This just blew my mind...........Correct Lie Angle?

13

Comments

  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    i took a quick search on youtube but am not sure this is the oldest, but its from 2011, so this has been known for at least since then, but ive used it before 2009, so its not news at all, but we never had a way to judge how much we needed to adjust, only direction, so it was lots of trial and error to make it right, thats why i developed those face labels so we get a number to adjust it too, so now this test is easier than anything else, and so easy nobody should be able to complain and it dont cost more than a pen to draw that line on the ball.



  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    dlygrisse wrote:




    What is the best way to fit for length?




    Best question ive seen for a while....

    We are humans, and not build the same way, we are all different, and with very different physical condition and ability to "move".

    To get play length right for a SET of irons, we would need to build the longest and shortest club, but we hardly ever have the frames for that, we mostly use a #6 or #7 iron, and stop in the long and where we think it should be, but we never knows...



    To really know, both the shortest and longest club has to be made as test clubs, and now we can make sets to what ever play length increments we want, so its really not a problem to "squeeze in" both a #3 and #4 iron for any player, simply by adjusting play lengths between clubs shorter than the classic 0.5" or 4/8"



    Whats coming now on full speed is METRIC, and 12.7 mm is 0.5" inch and 3/8" is 9.5 mm, but we can build 8.0 or 7.0 if we like and adjust resistance progression to what ever we like....SW match, MOi matched or what ever in-between.
  • sirparalotsirparalot Members Posts: 731 ✭✭✭✭✭

    dlygrisse wrote:


    What is the best way to fit for length?




    Best question ive seen for a while....

    We are humans, and not build the same way, we are all different, and with very different physical condition and ability to "move".

    To get play length right for a SET of irons, we would need to build the longest and shortest club, but we hardly ever have the frames for that, we mostly use a #6 or #7 iron, and stop in the long and where we think it should be, but we never knows...



    To really know, both the shortest and longest club has to be made as test clubs, and now we can make sets to what ever play length increments we want, so its really not a problem to "squeeze in" both a #3 and #4 iron for any player, simply by adjusting play lengths between clubs shorter than the classic 0.5" or 4/8"



    Whats coming now on full speed is METRIC, and 12.7 mm is 0.5" inch and 3/8" is 9.5 mm, but we can build 8.0 or 7.0 if we like and adjust resistance progression to what ever we like....SW match, MOi matched or what ever in-between.




    So Howard, how do you properly determine the shortest and longest club??? You threw it out there image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Awainer1 wrote:


    Actual specs should be checked on a loft lie gauge using the sole radius of the leading edge. Without that information you are pissing in the wind




    Thats not really needed, and i know that we cant trust grooves to be set 90* to loft on the face, but thats the lines used in bending machines since the sole might vary a lot depending on club head model. there is also a "tolerance" for sole shape since most of the "better heads" is hand grinded before chrome plating, so 2 heads dont have to be "equal" on the sole. If you now look into those FACE labels ive made, you get to see a ratio of 1 :10 (on a 57 mm diameter), so the groves must be 10* off from loft angle to give us a misreading of 1 on lie angle. That means the grooves is more precise as "starting point" than the sole is, because if grooves is that bad, it will be visible for the eye that they are printed wrong on the face, and i never saw a head like that,. but many where the club grinder took away to little or to much and made the sole asymmetric.



    i run into the same "sole issue" in heads ive grinded my self, so this is a issue ive spend quite a lot of time on to figure out how we should deal with it, using the standard measure equipment we have (bending machines)



    If we use the same "constant"/"tool" when we measure and adjust, the numbers is actually RELATIVE, and dont have to be "true numbers", because we will never see true numbers in a loft and lie machine the way they are designed, it cant be done, but if we measure a change of 1*, there is no reason to mistrust that the change is 1* and thats how e should tread this issue.



    Even 2 clubs with the exact same head gives different lie angle reading in a bending machine, depending on if we use a parallel tip shaft or a constant taper tip sjaft, since the lie angle gauge will be resting against the side of the shaft, we cant measure against the "center inside", so when we fix the head in the clamp, and put in and out a taper vs a parallel, we get a different output number for lie angle.



    This is a NO ISSUE, because changes we do is relative to what we came from, and actual values is really out of interest, we dont need them and cant use them for any thing we cant use the relative numbers for, but some might be confused about 2 different lie angle outputs from the same heads, but thats scenario is not common, (changing shaft tip type), so hardly nobody will run into that.



    Parallels will show a slightly more upright lie, and is closer to "true numbers" than a shaft where the tip has a taper all the way like DG, then output number from our bending machine will show a lie angle a tad lower or more flat, but we still talk the same DIFFERENCE from head to head, so the RELATIVE difference is correct when we bend this clubs to other specs, and we never mix parallels and tapers, so it ends as a "non issue", even if they return different values and non of them is "true". We navigate using them as RELATIVE numbers.




    The shaft taper issue is negated if you measure with a dowel or centerline finder that has no taper and then proceed with build.
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Awainer1 wrote:


    Awainer1 wrote:


    Actual specs should be checked on a loft lie gauge using the sole radius of the leading edge. Without that information you are pissing in the wind




    Thats not really needed, and i know that we cant trust grooves to be set 90* to loft on the face, but thats the lines used in bending machines since the sole might vary a lot depending on club head model. there is also a "tolerance" for sole shape since most of the "better heads" is hand grinded before chrome plating, so 2 heads dont have to be "equal" on the sole. If you now look into those FACE labels ive made, you get to see a ratio of 1 :10 (on a 57 mm diameter), so the groves must be 10* off from loft angle to give us a misreading of 1 on lie angle. That means the grooves is more precise as "starting point" than the sole is, because if grooves is that bad, it will be visible for the eye that they are printed wrong on the face, and i never saw a head like that,. but many where the club grinder took away to little or to much and made the sole asymmetric.



    i run into the same "sole issue" in heads ive grinded my self, so this is a issue ive spend quite a lot of time on to figure out how we should deal with it, using the standard measure equipment we have (bending machines)



    If we use the same "constant"/"tool" when we measure and adjust, the numbers is actually RELATIVE, and dont have to be "true numbers", because we will never see true numbers in a loft and lie machine the way they are designed, it cant be done, but if we measure a change of 1*, there is no reason to mistrust that the change is 1* and thats how e should tread this issue.



    Even 2 clubs with the exact same head gives different lie angle reading in a bending machine, depending on if we use a parallel tip shaft or a constant taper tip sjaft, since the lie angle gauge will be resting against the side of the shaft, we cant measure against the "center inside", so when we fix the head in the clamp, and put in and out a taper vs a parallel, we get a different output number for lie angle.



    This is a NO ISSUE, because changes we do is relative to what we came from, and actual values is really out of interest, we dont need them and cant use them for any thing we cant use the relative numbers for, but some might be confused about 2 different lie angle outputs from the same heads, but thats scenario is not common, (changing shaft tip type), so hardly nobody will run into that.



    Parallels will show a slightly more upright lie, and is closer to "true numbers" than a shaft where the tip has a taper all the way like DG, then output number from our bending machine will show a lie angle a tad lower or more flat, but we still talk the same DIFFERENCE from head to head, so the RELATIVE difference is correct when we bend this clubs to other specs, and we never mix parallels and tapers, so it ends as a "non issue", even if they return different values and non of them is "true". We navigate using them as RELATIVE numbers.




    The shaft taper issue is negated if you measure with a dowel or centerline finder that has no taper and then proceed with build.




    i was talking about sets already build, not clubs to be made, and clubs to be made need a reference point in a club used for fitting, an if that club was with a taper shaft, we have to keep using that to get it right. we cant use anything else in that situation.
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    sirparalot wrote:


    dlygrisse wrote:


    What is the best way to fit for length?




    Best question ive seen for a while....

    We are humans, and not build the same way, we are all different, and with very different physical condition and ability to "move".

    To get play length right for a SET of irons, we would need to build the longest and shortest club, but we hardly ever have the frames for that, we mostly use a #6 or #7 iron, and stop in the long and where we think it should be, but we never knows...



    To really know, both the shortest and longest club has to be made as test clubs, and now we can make sets to what ever play length increments we want, so its really not a problem to "squeeze in" both a #3 and #4 iron for any player, simply by adjusting play lengths between clubs shorter than the classic 0.5" or 4/8"



    Whats coming now on full speed is METRIC, and 12.7 mm is 0.5" inch and 3/8" is 9.5 mm, but we can build 8.0 or 7.0 if we like and adjust resistance progression to what ever we like....SW match, MOi matched or what ever in-between.




    So Howard, how do you properly determine the shortest and longest club??? You threw it out there image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />




    The longest club is simply the longest club the player is able to handle, that can only be found with real life testing, and all iron sets ive made was included a Gap and dispersion tweak, so if i made a set 3-Pw and the player did not hit his #3 iron as good as he should, we either looked at possible solutions to make it work, or i removed that club from the order. I dont know any other ways to do this right, we have to try it off.
  • rgk5rgk5 rgk5(OLB) Members Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    rgk5 wrote:


    wobgon wrote:

    wessnuts wrote:


    I enjoy the heck out of TXG's free content. As an avid golfer not allowed into Canada I have ZERO ambition to ever go to their facility for a fitting to "reward" them (with my hard earned cash) for their "marketing".



    But I still give them a TON of credit for putting in the work to create these videos.



    Yes maybe they're using the Youtube platform to build their brand but hey; that's what entrepeneurs have to do. That being said I don't think they're doing anything malicious to hoodwink the public.



    I've been "fit" improperly more times than I care to admit. That's why I follow the threads on this forum and watch Youtube videos. I don't take what anybody says as gospel. I accumulate as much knowledge as possible and see what works for me. This gives me the confidence to engage in conversation with the driving range pros and custom clubfitters I meet.



    Many of us golfers are trying to improve whether it be at an elite competitive level or just trying to win a closest to the pin in our weekly golf league (to help pay for the 19th hole!). Isn't that why we're on WRX?



    Anyways that's my selfish rant. Thanks for reading.



    You know what would be cool? Someone start a GoFundMe to send Howard to TXG. Get Ian & Matty to film that session!


    I'll donate if you start one to send the TXG crew to Howard.




    That could have been fun, i gave the Danish PGA system that challenge, put me side by side with the man they mean is their best club fitter and let us do a fitting on the same player and see where we ended up. Nobody wanted that challenge, i even gave them the benefit of using their fitting cart, and i would not even use a launch monitor (driver fitting), i would only bring a small case with tool for max 100 USD...its a big mistake thinking club fitting is about launch monitors, they are just helping tools we can do without, but that seems to be unknown in todays world where this numbers is rated higher than anything, but they dont even understand how to read them,...but they are the "holy numbers".



    The thing is, MOST club fitters are no good when it comes to the basics where it all starts, and im talking simple stuff like judging play length, total weight and weight distribution (balance NOT SW values), and ALL those places ive seen where i lived for 18 years (Denmark), there is NOT a single place who does anything what so ever with head weight during what they call a "fitting", and they dont have anything but standard play lengths....



    i held classes for this system i 2012, and showed them how a driver fitting should be done and why standard play lengths is no good...Tom Wishon did the same to them in 2016...They still offer noting but standard play lengths, and if you ask for s shorter club and extra weight for the head....YOU will have to take care of that yourself, they dont even have the weights in stock, and why would they when they dont care about head weight'?



    its seem like they reject what ever they was shown, or they still dont understand it...im not sure whats right, but it is STUPID when you know better, but like Ron White say...you cant fix stupid, and this system acts stupid since they dont change and use the knowledge they have been given for the benefit of them self and their Customers, so changing the club fitting industry is anything but easy



    The TXG guys is miles above this level, make no mistakes about that, but its still to much old myths and nonsense that keeps being recycled and reused, and im not so sure that the educational value is present, its more commercial and PR of their own Company, so take it for what it is.






    Howard, maybe it got lost in the post a bit but I'm going to have to call you on this one. I've been to TXG, my son works there. They have NUMEROUS shaft weights, lengths, and all of the different manufacturer head weights (i.e. for F9 they have 8g-18g, as an example), and each fitter has a scale at their desk for head weight measurement, along with a swingweight scale (both original and digital in the build shop). Just because Ian and Matt haven't done a video on head weights and total weight, doesn't mean they don't address it and don't understand it. As for the commercial part, I'll leave you to that, but name me one other group widely publishes easily accessible content such as their videos that is given in terms that are easy to understand and on an accessible platform? I can't think of one. Sure, you obviously know what you are talking about, but what you write is insanely complex. Yes, it's correct (or I assume it is because I don't really understand it in the way you write it --- it's over my head and I've been in the industry since the 80s), but your average player has no hope on God's green earth to understand it at that level that you do. To talk to someone about that, or make a video about that, is likely going to go way over their head. PR or not, they are helping dumb down a lot of content that gets confusing for the average player and helping them understand it in a simplified manner. There isn't anything wrong with that. Look at those "X for dummies" books...sure it's a marketing or PR move, but they are extremely successful because they take complex ideas and boil it down to the key criteria that are easy to understand for a wider audience.




    im sorry for your misunderstandings of what im writing, i did NOT address PXG when i was talking about places who dont care about head weight, those folks is close to where i have been living for 18 years, DENMARK, i though i made that clear.



    My research about lie angles is complex to explain and to understand for the average player, but we are on a tech board now, where quite a few is club makers and club fitters so that info was NOT meant for the average player at all, the only thing the average player would need to know here, is to drop the lie board and use those face labels who is self explaining and it cant be done easier than that, so there is no need to now what behind, thats for those with a deeper interest only.



    I dont blame PXG for anything, but that video of 18 minutes who DID NOT TELL about the ball marker test, widely known for at least 10-12 years, and thats is simply not good enough when lie angles was the subject for the movie, and they should also know that lie boards is the biggest crap tool ever invented, since its no way it can make the job right. Not even me who knows how to grind both irons and wedges from blanks and know how sole impact marks is moving is able to make it right with this tool so show me the one who is?



    A video of how to use the ball marker test would be 3-4 minutes. they spent more than 18 and did not even mention it, thats why i not impressed, i really think it was useless since they did NOT give the solution, so it ended up like a commercial for CG2 launch monitors



    There is no other way to judge this, why make a video of a issue you dont deliver the solution for? or was the solution to forget lie angles and use them to fix swing flaws instead?




    Howard, my son works for TXG, not PXG. Did you apply at PXG or TXG?
    Cobra F8+, 10*, VA Composites Raijin 44 F2
    Cobra F8 3-4 wood 15.5*, VA Composites Raijin 44 F3

    Cobra F8 5-6 wood 17.5, Tensei Blue R
    Wilson Staff C300 4 hybrid, 21*, Fuji Pro 82 R
    Ping Eye 2 BeCu 4-pw, Microtaper S
    Ping Glide 1.0 55*, CFS Wedge flex

    T. Made Hi Toe 58*, KBS Hi Rev
    Evnroll ER6

  • Big BenBig Ben Members Posts: 9,145 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 10, 2019 12:02pm #69
    Adjust your lies until they WORK. Paralysis through analysis. I have a buddy who’s lies are grossly upright and he beats me 50% of the time. I’m like you need to have those irons adjusted and he’s like yeah I’ll get right on it! BB
    Irons: 19' Cobra CB's
    Drivers: Titleist TS3 & Cobra F9
    Fairway: Titleist 917F2
    Hybrid: A-Grind
    2 iron: Ping Rapture
    Wedges: Ping Gorge 2.0 Stealth's
    Putter: Evnroll 9.1
    Balls: ProV1
  • bulls9999bulls9999 Members Posts: 746 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lot's of criticism here, but the message I walked away with is if I ever went for a fitting and a lie angle is changed from current, then be sure to re-test with the fitter when you receive the clubs to determine if the change improved your shot pattern or worsened it. I don't think the video was meant to be a PhD dissertation on all factors involved in impact/lie/ball pattern. Get a cup of coffee and relax fellas.
    GHIN Index 13.8
  • 24Linc24Linc Members Posts: 23 ✭✭
    I don't think there is one way which is definitely wrong or right here. Isn't custom fitting really done to fit our own needs? Now in Ian's case, a good player who know that his irons are 4 degrees flat but posts great scores and probably have tried to play with clubs that are 4 up and did not like the result then by all means play with what works and feels comfortable with. Is it the best solution? Probably not, but it works. This needs really good hand eye coordination.



    Now for a guy who has played with misfit lie angles and you evaluate his swing and he is compensating for the misfit lie angle causing inconsistency (left and right) because of over compensation (not as good hand eye coordination), then let him at least try to play with the proper lie angles that fit him and let him know what he needs to work on and adjust accordingly later. And for juniors and beginners, it's crucial that they are using clubs which have properly fit lie angles to them so they don't compensate for it. I don't think there is one answer to the question of which lie angle to fit for each player, it depends on that player. That's why I think all iron heads should be made so the lie and loft can be adjusted easily and players should check their lie angles time to time (not that hard with Howard's method).



    I have really enjoyed videos from TXG. But this one like people mentioned did not give a solution. It did not explain the real reason why the lie board is bad and is sort of leading viewers to use lie angle as a way to correct directional issues without mentioning the whole scope of how it can affect centreness of strike and for some people the ground contact feedback.



    At end of the day, play with what works for you and the only way to find out, test on the range and take it to the course to validate the results.
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Awainer1 wrote:


    Awainer1 wrote:


    Actual specs should be checked on a loft lie gauge using the sole radius of the leading edge. Without that information you are pissing in the wind




    Thats not really needed, and i know that we cant trust grooves to be set 90* to loft on the face, but thats the lines used in bending machines since the sole might vary a lot depending on club head model. there is also a "tolerance" for sole shape since most of the "better heads" is hand grinded before chrome plating, so 2 heads dont have to be "equal" on the sole. If you now look into those FACE labels ive made, you get to see a ratio of 1 :10 (on a 57 mm diameter), so the groves must be 10* off from loft angle to give us a misreading of 1 on lie angle. That means the grooves is more precise as "starting point" than the sole is, because if grooves is that bad, it will be visible for the eye that they are printed wrong on the face, and i never saw a head like that,. but many where the club grinder took away to little or to much and made the sole asymmetric.



    i run into the same "sole issue" in heads ive grinded my self, so this is a issue ive spend quite a lot of time on to figure out how we should deal with it, using the standard measure equipment we have (bending machines)



    If we use the same "constant"/"tool" when we measure and adjust, the numbers is actually RELATIVE, and dont have to be "true numbers", because we will never see true numbers in a loft and lie machine the way they are designed, it cant be done, but if we measure a change of 1*, there is no reason to mistrust that the change is 1* and thats how e should tread this issue.



    Even 2 clubs with the exact same head gives different lie angle reading in a bending machine, depending on if we use a parallel tip shaft or a constant taper tip sjaft, since the lie angle gauge will be resting against the side of the shaft, we cant measure against the "center inside", so when we fix the head in the clamp, and put in and out a taper vs a parallel, we get a different output number for lie angle.



    This is a NO ISSUE, because changes we do is relative to what we came from, and actual values is really out of interest, we dont need them and cant use them for any thing we cant use the relative numbers for, but some might be confused about 2 different lie angle outputs from the same heads, but thats scenario is not common, (changing shaft tip type), so hardly nobody will run into that.



    Parallels will show a slightly more upright lie, and is closer to "true numbers" than a shaft where the tip has a taper all the way like DG, then output number from our bending machine will show a lie angle a tad lower or more flat, but we still talk the same DIFFERENCE from head to head, so the RELATIVE difference is correct when we bend this clubs to other specs, and we never mix parallels and tapers, so it ends as a "non issue", even if they return different values and non of them is "true". We navigate using them as RELATIVE numbers.




    The shaft taper issue is negated if you measure with a dowel or centerline finder that has no taper and then proceed with build.




    i was talking about sets already build, not clubs to be made, and clubs to be made need a reference point in a club used for fitting, an if that club was with a taper shaft, we have to keep using that to get it right. we cant use anything else in that situation.




    I respectfully disagree. Personally I would not measure if the club is already built but that’s me. No reference point is needed if you measure the actual specs of the head.
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 10, 2019 6:04pm #73
    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 10, 2019 7:16pm #74


    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...




    I'm not a clubmaker by trade but if I were yes that is what I would do every time and its what I do to my own clubs every time. Really not that difficult.
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Awainer1 wrote:



    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...




    I'm not a clubmaker by trade but if I were yes that is what I would do every time and its what I do to my own clubs every time. Really not that difficult.




    That explains it...but sorry, you dont understand what this is about at all, so there is no way you will be able to make it right, not even if you remove the shafts, who will be the same as walking over 7 rivers to get a cup of water. Measuring is the hardest tasks of them all, but if you dont even know what should be measured, why and how, you can never make it.



    On this board we see folks who complains about fees for pured shafts, but what would the same customers say, if the loft and lie job who takes 20 minutes becomes a half day job because someone think shafts has to be removed? we are into pure fraud of customers here, but you are not able to see that, because you dont understand this at all, so i hope you dont give this advice to folks who dont know any better, there is enough myths to fight here, dont add new ones.
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 11, 2019 7:33am #76

    Awainer1 wrote:



    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...




    I'm not a clubmaker by trade but if I were yes that is what I would do every time and its what I do to my own clubs every time. Really not that difficult.




    That explains it...but sorry, you dont understand what this is about at all, so there is no way you will be able to make it right, not even if you remove the shafts, who will be the same as walking over 7 rivers to get a cup of water. Measuring is the hardest tasks of them all, but if you dont even know what should be measured, why and how, you can never make it.



    On this board we see folks who complains about fees for pured shafts, but what would the same customers say, if the loft and lie job who takes 20 minutes becomes a half day job because someone think shafts has to be removed? we are into pure fraud of customers here, but you are not able to see that, because you dont understand this at all, so i hope you dont give this advice to folks who dont know any better, there is enough myths to fight here, dont add new ones.




    Lie angle is measured using the sole radius of the leading edge. If you don’t remove taper as a variable the measurements will not be accurate.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Awainer1 wrote:


    Awainer1 wrote:



    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...




    I'm not a clubmaker by trade but if I were yes that is what I would do every time and its what I do to my own clubs every time. Really not that difficult.




    That explains it...but sorry, you dont understand what this is about at all, so there is no way you will be able to make it right, not even if you remove the shafts, who will be the same as walking over 7 rivers to get a cup of water. Measuring is the hardest tasks of them all, but if you dont even know what should be measured, why and how, you can never make it.



    On this board we see folks who complains about fees for pured shafts, but what would the same customers say, if the loft and lie job who takes 20 minutes becomes a half day job because someone think shafts has to be removed? we are into pure fraud of customers here, but you are not able to see that, because you dont understand this at all, so i hope you dont give this advice to folks who dont know any better, there is enough myths to fight here, dont add new ones.




    Lie angle is measured using the sole radius of the leading edge. If you don't remove taper as a variable the measurements will not be accurate.




    There is way to many who for some reason "believe in numbers" without knowing what they tells you.

    If you have a iron tested in the players hand, and we see that he needs 1* UP to be good, does it matter if the club is "TRUE 60*

    " now and is changed to "TRUE 61*", vs a bending machine thats "off" and measure 61* before and 62* after?



    Would this make a difference for how this club plays`? off cause not, and if you claim that bending machines is so far off from "true numbers" that we cant even trust the difference between 61* to 62* be within reason of 1* and good enough, you need to check out realities in this world, and do the numbers for how much it could possibly matter.



    Clubs should be tweaked "plus or minus" on both loft and lie until gaps is good, and direction the same, and we NEVER need "true" loft or lie numbers to do that, since distance is yards, not degrees, so those number means nothing, we deal with them as relative numbers and go plus and minus until we reach target, thats how its done real life.



    The only place true numbers on this specs is of interest is on the designers desk and in the factory for production, nobody else needs them as long as we can measure relative numbers and differences, thats what this is all about real life.



    Metric vs imperial is the same thing, no matter whats designed as imperial can be measured using metric or the other way. The number values want say the same, but its still the same numbers we are dealing with, and no matter differences we measure, they would also be possible to convert just fine, so it does not matter if numbers is "true or relative" or if its metric or imperial.
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Awainer1 wrote:


    Awainer1 wrote:



    So when a Customer needs a lie angle tweak his shafts should be removed from the heads, thats your way of doing this...




    I'm not a clubmaker by trade but if I were yes that is what I would do every time and its what I do to my own clubs every time. Really not that difficult.




    That explains it...but sorry, you dont understand what this is about at all, so there is no way you will be able to make it right, not even if you remove the shafts, who will be the same as walking over 7 rivers to get a cup of water. Measuring is the hardest tasks of them all, but if you dont even know what should be measured, why and how, you can never make it.



    On this board we see folks who complains about fees for pured shafts, but what would the same customers say, if the loft and lie job who takes 20 minutes becomes a half day job because someone think shafts has to be removed? we are into pure fraud of customers here, but you are not able to see that, because you dont understand this at all, so i hope you dont give this advice to folks who dont know any better, there is enough myths to fight here, dont add new ones.




    Lie angle is measured using the sole radius of the leading edge. If you don't remove taper as a variable the measurements will not be accurate.




    There is way to many who for some reason "believe in numbers" without knowing what they tells you.

    If you have a iron tested in the players hand, and we see that he needs 1* UP to be good, does it matter if the club is "TRUE 60*

    " now and is changed to "TRUE 61*", vs a bending machine thats "off" and measure 61* before and 62* after?



    Would this make a difference for how this club plays`? off cause not, and if you claim that bending machines is so far off from "true numbers" that we cant even trust the difference between 61* to 62* be within reason of 1* and good enough, you need to check out realities in this world, and do the numbers for how much it could possibly matter.



    Clubs should be tweaked "plus or minus" on both loft and lie until gaps is good, and direction the same, and we NEVER need "true" loft or lie numbers to do that, since distance is yards, not degrees, so those number means nothing, we deal with them as relative numbers and go plus and minus until we reach target, thats how its done real life.



    The only place true numbers on this specs is of interest is on the designers desk and in the factory for production, nobody else needs them as long as we can measure relative numbers and differences, thats what this is all about real life.



    Metric vs imperial is the same thing, no matter whats designed as imperial can be measured using metric or the other way. The number values want say the same, but its still the same numbers we are dealing with, and no matter differences we measure, they would also be possible to convert just fine, so it does not matter if numbers is "true or relative" or if its metric or imperial.




    That’s all your opinion and you’re entitled to it like I am to wanting to know what my specs are so that I have a baseline to work off of.
  • dlygrissedlygrisse KansasMembers Posts: 13,442 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 11, 2019 12:33pm #79

    sirparalot wrote:


    dlygrisse wrote:


    What is the best way to fit for length?




    Best question ive seen for a while....

    We are humans, and not build the same way, we are all different, and with very different physical condition and ability to "move".

    To get play length right for a SET of irons, we would need to build the longest and shortest club, but we hardly ever have the frames for that, we mostly use a #6 or #7 iron, and stop in the long and where we think it should be, but we never knows...



    To really know, both the shortest and longest club has to be made as test clubs, and now we can make sets to what ever play length increments we want, so its really not a problem to "squeeze in" both a #3 and #4 iron for any player, simply by adjusting play lengths between clubs shorter than the classic 0.5" or 4/8"



    Whats coming now on full speed is METRIC, and 12.7 mm is 0.5" inch and 3/8" is 9.5 mm, but we can build 8.0 or 7.0 if we like and adjust resistance progression to what ever we like....SW match, MOi matched or what ever in-between.




    So Howard, how do you properly determine the shortest and longest club??? You threw it out there image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />




    The longest club is simply the longest club the player is able to handle, that can only be found with real life testing, and all iron sets ive made was included a Gap and dispersion tweak, so if i made a set 3-Pw and the player did not hit his #3 iron as good as he should, we either looked at possible solutions to make it work, or i removed that club from the order. I dont know any other ways to do this right, we have to try it off.




    I'm more curious about fitting length for the shortest club I use for full swings. Say a GW or a PW. When is it better to lengthen over the standars 35.5" instead of bending more upright? I feel like I could stand in a more comfortable natural position with a longer club. (I have a bad back and bending puts pressure on my spine) I am 6' tall with a 36" WTF, so most fitters would tell me I am standard and 2* up. I am wondering how 1" longer and flatter would work?

    Ping G400
    Callaway Epic Flash 3w, Ping G410 7 wood
    Ping G 4-U
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 54, Vokey M Grind 58
    Grips NDMC +4
    Odyssey Pro #1 black
    Jones Utility
    ProV1x
    ECCO Biom Hybrid 3
  • rgk5rgk5 rgk5(OLB) Members Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    1" longer and 1* flatter would give the equivalent of a 1* up lie angle. Assuming the same posture and swing each 1/2" in length is roughly the equivalent of 1* more upright. You could acquire a used 36" or 35.5" PW and mess with the lie angle, use face decals, and examine your strikes.
    Cobra F8+, 10*, VA Composites Raijin 44 F2
    Cobra F8 3-4 wood 15.5*, VA Composites Raijin 44 F3

    Cobra F8 5-6 wood 17.5, Tensei Blue R
    Wilson Staff C300 4 hybrid, 21*, Fuji Pro 82 R
    Ping Eye 2 BeCu 4-pw, Microtaper S
    Ping Glide 1.0 55*, CFS Wedge flex

    T. Made Hi Toe 58*, KBS Hi Rev
    Evnroll ER6

  • firstbatchfirstbatch Members Posts: 1,072 ✭✭
    It will be interesting to try out Mizuno latestes iteration of shaft optimizer. They are claiming :

    LATEST UPGRADE TO MIZUNO’S PREMIER FITTING TOOL MEASURES SWING PLANE IN 3D FOR MORE ACCURATE LIE ANGLE MEASUREMENT Via 3D gyroscope





    https://live-bloginsider.mizunousa.com/blog/theinsider/2019/01/21/mizuno-shaft-optimizer-3d/



    King LTD Black CK Tensei Blue S 44”
    Titleist 915f 15deg 3w Diamana 70g blue
    Cobra King Forged CB ‘19 5-PW UST Recoil 95 F4
    Callaway Steelhead XR Pro 4i Project X Catalyst 80
    Cobra F6 Baffler Rogue Black 70
    Ping Glide 2.0  Stealth 50, 54, 58 SS
    Kenny Giannini G6
  • Krt22Krt22 East BayMembers Posts: 7,403 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I did some dynamic lie testing this weekend. 3 strikes, one perfect, one towards the toe, one towards the heel, gave me 3 parallel vertical lines. I was previously play standard lie angles 1/2" over length, went to standard length 1* up. (vs the 2-3* up recommended by the lie board)
  • JCAGJCAG John Curry Members Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 13, 2019 8:53pm #83
    The actual lie/loft spec is of little interest. What is of interest is how much do they need to be tweaked to properly fit the golfer. Once determined, the specs can be recorded for later checking and readjustment if needed.



    Do not get hung up on the spec. Get hung up on it properly fitting the golfer.



    I equate some of this to the hot point of a few years ago about "blueprinting" a set of irons. Going to the nth degree on specifications with little concern if the clubs fit the golfer from the get go. Awesome spec tightness. Shame they do not fit you......LOL
  • baloobaloo A Person WisconsinMembers Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭✭✭✭



    Howard’s stuff is so far over my head I don’t understand most of it. But I read it all anyway and try to learn something. .




    i had no idea that my post would drag so much attention, if i knew i would have used more time to improve the lousy English used, so i understand if its problematic to read it, but its simple stuff really, even using LM for the task is or should be for those who work with LM every day, since the numbers involved aint larger than most of us do in our heads without helping tools.



    The complicated stuff is to find behind those labels ive made, its actually the SOLE system i say dont work, but moved to the face and reversed where plus becomes minus, and the angles actually is the distance from the center of the face out to impact, measured in a 1x1 inch box, so if you really want some gym for the brain, here is whats behind..







    Did you use a specific club for these tests? I would think it would vary based on the loft of the club used.

    10* = 1* loft change surely wouldn't hold for a 10* driver?
    Driver, 3W, 4W - Macgregor Custom Tourney
    2-10 - 1954 Spalding Synchro Dyned
    SW - Wilson Staff
    Putter - Bullseye
    Ball - Pro Plus

    YT Channel - https://www.youtube....PlayVintageGolf
  • Howard JonesHoward Jones Members Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    baloo wrote:




    Howard's stuff is so far over my head I don't understand most of it. But I read it all anyway and try to learn something. .




    i had no idea that my post would drag so much attention, if i knew i would have used more time to improve the lousy English used, so i understand if its problematic to read it, but its simple stuff really, even using LM for the task is or should be for those who work with LM every day, since the numbers involved aint larger than most of us do in our heads without helping tools.



    The complicated stuff is to find behind those labels ive made, its actually the SOLE system i say dont work, but moved to the face and reversed where plus becomes minus, and the angles actually is the distance from the center of the face out to impact, measured in a 1x1 inch box, so if you really want some gym for the brain, here is whats behind..







    Did you use a specific club for these tests? I would think it would vary based on the loft of the club used.

    10* = 1* loft change surely wouldn't hold for a 10* driver?




    it was a 31* #6 iron for all test, but those labels seems to work just fine for all irons, but i never tried them on a driver, but it would be easy to see if they work, just add it, try 1 shot and change hosel setting for lie, and try again. You should then be able to see if the change made to the hosel correspond with the label, and if not, you get to see the ratio that should be used (most likely a larger diameter than the 57 mm thats used for THIS labels meant for irons.



    i would think the diameter to the left would be more correct on a driver, but i never used them for that, but we simply stretch the label on size "to make the map fit the terrain", so if we needed another label for drivers, just try one, and "stretch until it fits" and the label is done once and for all, so here we dont try to force the terrain to fit the map, we fit the map to the actual terrain, thats how it was done for Irons, and it ended with that 57 mm diameter for that #6 /31*.



    That label has been used a few years now, nobody have complained or said its off for irons. (or any other club for that matter). Here is how we stretch the label if another was needed.



    http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry13852286
  • LCPLCP Members Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I can hit perfectly straight, compressed, 2 groove from the bottom center impact shots with my irons that go as long as any I've ever hit, and have divots that are clearly behind the ball location and more severe on the toe side of the ball. Why, because I play shovels!! Their soles get huge as they move from heel side to toe side and upon impact they're so long/wide that they deflect into the ground an inch or more behind the ball, even with perfect or near perfect strikes. Ping G30's FWIW.
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Mar 14, 2019 7:05am #87
    JCAG wrote:


    The actual lie/loft spec is of little interest.




    To you*
  • denkeadenkea Members Posts: 396 ✭✭✭✭
    Awainer1 wrote:

    JCAG wrote:


    The actual lie/loft spec is of little interest.




    To you*




    I used to have three 6 irons. The lie angles were 56º, 60º, and 64º. If I gave you each one to hit without knowing the lie angle and you chose one as best fit for you what difference would it make to know the actual lie except as a reference? That's all JCAG was saying.
  • Awainer1Awainer1 Members Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    denkea wrote:

    Awainer1 wrote:

    JCAG wrote:


    The actual lie/loft spec is of little interest.




    To you*




    I used to have three 6 irons. The lie angles were 56º, 60º, and 64º. If I gave you each one to hit without knowing the lie angle and you chose one as best fit for you what difference would it make to know the actual lie except as a reference? That's all JCAG was saying.




    How did you know the lie angles?
  • LukulosLukulos ClubWRX Posts: 238 ✭✭✭
    Saving to read later.
    TS3 8.5*/Veylix Wildeye Rome 688x
    Srixon F45 13*/Matrix red tie Ozik 80 XX
    Taylormade ICW11 1-iron/KBS C-taper 130x
    Adams Pro Black MB 4-PW/KBS C-taper 130x
    Mizuno MP series Raw Haze  51*,56*/Modus 130 s, Callaway Forged 60*/ s400
    Odyssey Protype Black #2
    Taylormade TP5
  • denkeadenkea Members Posts: 396 ✭✭✭✭
    Awainer1 wrote:

    denkea wrote:

    Awainer1 wrote:

    JCAG wrote:


    The actual lie/loft spec is of little interest.




    To you*




    I used to have three 6 irons. The lie angles were 56º, 60º, and 64º. If I gave you each one to hit without knowing the lie angle and you chose one as best fit for you what difference would it make to know the actual lie except as a reference? That's all JCAG was saying.




    How did you know the lie angles?




    I ordered three forged 6 iron heads and bent them to specified lie angles. Shafted with the same shafts. All the same length.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file