Fitting/science vs experimenting/ playing

[wkuo3]

Ever regret that you sold or traded away a "perfect" set ?

I think if you stay with a set long enough, you will grow into it. Just like breaking in a new pair of shoes.

However, you don't want to start with a pair of shoes that's the wrong size and wrong style for the use. So utilize the science of fitting to narrow down the selection to be experimented before you start. Unless you have all the resources to allow you to test what's available , it'll take time and financial commitment if you don't start from a selective list.

[Z1ggy16]

You need both IMO. The fitting gets you into 1 or 2 shafts/clubs that produce good numbers and feel nice, but you need to hit balls on the range and play with that set up for a while to confirm those "predictions" because that's all a fitting really is. It's unlikely hitting a few dozen shots with a build is going to be 100% bang on for you. It may require some tweaking or even a total change to get where you like, especially if fitting indoors vs playing outdoors.

[BlkNGld]

You have the fitting, then you have the human element.

 

We're familiar with people who hit the range and hit balls in a way that bears faint resemblance to the course, but what about when someone is in demo/fitting mode? Are they playing course golf, range golf, or some other kind?

 

Fitters certainly have different skills and biases, but I also suspect that the more skilled the player the less variation there is from their on course swing to their range swing to their fitting bay swing.

 

[HappyGilmore22]

Fittings haven't gotten me the exact results that I like on course, but it was a good starting point. Have gone with recommendations that were made for me from fittings on trackman but then I get to the course and test them out a lot and make small tweaks to get the ball flight to fit my eye.

[joey3108]

The other art of fitting is detecting a players who overly calculate himself from the reality and to top it off, they know every equipments specs from reading here 2-3 hrs a day and often have a very convincing writing skills (graduated Magna cum laude on this part ?). In my case, I'm experiencing about 5-10% and I'm sure bigger on regular big box stores fitting set up.

 

I can smell the blood faster than a hound dog on this part! Just saying! ???

[2bGood]

I think it depends on you level of knowledge. There are so many variables that you could never do an ‘on course’ self fitting from scratch. Once you play for a while and know what you like it is not so tough to zero in a shaft/head you like and try it out on the course to confirm it is what you want to play.

 

The Buy and Sell can be great for this. Typically you can buy used clubs try them and flip if you don’t like them for the same price you paid. You might eat the shipping costs.

 

Lots of clubs have good demo programs too where you can play a club for a while.

[jll62]

> @ChipNRun said:

> > @tets said:

> > ... During that those 7 weeks last summer **I had approx. 12 sets of irons!** This year I said I need to focus on 1 set and a driver. So I got fit. I wasn’t sold on the recommended shaft. Then out of curiosity I did 2 more fittings. All using Trackman and pro v 1s, 2 outside, one inside. All 3 came up with different irons and different shafts. I bought a set that was recommended by one of the fitters, took them to the course and **played a round.** Terrible results, not even close. ...

>

> It would be fun to try all those iron sets, but most of us have neither the time nor money to go this route.

>

> Some variables influence how much one gets out of a fitting...

> * How skilled is the fitter, how well does fitter communicate, and how close is the launch monitor to calibration.

> * **"I had approx. 12 sets of irons!"** in seven weeks. Any chance you were suffering from information overload, having trouble keeping the different irons sets straight in your head?

>

> I would suggest that even a scratch golfer such as yourself needs a _learning curve_ period of longer than **one round** to really get the feel of new irons (or drivers).

 

I know this is an old post, but I wanted to comment on the last part because I see and hear this advice a lot, but I've never understood it. In my experience, if the club doesn't fit and perform within 3 swings, it's out and it's not coming back. If you keep them around and go through a learning curve period, what you're actually doing is making small adjustments to the clubs. I've seen many players ruin their swings by sticking with clubs that don't work. If a club fits, it should work right away.

[mogc60]

> @sshadow2 said:

> > @Noodler said:

> > Since this thread has been revived...

> >

> > When was the last time anyone actually experienced a fitter that truly used science in their fitting? Sure there's "science" inside the launch monitor, but is the fitter using science in the fitting method?

> >

> > The goal of every golfer should be to achieve accurate hits, most consistently, at the highest swing speed possible. So what is the fitter doing to test and then improve your accuracy and consistency while optimizing your swing speed? If your experience has been like mine, then the answer is nothing. They typically change too many variables at once and use a trial-and-error process of elimination to try to get to something that "seems" to fit to you. There is no true scientific method employed by fitters to change the key club variables and then determine how those variables are affecting the accuracy, consistency, and speed of your swing.

> >

> > Fitters should be changing a single variable while holding the others constant and then testing and recording the results (methodically/scientifically). Are they truly helping you determine the correct overall weight, distribution of that weight, club length, grip thickness, etc. And this isn't just about measuring you and then looking at a chart or table and saying this is what you should be using, but rather actually testing the real world impact of changes to these club characteristics on your swing.

> >

> > Until the practice of club fitting matures and develops the understanding of what it really takes to find the optimal setup for a golfer, understand what you're actually getting for your money. Even the highest level, most acclaimed fitters available are not truly using a scientific approach to determine what is optimal for your game.

>

> I agree with a lot of what you said, but I disagree regarding the maturity of the practice of club fitting. I have a hard time believing tour pros don't get the most completely thorough fittings around. Heck, they get clubs made specifically for them! I think its very mature, I just don't think there is a standard that everyone follows, especially at the consumer level. Plus to keep the door revolving, there is a lot of cutting corners and a typical fitting for non pro is no where near as extensive as it should be. I can tell that if I put too many bad swings into my fittings, and time is almost up, the more "ball park" my recommendation is going to be. Also, another issue -- many here at Wrx say that indoor fitting are less than ideal, especially on a Trackman and on a mat, but I'm hard pressed to find anything else in my area.

>

> I've been experimenting on my own for over a decade, I got tired of losing money and not having fun with all the random variables used sets and clubs come with. So I went the science route this year. In spite of my before-mentioned limitations on fitting environments, what I have now is the best for me that I've ever had. I'm hitting well and I'm having fun playing golf.

>

> Ultimately though, I think it all depends on where you are in life. For me, I'm for the science right now.

 

Good points in both posts. You can’t be fit truly in a few hours. It would take weeks...more like a tour player. Why be fit for something on an off day. A weak day, tired day...you can’t. It would have to be the sum of experience over an extended time. How many times to you hit a club that feels great and two days later it feels so wrong and you never regain that initial feel? It’s a bad fit overall but that day it was great. It’s finding what gives you the most consistent results and feels right day in and day out.

[Valtiel]

In my opinion, fittings are only as good or useful as how in tune you are with your feel and preferences. I firmly believe in experimenting a TON on your own until you've developed this knowledge, and only then are you "primed" to get the most out of a fitting. As @jll62 said, we tend to very quickly make little tweaks and compensations when we are swinging something so I agree his concept of first impressions being so important. You can swing a terribly fit club long enough and start to get good results, but good luck taking that to the course where you don't have the shots to burn to start making those compensations again.

 

There are things that I have learned on my own over many years that I don't think could have been figured out within the confines of a few afternoon hours of fitting. @"Howard Jones" posting about 3/8" iron gapping with progressive swingweight was a big one for me. Experimenting with grips and grip sizes as well as swing weight and total weight. Different shafts with different balance points and different bend profiles. Face and lie angle preferences.....I wouldn't feel comfortable going in to a fitting unless I had really established these things on my own so I knew how to properly guide things. I think too many people go in with the faith that the "fitter" is somehow going to know everything about you after a handful of swings and that just isn't going to be the case with all but the most elite guys.

[Yarra]

> @joey3108 said:

> A good fitting is finding the balance of the art and science of it. Maximized to the right skill level to make the players less on mishits. This game is all about missed less than others WIN!

>

> No science can explain when fitting a low ball hitter with all the low kick point shafts, all flexes and explain why their swing mechanics should be ..... And they still can't do it until i gave him a certain shaft profile and tricked him on the swing though. Bare in mind, I've done this to a better than average players to a pro level. They've even surprised on how I've figured that out. That's ART!

>

> But, we as a good fitter should stay within the guide lines to maximize their potential on feel, distance and accuracy. That's the SCIENCE.

>

> Last is the players itself. What is their expectation approaching this game and trusting the equipments? No one will have fun and play well if they always blame the equipments. Equipments is the easy part to fit you, but they still have to remember who swing the club? Remember we are not a robot! Even a robot can't do it consistent enough due to weather factors. And talking/discussing the science of it on daily or constant manner will build them to be a way too technical players. Is that what they really want?

>

> My 2 cents!

 

Well said, buddy!

[Yarra]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> Fitting is both science and art combined.

> The science part is simple, the art is not.

> The science used in fitting is only guidelines and about what we can expect from a certain change, but there is no rules without exceptions, and in equipment fitting the exceptions is almost just as many as there is guidelines because we always have factor X involved, the human factor, and how we as humans respond to the changes done.

> a good club fitter focus on the player; and use his tools as assistants, **those not so good fit his launchmonitor and overlook the player**.

>

> Thats my 2 cents about it

 

Can't agree more... plus the fact that they always put the 'newest' as the 'best'!

[buckhorn70]

I have had the Golf Galaxy type of fittings a few times they the years with mixed results. Hitting into an indoor net relying on a monitor may be accurate or may not..... who really knows. But.....

 

I got fit this year with the best results I’ve ever had at True Spec in Pinehurst. They had a Trackman in an indoor bay but your were hitting into the driving range not a net. So you could actually see the ball flight from impact to the landing and compare it against the Trackman numbers on the big screen. After a “fit” was found in a particular club you then moved out(off the synthetic hitting mat)onto real grass and hit balls to watch the flight. It also helped having a fitter with tons of head/shaft options that knew what a particular combo would do for the individual. My fitter knew the characteristics of shafts(. Flex, kick points,etc) and club heads( what was a spinner or not).

 

Anyway..... I think being fit outside( in conjunction with a Trackman and a knowledgeable fitter) where you can see the real results is WAY better than hitting in a net. Just my opinion and experience.

[Foxx]

I won't go get another fitting. Every fitter tries to tell me +2" over is too long for a 5 foot 11 golfer like myself.

 

By their recommended lengths I feel crouched over the ball and hit it fat or left.

 

 

Edited July 17 by Foxx

[ShortGolfer]

5 hours ago, Foxx said:

I won't go get another fitting. Every fitter tries to tell me +2" over is too long for a 5 foot 11 golfer like myself.

 

By their recommended lengths I feel crouched over the ball and hit it fat or left.

 

 

What they may really be trying to tell you is that they can't get +2 inch clubs at the SW you need.

 

Sort of like me going into a men's store and wanting to buy a suit.  Nothing they have in the store will fit me.  Not even close.  It was a struggle to find clothes for me in Hawaii, where there were a lot of short Asian men.

 

If I were tall I think it would be an interesting challenge to modify club heads with my machine shop and assemble my own clubs.

 

There are expensive lightweight clubs intended for Senior golfers that may be useful for your needs if you don't care what it costs.  An example is the XXIO 12 Prime.

I bought a new in plastic 7 iron head that weights 261 grams.

But, with all the talk about being steered into the most expensive products out there, some fitters may be reluctant to go there unless you say you want to go there.  

 

 

Edited July 17 by ShortGolfer

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

I won't go get another fitting. Every fitter tries to tell me +2" over is too long for a 5 foot 11 golfer like myself.

 

By their recommended lengths I feel crouched over the ball and hit it fat or left.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong - play what you want and feels comfortable.   Nothing wrong with that.   What you gain in comfort could certainly offset some of the downsides to the longer length and heavier swing weight.

 

If it's only the short end of the set you have problems with, maybe a one length set might be something to consider.  

 

Regardless, when it comes to whether or not you really are crouched over too much, I'd be more inclined to go to my pro to get an honest evaluation of whether that's really the case or not - or evaluate why.  There is likely some atypical nature about your setup and posture that has become the "norm" in your mind - although I'm not here to judge whether it's good or bad.   But that's me, I actually like working on my swing to improve it - including posture.  But many people are happy with what they got and just want to go play and that's fine too.

Edited July 17 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

I won't go get another fitting. Every fitter tries to tell me +2" over is too long for a 5 foot 11 golfer like myself.

 

By their recommended lengths I feel crouched over the ball and hit it fat or left.

 

 

That cant be the whole story, and many OEMs has a limit on 1.50", so that might be part of it, but at 5 feet 11, a average buildt man would fit plain standard, (im 6.0 with 34 WTF and prefer minus 0.25"), so at your height, plus 2.0" dont sound right at all, but hard to say since i never saw your stance with a #9 iron from behind. The longest irons ive seen was plus 2.25" made for a man thats 211 cm (6.92 or 6 feet 11")

[Foxx]

21 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

That cant be the whole story, and many OEMs has a limit on 1.50", so that might be part of it, but at 5 feet 11, a average buildt man would fit plain standard, (im 6.0 with 34 WTF and prefer minus 0.25"), so at your height, plus 2.0" dont sound right at all, but hard to say since i never saw your stance with a #9 iron from behind. The longest irons ive seen was plus 2.25" made for a man thats 211 cm (6.92 or 6 feet 11")

 

I like to bend my knees a little less than most people. I have an upright stance with a straight back.

Feels right, and works for me.

If I stand comfortably like this over the ball with a "standard" length iron, it hovers 2 inches above the ground.

 

 

 

Edited July 18 by Foxx

[Nessism]

On 8/10/2019 at 8:29 AM, mogc60 said:

 

You can’t be fit truly in a few hours. It would take weeks...more like a tour player. Why be fit for something on an off day. A weak day, tired day...you can’t. It would have to be the sum of experience over an extended time. How many times to you hit a club that feels great and two days later it feels so wrong and you never regain that initial feel? It’s a bad fit overall but that day it was great. It’s finding what gives you the most consistent results and feels right day in and day out.

 

I built a set of irons with Steelfiber 95S shafts and Mizuno MX25 heads, and took them to the range.  Stroked those bad boys SO GREAT!  High, straight, long!  Unicorn stuff!

 

Reality set in on the course a few days later.  The clubs felt too light.  Swingweight was D4, so that wasn't it.  I was typically playing heavier shafts in those days.  I didn't like the feel of the shafts either.  I played like crap.  The difference in weight between these new clubs and my typical clubs was just too much.

 

Around this same time, at the range, they had a Tour Edge demo day.  Dude handed me some sort of hollow head iron with Recoil 660 shaft.  Just like the Mizuno's, I was stroking those irons so great.  Amazing.  I just got done hitting my regular clubs, and hitting them quite poorly.  One of those "bad days" at the range.  Anyway, here I was, just killing shot after shot, perfect strikes, and I shrugged.  Just knew it can't be real.

 

Those two events proved to me that demo's can be deceiving.  At least for me, they can't be trusted, and likewise, any fitting done over a short time couldn't be trusted either.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18 by Nessism

[PedronNiall]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

 

I just bend my knees a little less than most people. I'm also have an upright stance with a straight back.

Works for me.

If I stand comfortably over the ball with a standard length iron, it hovers 2 inches above the ground.

 

 

 

 

Video would be a lot more helpful, but from your description it doesn't sound like your swing is very good for the spine and perhaps your knees as well. Curious as to how you make a repeatable backswing trying to manage such a long club on what must be a very flat takeaway or one that would have to be dependent on picking up the arms/club. Probably been dodging letting any instructors get anywhere near you.

 

Better players don't have all that much knee flex, but sounds like you've gone to extremes. Åberg's about as extreme as it gets and even he doesn't stand so tall with his well over 6' frame to need +2".

 

 

I'd feel badly not saying anything when you may be making choices that are likely to lead to eventual injury so sharing some data. Don't feel like you have to respond, simply food for thought. 

[Foxx]

18 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Video would be a lot more helpful, but from your description it doesn't sound like your swing is very good for the spine and perhaps your knees as well. Curious as to how you make a repeatable backswing trying to manage such a long club on what must be a very flat takeaway or one that would have to be dependent on picking up the arms/club. Probably been dodging letting any instructors get anywhere near you.

 

Better players don't have all that much knee flex, but sounds like you've gone to extremes. Åberg's about as extreme as it gets and even he doesn't stand so tall with his well over 6' frame to need +2".

 

 

I'd feel badly not saying anything when you may be making choices that are likely to lead to eventual injury so sharing some data. Don't feel like you have to respond, simply food for thought. 

 

Thanks. To the contrary though I setup this way many years ago to avoid back pain. It's friendlier on my body standing more upright. 

I hit longer and straighter also.

[ShortGolfer]

If you don't mind spending a premium price, if anyone can provide +2 inch clubs, it would be Club Champion.

If anyone has the sales volume to get oddball parts, it would be Club Champion.

Expect to pay the full list for the  stock clubs upgraded with premium shafts.  

 

You may be able to save some money by not having the shafts purred.  It is likely that you can get them to waive the fitting fee if you spend enough on golf clubs.

 

Many golfers play better with just a half set of clubs.  You may consider playing with a half set of clubs that work well together to avoid some of the issues you get when trying to put together a full set of custom clubs.  If a club is really hard to make, do you really need it?

 

I put together a minimalist lefty set over the winter. Stealth 2 3HL 16.5*, ladies Mavrik Max 5 iron 25*, T100  7iron34* , 52* gap wedge, and an Anser putter.

Edited July 19 by ShortGolfer

[Howard_Jones]

21 hours ago, Foxx said:

 

I like to bend my knees a little less than most people. I have an upright stance with a straight back.

Feels right, and works for me.

If I stand comfortably like this over the ball with a "standard" length iron, it hovers 2 inches above the ground.

 

 

 

OK...in the end its only one valid rule here....what ever works the best, and as long as you dont run into head wgt or impact issues, playing a #5 iron to the PL of  #1 driving iron...

 

[ShortGolfer]

Manual machine shop work is one of the quaint skills I learned in my early years like learning Morse code and programming a computer using Fortran with punch cards.

Professionals had all moved on and those skills were obsolete forty years ago.  They are still useful for retirement hobbies. 😆

 

Edited July 19 by ShortGolfer

[NRJyzr]

31 minutes ago, ShortGolfer said:

Fortran

 

I just had to quote this for the pure awesome in seeing Fortran referenced today.  I truly didn't have that on my bingo card for today.  😁

 

Many thanks for the sojourn down memory lane...

 

[PedronNiall]

41 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I just had to quote this for the pure awesome in seeing Fortran referenced today.  I truly didn't have that on my bingo card for today.  😁

 

Many thanks for the sojourn down memory lane...

 

 

1 hour ago, ShortGolfer said:

Manual machine shop work is one of the quaint skills I learned in my early years like learning Morse code and programming a computer using Fortran with punch cards.

Professionals had all moved on and those skills were obsolete forty years ago.  They are still useful for retirement hobbies. 😆

 

 

If you nerd out hard enough you can still find it in use and find younger programmers/coders/devs tooling around with it. Not sure how much and how quickly that will change with all the rapidly-advancing AI tools that allow accurate language to language conversion, but for the moment languages like Fortran and Cobol are still alive and in use, minus the punch cards. 

 

As in golf, if it's still sound it still has a place.