assures them that you are potentially optimized to play your best, which in turn will have you enjoying the brand more.

The marketing angle would be no different than Apple saying you should buy a new phone every month if you want the best battery life, or Ford saying that by having a new car you will get better gas mileage. Yes all of those things can be true, but I dont believe its being done as a marketing bait. Especially considering that by going to a fitter, other brands can be inserted into the spectrum, outside of say, Titleist Thursday.

I definitely think fitting is beneficial and I do not want to diminish it, but it is the one beneficial thing they really benefit from which is why it's a huge part of their marketing. It's a win-win for the OEM's.