MO_Hacker
At the drag strip
OK, here's the problem I have with that article:
The article explained:
"Despite the prevalent impression that fitting is only for serious players with consistent swings, it is now recommended for beginners as well. Why? Even hackers tend to have something in common: they execute the same basic swing fault over and over. The right clubs can minimize the deleterious outcomes."
So what they're saying is that rather than fix the problem, it's somehow easier or better to have clubs fitted TO the problem?
That makes no sense to me at all.
And what happens if "the same basic swing fault" is overcome? Now they need to get fitted again?
What DOES make sense is what was written later:
“If you’ve taken up golf and plan to keep playing, you should get at least a rudimentary fitting,â€
Get fitted for length, loft. lie and basic shaft flex. Then go out and learn to hit a golf ball with as good a swing as one is capable of developing and pay particular attention to developing consistency and repeatability.
THEN go and get a full-fledged custom fitting.
-JP
I agree with your point, however, for the vast majority of recreational golfers that aren't going to spend the money or time to improve their swing if getting fitted to clubs that will mask the flaw and make it fun for them to play, what is the harm?