Iron Shafts - Fit vs Feel

[theslflash689]

I swing 7 iron smooth around 86-88mph, full swing around 92 and can crank it up to 95mph. I was originally fit into DG X100 ssx1 but have found that my 5-6iron are coming out pretty low. I went back to the sim and did about 3 hours of testing and came away with KBS Tour. Question is, the fitter said I would get the most out of 120s (slightly better spin and launch numbers and a little more carry), but I felt 130x was more stable and easier to control and tighter dispersion. Is it ok to go with feel over fit?

[grochol17]

My opinion is that irons are about consistency, so you want to go with whatever you're going to hit the best. 

 

The only reason I'd say go with the 120s is if the extra bit of spin and launch was helping you hold greens whereas the 130x was running off of the back.

 

That being said, did you get to hit the 130x in a longer iron?  It isn't always the case that how a shaft performs on paper is how it will perform in your hands, so you might not hit it any higher than you hit the x100s.

[Arlin964]

I have been down this road before.  In fact, I think I'm still on it, but just closer to my destination.  As you can see in my sig, my iron/wedge shaft makeup looks a little odd.

 

For the last couple years, I've waffled back and forth between i230 (paired with PX6.0 at first, then Modus 115S) heads and TM P770 heads (paired with Modus 105S). 

 

From a feel perspective, I have such better head/face control with stepless shafts - PX Rifle, C-Taper, PX LS, etc.  But those shafts typically don't give me enough height and spin. << This sounds like the same thing you are contemplating right now.

 

My delivery conditions are such that I've always been low launch, low spin.

 

Right now I'm getting really good heigh and spin from the P770/Modus105S combo.

 

But I stumbled onto a used i230 U-Wedge w/ C-Taper 130X +1/2" at 2* upright in a used demo bin and good gracious I love it.  I love chipping with it.  I love full shots with it.  I have total clubhead awareness with it.

 

So I got a couple more CT130X shafts to experiment with.  I'm really loving it in my s159 LW.  I also put it into my i230 7iron.  

 

Compared to my P770/Modus105S combo, it definitely flies lower with lower spin.  Borderline not playable, but dang it's easy for me to find center contact with good low point control.  

 

I have a TPI fitting in September, so I'm going to give the fitter a big assignment with testing all kinds of iron shaft combos.

 

Moral of the story > Everyone is different but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you need to use the shaft that you have confidence in, then pair up heads and bend them to get appropriate launch conditions.  Shocker I know.  Brand new information that we've never heard here before from Howard and other experienced members lol.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, theslflash689 said:

Is it ok to go with feel over fit?

 

Certainly feel and confidence in that feel is an important aspect of shaft fitting.    But when done right, the two should never be in conflict with each other.

 

When it comes to shaft "fit" and looking at the numbers, launch and spin are not the indicators that dictate a good fit or not.   So even when ignoring feel, it's always better to fit shafts based on dispersion, consistency of face impact, accuracy, and shot shape control.   Shafts usually should not be used to fit for launch and spin.  Save the head and loft selection for that.

 

Note 1: that also assumes that the player is properly fit properly into shaft weight and head weight  before you can even start to looking at different stiffness profiles or flexes.

 

Note 2:  Sometimes (especially slower folks) might want to find a balance between consistency/control and swing speed if they think they want a bit more speed and are willing to pay the price in consistency (if there even is a price).

Edited July 25 by Stuart_G

[theslflash689]

3 hours ago, grochol17 said:

My opinion is that irons are about consistency, so you want to go with whatever you're going to hit the best. 

 

The only reason I'd say go with the 120s is if the extra bit of spin and launch was helping you hold greens whereas the 130x was running off of the back.

 

That being said, did you get to hit the 130x in a longer iron?  It isn't always the case that how a shaft performs on paper is how it will perform in your hands, so you might not hit it any higher than you hit the x100s.

I didn’t get to hit it in the longer irons. But I did place the order based on what I feel is right (130x) as it gave me the best dispersion and consistent control. I spun it enough to hold greens, the fitter just felt 120 might be marginally better. They recommended what most of you recommended, just bend some of the lofts weaker to adjust what I need to in the longer irons.

[phizzy30]

5 hours ago, Arlin964 said:

I have been down this road before.  In fact, I think I'm still on it, but just closer to my destination.  As you can see in my sig, my iron/wedge shaft makeup looks a little odd.

 

For the last couple years, I've waffled back and forth between i230 (paired with PX6.0 at first, then Modus 115S) heads and TM P770 heads (paired with Modus 105S). 

 

From a feel perspective, I have such better head/face control with stepless shafts - PX Rifle, C-Taper, PX LS, etc.  But those shafts typically don't give me enough height and spin. << This sounds like the same thing you are contemplating right now.

 

My delivery conditions are such that I've always been low launch, low spin.

 

Right now I'm getting really good heigh and spin from the P770/Modus105S combo.

 

But I stumbled onto a used i230 U-Wedge w/ C-Taper 130X +1/2" at 2* upright in a used demo bin and good gracious I love it.  I love chipping with it.  I love full shots with it.  I have total clubhead awareness with it.

 

So I got a couple more CT130X shafts to experiment with.  I'm really loving it in my s159 LW.  I also put it into my i230 7iron.  

 

Compared to my P770/Modus105S combo, it definitely flies lower with lower spin.  Borderline not playable, but dang it's easy for me to find center contact with good low point control.  

 

I have a TPI fitting in September, so I'm going to give the fitter a big assignment with testing all kinds of iron shaft combos.

 

Moral of the story > Everyone is different but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you need to use the shaft that you have confidence in, then pair up heads and bend them to get appropriate launch conditions.  Shocker I know.  Brand new information that we've never heard here before from Howard and other experienced members lol.

Maybe test the C-taper 125 instead.  Easier to load and slightly better feel.  It could give you better numbers than 130X so you could get the best of both worlds.  

[phizzy30]

2 hours ago, theslflash689 said:

I didn’t get to hit it in the longer irons. But I did place the order based on what I feel is right (130x) as it gave me the best dispersion and consistent control. I spun it enough to hold greens, the fitter just felt 120 might be marginally better. They recommended what most of you recommended, just bend some of the lofts weaker to adjust what I need to in the longer irons.

Marginally better........I think you made the right choice here with KBS Tour 130X.  Numbers are definitely important, however if a shaft doesn't feel right, you will never be truly comfortable over the ball.  I used to be a numbers chaser golfer and now gravitate more towards feel as long as the numbers are at the very least, acceptable.  My game hasn't been in this good a place in a long time.  

Edited July 25 by phizzy30

[Johnny Biarritz]

Certainly, that is possible. But if results are far worse with the good feeling shaft, which it doesn't sound like it was, then might be better to go with the one that fits better over feel.

[theslflash689]

21 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Certainly feel and confidence in that feel is an important aspect of shaft fitting.    But when done right, the two should never be in conflict with each other.

 

When it comes to shaft "fit" and looking at the numbers, launch and spin are not the indicators that dictate a good fit or not.   So even when ignoring feel, it's always better to fit shafts based on dispersion, consistency of face impact, accuracy, and shot shape control.   Shafts usually should not be used to fit for launch and spin.  Save the head and loft selection for that.

 

Note 1: that also assumes that the player is properly fit properly into shaft weight and head weight  before you can even start to looking at different stiffness profiles or flexes.

 

Note 2:  Sometimes (especially slower folks) might want to find a balance between consistency/control and swing speed if they think they want a bit more speed and are willing to pay the price in consistency (if there even is a price).

I think this confirms it. Launch and spin were definitely acceptable, about 2* higher and about 100-200rpm higher (I’m not a super low spin player, so it’s more than enough to hold a green). But the biggest thing I felt over DG x100 and is I found the center of the face more, dispersion was tighter, my low point was more consistent and flush, and I had more control flighting and shaping the ball than I have had in a long long time. Main reason for going with 130x was:

 

1) I was a bit more consistent with strikes despite losing a few yards of carry

 

2) when I went after one with the 120s, I had a more pronounced left miss vs the 130x.

 

Glad I vouched for myself. Thanks everyone for all your feedback!

Edited July 26 by theslflash689

[Pepperturbo]

For most people feel is NOT quantifiable, while fit is. The question is which shaft does what it's told and which might not do what you envision. That is how I do it.

 

I am 100% feel player. The best way I can describe "feel" is I look at a shot and my instinct tells me what club to pull. Sometimes my brain interjects, that's when confusion shows it's ugly face. In those instances, I tend to take the longer of the two, and most of the time it works out. Point: Feeling is often times reacting to ego, and ego is often wrong. One man's 2 cents.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

For most people feel is NOT quantifiable, while fit is. The question is which shaft does what it's told and which might not do what you envision. That is how I do it.

 

I am 100% feel player. The best way I can describe "feel" is I look at a shot and my instinct tells me what club to pull. Sometimes my brain interjects, that's when confusion shows it's ugly face. In those instances, I tend to take the longer of the two, and most of the time it works out. Point: Feeling is often times reacting to ego, and ego is often wrong. One man's 2 cents.

 

I dont' disagree with most of it but I will add a few things.

 

1) feel doesn't have to be quantifiable, at least not in the way I think you mean.  It only needs to be perceptible.

  For those that are sensitive to it AND have specific preferences for the feel, things like "too stiff" or "too soft" or "too heavy" or "too light" are perceivable and that can (and should) be communicated to the fitter.   Fitting is an iterative comparative process.  Relative changes and differences in those comparisons can be frequently (but not always) be perceived and communicated.   The problem comes when a person being fit doesn't pay attention to those perceptions or gets overly focused on certain numbers.

 

2)  Again, for those for which feel is important, the effects it has on the ball flight results is quantifiable even if the person may not be good at evaluating their perception of the feel. You just have to make sure you're looking at the big picture and not get too focused on some number while ignoring others.  That goes along with not spending too much time with a particular fitting choice to allow the user to get used to it and adjust to it.

 

 

Edited July 26 by Stuart_G

[theslflash689]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I dont' disagree with most of it but I will add a few things.

 

1) feel doesn't have to be quantifiable, at least not in the way I think you mean.  It only needs to be perceptible.

  For those that are sensitive to it AND have specific preferences for the feel, things like "too stiff" or "too soft" or "too heavy" or "too light" are perceivable and that can (and should) be communicated to the fitter.   Fitting is an iterative comparative process.  Relative changes and differences in those comparisons can be frequently (but not always) be perceived and communicated.   The problem comes when a person being fit doesn't pay attention to those perceptions or gets overly focused on certain numbers.

 

2)  Again, for those for which feel is important, the effects it has on the ball flight results is quantifiable even if the person may not be good at evaluating their perception of the feel. You just have to make sure you're looking at the big picture and not get too focused on some number while ignoring others.  That goes along with not spending too much time with a particular fitting choice to allow the user to get used to it and adjust to it.

 

 

Makes me wonder, why don’t people do blind fittings (unlabeled shafts) lol. To me it sounds like it would be a great idea.

 

For me, I didn’t really try KBS Tours before because maybe the numbers didn’t seem like I should. But after the 2nd and 3rd rounds of testing and hitting them among a dozen other shafts, the one thing that stood out with the tour 130x is how well they worked with my personal timing and release, despite my swing speed perhaps not being “optimal” for an X (KBS recommends 94+)

Edited July 26 by theslflash689

[phizzy30]

5 hours ago, theslflash689 said:

Makes me wonder, why don’t people do blind fittings (unlabeled shafts) lol. To me it sounds like it would be a great idea.

 

For me, I didn’t really try KBS Tours before because maybe the numbers didn’t seem like I should. But after the 2nd and 3rd rounds of testing and hitting them among a dozen other shafts, the one thing that stood out with the tour 130x is how well they worked with my personal timing and release, despite my swing speed perhaps not being “optimal” for an X (KBS recommends 94+)

Weight is most important, then flex.  I think most here can agree as the members here have had this discussion many times over in other threads.  

Edited July 27 by phizzy30

[Stuart_G]

11 hours ago, theslflash689 said:

“optimal”

 

Probably the most incorrectly used or misused word in fitting - at least for iron fitting.   Once "fitters" learned they could optimize one thing (driver distance) they all seem to jump to the conclusion they can optimize everything. 🙄

[theslflash689]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Probably the most incorrectly used or misused word in fitting - at least for iron fitting.   Once "fitters" learned they could optimize one thing (driver distance) they all seem to jump to the conclusion they can optimize everything. 🙄

So I guess you could say fitting is both science and art?

[rbpwrx]

I've been through this too. Couple different fitters saw 'optimal' numbers for me with PX 6.5s. But I always hated the feel of those shafts. Gave me a rubbery shudder. (The satins were great tho, back in the day.) Played X100s (and X300s) forever, then stumbled onto the C-Taper 130X, which has been my gamer for many years now. Through multiple sets, bent tips, etc. Just fits my swing like a dream. Nothing feels better or gives me more confidence. (X7s and PX LS are in backups.) Feel may not exactly be 'quantifiable' (although I bet with fancy modern gear they can come pretty close), but confidence is ALWAYS optimal in golf. Play what feels most like *your* shaft, and then yes adjust heads to fine-tune gaps and spin etc.
 

Edited July 27 by rbpwrx

[theslflash689]

1 minute ago, rbpwrx said:

I've been through this too. Couple different fitters saw 'optimal' numbers for me with PX 6.5s. But I always hated the feel of those shafts. Gave me a rubbery shudder. (The satins were great tho, BITD.) Played X100s (and X300s) forever, then stumbled onto the C-Taper 130X, which has been my gamer for many years now. Through multiple sets, bent tips, etc. Just fits my swing like a dream. Nothing feels better or gives me more confidence. (X7s and PX LS are in backups.) Feel may not exactly be 'quantifiable' (although I bet with fancy modern gear they can come pretty close), but confidence is ALWAYS optimal in golf. Play what feels most like *your* shaft, and yes adjust heads to fine-tune gaps and spin etc.

I like this. That was the main thing with the KBS Tour 130x, I was confident of a good strike. When I hit a knock down, it actually came down and not my flair to the right miss with that shot. When I tried to hit a cut, it cut instead of double crossing a pull, etc. I almost felt like a pro lol

[rbpwrx]

Just now, theslflash689 said:

I like this. That was the main thing with the KBS Tour 130x, I was confident of a good strike. When I hit a knock down, it actually came down and not my flair to the right miss with that shot. When I tried to hit a cut, it cut instead of double crossing a pull, etc. I almost felt like a pro lol

Yes, a lo-lo shaft will do what you want. CT130 = low torque, high kick. And you MAY find that you start hitting it higher, automatically. I see nice high irons with it now, even down to 3i. My first impression was crazy LOW w/ great feel. But that changed by itself over a couple rounds, maybe as confidence grew.

The thing for me is a very stable tip, because YES it does what you're trying to do. Direct translation, hands to head. Only shaft better at that for me is the X7, which is laser straight, and ultra low-torque, even for steel. Flies significantly lower than CT130, but super exacting. Will NOT jump (like the CT130, occasionally, although I always forgive it), and if I played for money, it'd be the X7 all day. Luckily I don't. 

[rbpwrx]

BTW, I always refer back to Rocco Mediate, who famously played Precision Rifle 7.0s for most of his career, even though his swing speed didn't 'justify' those shafts. I wouldn't argue with the 91 holes he pushed Tiger to in 2008. Sometimes heavier and stiffer just works and scores (and FEELS) better.

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, theslflash689 said:

So I guess you could say fitting is both science and art?

 

You could say that 😉 - but that's not the point I was making. 

 

What I was really saying is that most fitters who use that word don't have a good understanding of the science of either what it means to optimize or what they should be trying to accomplish manipulating the numbers.

 

With a driver you can optimize (in this case maximize) distance.  A single quantifiable number that can be checked and (in this case) maxed out based on known ball flight data and the limitations of the individual's swing.   What number or quantity are you trying to maximize or minimize with your irons?   There really isn't any established value that you can manage the same way you do for distance with the driver.  Iron fitting is really more about a subjective balance between different alternatives than an optimization.  What's best for one individual may be very different from what's best for another individual.

Edited July 27 by Stuart_G