Driver Fitting Proves What I've Believed ...

2»

Comments

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 20, 2019 7:06am #32

    @Stuart_G said:

    @ironcat said:
    Well in my own experience having been fit and many players I know, none of them have ever seen any significant gains in distance or accuracy this doesn't ring true at all. Off the shelf is just as good as custom fit 90% of the time. I've seen the numbers and seen the real-world results. No difference.

    When someone comes back with a $500 shaft and a new head I know it will put them in the same places as their previous off-the-shelf club time and time again. Seen it so many times.

    And this is a range of handicaps, from scratch to 22.

    The only exception I have seen to this is a guy who swings is 120+ and a guy who is like 6ft 5 who was playing regular length irons.

    If you read the post a bit more carefully, it's pretty clear I wasn't talking about distance with respect to the fit being poor.

    And not a day goes by on this forum where we see folks come asking for help because the stock spec drivers are causing them problems with impact consistency, accuracy, control, managing spin or launch, and more. If the fittings you've seen haven't helped improve over the performance with stock specs it likely wasn't much of a fitting. How much time did they spend trying out different playing lengths? How much time with different shaft weights? different swing weights? - was any lead tape used?, did they have the proper grip size available to use during the testing? How many different shaft stiffness profiles were tested? How closely did the fitter pay attention to face impact? Did the LM even actually measure club data or just ball data? Going to a retail store and rotating through a few different heads or even shafts out of the fitting cart is not a real fitting. So for those "fittings", I wouldn't' expect to see much improvement either.

    Some were in store some, some were at world class fitting centres, and some at the manufacturers national centres of excellence, so a very wide broad range to be honest.

    No doubt on a launch monitor you can "demonstrate" some better numbers, be it dispersion, distance, launch angle - but the fact is that this seldom translates to any discernible benefit to the average player on-course and in play.

    Most people have woken up to the false promises the equipment manufacturers feed customers year after year; and I honestly see the fitting industry as an extension to that.

    The $40k launch monitor, $500 shaft and 2 hour in depth fitting just isn't going to benefit 90% of players out there in any way that is significant enough to actually reduce scores; which is what we are all after, right?

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 20, 2019 10:31am #33

    @ironcat said:
    Most people have woken up to the false promises the equipment manufacturers feed customers year after year; and I honestly see the fitting industry as an extension to that.

    Marketing and false promises are a normal part of this capitalistic society - any one who's still disillusioned because of them deserves to be. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits of getting properly fit even if some of the more recent commercial fitting businesses do trend in that direction (club champion, etc..). The bigger problem with the fitting "industry" is the lack of any standards for training and certifying the fitter. Anyone can call themselves a fitter. So anyone getting a fitting is more likely to get someone who doesn't know what they are doing as someone who does - particularly if you include retail store "fittings". And the average golfer doesn't have any basic knowledge or understanding of the process to be able to tell the difference. And that extends the "journalists" writing the web articles naming some center as "world class" or "top 100" - so those lists are more of a popularity contest than anything else. So that's really dealing with the question of whether they actually saw a good fitter - or instead just went to see a good salesman.

    But that's really not what the discussion is about. It's about the suitability of stock club specs for the average player. Bottom line is that most amateurs can not get good consistent center face contact with a 46" driver and no technology is going to change that or fix that problem. All it takes is a little foot powder spray and it's easy to prove. And the difference between getting consistent face contact and not getting consistent face contact on a driver is very noticeable in the real world. Go do a search through the forum and you'll find lots of examples of noticeable improvement after people finally got around to cutting down away from those horrible stock specs. There are always a few rare exceptions of folks who do well at the longer lengths but the evidence of which is the majority is clear.

    And that's just one spec. I myself know better because I struggled for almost 2 years with stock iron shafts that turned out to be horrible fit - before I knew better. They were both too light and too soft for me. Once I finally got that straightened out the improvement was immediate and very noticeable. And once again, the forum is filled with similar examples.

    Now if you have a link to any hard data showing evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to look and consider it but vague and unsubstantiated generalities or made up percentages don't really interest me.

    Post edited by Stuart_G on
  • On N 2On N 2 Members Posts: 19 ✭✭

    @Krt22 said:
    I'm the opposite. Tried numerous stock options, always had a latest gen head (z785 was my pre fitting gamer). Post fitting I've never driven the ball so we'll. Longer and much straighter. Used to have snap hooks/next zip code blocks. Now it's either straight or a fall off fade. Huge ball speed gains now that I'm not afraid of the big miss

    Did you change flex in the shaft? I've had similar results going from reg to stiff. Just curious how your hooks and blocks were eliminated since you only mention the head.

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 20, 2019 7:47pm #35

    @Stuart_G said:

    Now if you have a link to any hard data showing evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to look and consider it but vague and unsubstantiated generalities or made up percentages don't really interest me.

    It doesn't work that way in the world of science and data - if you make a claim you back it up with data; it's not for the naysayers to provide data to the contrary.

    If you are claiming fitting is of benefit to scores for the majority of players, please provide this data. Until then it's just another sales patter to make $$$ and scores remain as they were before fitting.

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,442 ✭✭

    @On N 2 said:

    @Krt22 said:
    I'm the opposite. Tried numerous stock options, always had a latest gen head (z785 was my pre fitting gamer). Post fitting I've never driven the ball so we'll. Longer and much straighter. Used to have snap hooks/next zip code blocks. Now it's either straight or a fall off fade. Huge ball speed gains now that I'm not afraid of the big miss

    Did you change flex in the shaft? I've had similar results going from reg to stiff. Just curious how your hooks and blocks were eliminated since you only mention the head.

    @On N 2 said:

    @Krt22 said:
    I'm the opposite. Tried numerous stock options, always had a latest gen head (z785 was my pre fitting gamer). Post fitting I've never driven the ball so we'll. Longer and much straighter. Used to have snap hooks/next zip code blocks. Now it's either straight or a fall off fade. Huge ball speed gains now that I'm not afraid of the big miss

    Did you change flex in the shaft? I've had similar results going from reg to stiff. Just curious how your hooks and blocks were eliminated since you only mention the head.

    @On N 2 said:

    @Krt22 said:
    I'm the opposite. Tried numerous stock options, always had a latest gen head (z785 was my pre fitting gamer). Post fitting I've never driven the ball so we'll. Longer and much straighter. Used to have snap hooks/next zip code blocks. Now it's either straight or a fall off fade. Huge ball speed gains now that I'm not afraid of the big miss

    Did you change flex in the shaft? I've had similar results going from reg to stiff. Just curious how your hooks and blocks were eliminated since you only mention the head.

    Absolutely. Was playing the wrong profile shafts, had addi6x in driver and modus 120x in irons. The soft butt and stiff tip nature of both was a recipe for a two way miss with how aggressively I load the shaft early. Was fit into a speeder evolution V 757x
    And Oban ct115x iron shafts. The srixon head still was hook prone even with the speeder shaft. Playing an M6 now slightly open and hit lovely little push fades

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 21, 2019 9:22am #37

    @ironcat said:
    It doesn't work that way in the world of science and data - if you make a claim you back it up with data; it's not for the naysayers to provide data to the contrary.

    Exactly - but what you're forgetting is that I'm the "naysayer" in this case, not you. You were the one that made the original unsubstantiated claim back in post #25 that started all this nonsense.

    @ironcat said:
    For 95% of us manufacturers are designing their retail clubs to work as best as possible right off the shelf which is why many don't see a massive benefit in custom fitting.

    So where is the data for that?

    @ironcat said:
    Until then it's just another sales patter to make $$$

    Save your paranoia for the stores where it belongs. It doesn't have a place here. I never have, nor do I ever intend to try and make any money in any part of the golf industry, so you'll never get a sales pitch from me.

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 21, 2019 12:23pm #38

    @Stuart_G said:
    what you're forgetting is that I'm the "naysayer" in this case, not you. You were the one that made the original unsubstantiated claim back in post #25 that started all this nonsense.

    It doesn't work that way Stuart - the base of the claim is from the golf industry: in this case it's fitters that suggest that club fitting is beneficial to golfer's scores. So if that's true where's the data to support it? Show me where a shaft changes equates to lower scores or where added distance leads to handicap drops.

    For 95% of us manufacturers are designing their retail clubs to work as best as possible right off the shelf which is why many don't see a massive benefit in custom fitting.
    So where is the data for that?

    Once again, It doesn't work that way Stuart - it's like me saying there is a spaghetti monster in space and claiming it's factually true until you prove otherwise. That's not how science works I am afraid. The burden of proof in this case would thus be the industry that is claiming fitting provides a benefit to golfers scores over unfitted off-the-shelf equipment.

    The same logic applies to a manufacturer that may hypothetically say their new driver is more forgiving than the last. If they do that the burden of proof is on them to back this claim up with data; it isn't true until proven otherwise. The world simply doesn't work that way (thankfully).

    The burden of proof always works that way, otherwise what's to stop someone setting up a shop claiming their magic snake oil grips will reduce your scores?

    @ironcat said:
    Until then it's just another sales patter to make $$$

    Save your paranoia for the stores where it belongs. It doesn't have a place here. I never have, nor do I ever intend to try and make any money in any part of the golf industry, so you'll never get a sales pitch from me.

    Why is it paranoia?
    As we have clearly demonstrated, there is no data that suggests custom fitting is of any benefit to golfers-in-general in terms of their scoring ability. And until you can prove otherwise thais is an objective and indisputable fact.

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,442 ✭✭
    edited Apr 21, 2019 3:23pm #39

    Ironcat you can claim "it doesn't work that way", but you are literally doing the same thing you blame manufacturers of doing.

    "95% of us manufacturers are designing their retail clubs to work best as possible right off the shelf which is why many don't see a massive benefit in custom fitting "

    That is your assertion, an assertion you need to back up with data or at least a logical argument if you want anyone to believe it to be true. The burden of proof in this case is 100% on you if you want to stick to this notion of the scientific method you are hand waiving about.

    I would say the evidence proves otherwise. They are marketed to apply to the largest group of golfers as possible, but they are designed fully knowing there truly isn't a viable one size fits all product. Drivers are more adjustable than ever, (loft, lie, CG, etc) with numerous stock shaft options and even more no charge shaft upgrades than we've ever seen. So while they would love to sell as many as they can off the rack at big box stores, they are ultimately designed to have performance maximized with the help of at least a basic fitting. Again which can be seen with each OEM having their own fitters and fitting carts. Now I'm sure you will say that is all voodoo marketing tricks but so far you have not come up with a compelling argument that says otherwise.

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭

    @Stuart_G said:

    not a day goes by on this forum where we see folks come asking for help because the stock spec drivers are causing them problems with impact consistency, accuracy, control, managing spin or launch, and more.

    I think you'll find accuracy, consistency, control and spin are more variables of the player than the driver.
    There are no shortcuts and no magic wands, which is why many players buy new drivers every year and get fittings every year.

    falsehope

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 21, 2019 6:26pm #41

    So while they would love to sell as many as they can off the rack at big box stores, they are ultimately designed to have performance maximized with the help of at least a basic fitting.

    Let me clarify that I'm not suggesting results can't be "maximised" with a fitting. We all know we can "optamise" certain characteristics such as launch angle and spin rate - the point is that there is ZERO evidence that this makes any discernable difference to scores of most golfers. That really is the key point people should be better aware of.

    Again which can be seen with each OEM having their own fitters and fitting carts. Now I'm sure you will say that is all voodoo marketing tricks but so far you have not come up with a compelling argument that says otherwise.

    It doesn't work that way. You cannot declare something as a fact simply because it can't be disproved.

    In the world of science and data the onus is on the person/agency/organisation suggesting x = y.

    In the custom fitting industry this translates to "custom fitting = better scores".

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,442 ✭✭

    You keep saying "it doesn't work that way", while handing waiving about data and science while not using either to support your position, given your position is nothing more than a strong personal opinion. You are essentially saying you are right because your position can't be disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    In the modern world of "data and science" the burden of proof is a two way street, being a keyboard pundit doesn't change that , at least not if you want people to take your position seriously.

    And I'm not sure why you are flirting with spelling semantics, it just further shows you don't have anything of real substance to support your assertions.

  • MysteryVMysteryV Members Posts: 337 ✭✭

    Lot's of good points here. I very much agree with Rich who notes the forgiveness of the G400 Max being a big technological advantage / advancement.

    Personally, I believe Callaway is on to something with Jailbreak as, while COR is maxed, no all energy goes into the face at impact - some is transferred elsewhere in the clubhead and that deformation saps some non-zero amount of distance (though admittedly, I'm not sure exactly how much).

    With regards to shaft technology, there's quite a bit going on there as well. Stronger, lighter composites allow shaftmakers to create more consistent, diverse profiles that materials 10 years ago wouldn't allow. That may not mean much for the average recreational golfer, but having additional fitting options to further dial launch conditions for pros is impactful and MAY have something to do with the annual tour averages improving.

    At the end of the day, just get fit for a G400 Max and set it on cruise for the next 5 years. :D

    Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Tensei PO
    3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
    Irons: Miura CB-1008 w/ Oban CT-115
    Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
    Putter: Scotty Newport 2 - AOP Oval Track
  • cardoustiecardoustie haha, we don't play for 5's Members Posts: 11,834 ✭✭

    New stuff miles better on toe misses

    Ping G400 LST 11* Oban Revenge 65x
    Ping G400 5w 16.5* Oban Kiyoshi White 65s
    Ping G25 7w 20* Fubuki Tour 73x
    Ping G25 4h 23* Diamana White 92s
    Callaway Apex 5h 26* Mitsu KK 80s
    Ping s55 6-PW Fujikura mci 100s
    Vokey sm2 50* 54* 59* 64* DG s400 Onyx
    Piretti Matera Elite (torched)
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,586 ✭✭

    @Stuart_G said:

    @ironcat said:
    Well in my own experience having been fit and many players I know, none of them have ever seen any significant gains in distance or accuracy this doesn't ring true at all. Off the shelf is just as good as custom fit 90% of the time. I've seen the numbers and seen the real-world results. No difference.

    When someone comes back with a $500 shaft and a new head I know it will put them in the same places as their previous off-the-shelf club time and time again. Seen it so many times.

    And this is a range of handicaps, from scratch to 22.

    The only exception I have seen to this is a guy who swings is 120+ and a guy who is like 6ft 5 who was playing regular length irons.

    If you read the post a bit more carefully, it's pretty clear I wasn't talking about distance with respect to the fit being poor.

    And not a day goes by on this forum where we see folks come asking for help because the stock spec drivers are causing them problems with impact consistency, accuracy, control, managing spin or launch, and more. If the fittings you've seen haven't helped improve over the performance with stock specs it likely wasn't much of a fitting. How much time did they spend trying out different playing lengths? How much time with different shaft weights? different swing weights? - was any lead tape used?, did they have the proper grip size available to use during the testing? How many different shaft stiffness profiles were tested? How closely did the fitter pay attention to face impact? Did the LM even actually measure club data or just ball data? Going to a retail store and rotating through a few different heads or even shafts out of the fitting cart is not a real fitting. So for those "fittings", I wouldn't' expect to see much improvement either.

    but how do you know they don't just suck at golf? How do you know it's the club? I say this as a + handicap, when I miss (which is frequent), it's probably way more commonly me than the club) so I'm not sure how you tell a bogey golfer that the reason they just missed the fairway or missed the ball is because of their club. no, it's because you're just not that good at golf.

    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • nsxguynsxguy Just anudder user FloridaMembers Posts: 5,586 ✭✭

    @ironcat said:

    It doesn't work that way. You cannot declare something as a fact simply because it can't be disproved.

    Why not ? You've done it.

    No offense but your entire contribution in this thread smacks of "conspiracy theory".

    Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everybody's NOT out to get you. LOL


    Callaway Epic 10.5 Project X Hzrdus Yellow 63 gr, 6.0
    Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, 20*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
    Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300
    Cleveland RTX-4 48, 52, DGS300
    Ping Glide Forged 56* DGS300
    Cleveland RTX-3, 64 DGS300

    Evnroll 1.2 (Today - always subject to change LOL)
    Titleist AVX
  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 8:44am #47

    @ironcat said:

    It doesn't work that way. You cannot declare something as a fact simply because it can't be disproved.

    ..

    @nsxguy said:

    Why not ? You've done it.

    No offense but your entire contribution in this thread smacks of "conspiracy theory".

    Why not?

    Because the alternative is to live in a world where every claim is true until proven otherwise; which means Unicorns and Leprechauns must surely exist because they cannot be disproven.

    That's a logical fallacy.
    😂

    @Krt22 said:

    In the modern world of "data and science" the burden of proof is a two way street, being a keyboard pundit doesn't change that , at least not if you want people to take your position seriously.

    It really isn't a two way street, as highlighted above.

    This is starting to play out as a debate on faith vs fact. By all means one can have faith, but faith is also not fact. And if you have faith in the golf industry telling you that an exotic up-charge shaft, or a new driver head with 200rpm of less spin will make you a better golfer and are happy to believe this and buy into it without evidence there's little point debating it further TBH.

    It's clear you won't be convinced otherwise; and who am I to try. The golf equipment industry is worth upwards of $20 billion for a reason.

    To each his own.

    Post edited by ironcat on
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 12:15pm #48

    @pinhigh27 said:

    but how do you know they don't just suck at golf? How do you know it's the club? I say this as a + handicap, when I miss (which is frequent), it's probably way more commonly me than the club) so I'm not sure how you tell a bogey golfer that the reason they just missed the fairway or missed the ball is because of their club. no, it's because you're just not that good at golf.

    It's a good question. Trial and error testing - which is the core of fitting. The simple version is that if you hand them a club with different specs, and the results suddenly improve or get worse in some way - then the particular equipment spec/aspect that changed is a clear contributing factor. If the results don't change, then it is not. One just might need more sample points of data than they would with a better player depending on the skill of the fitter.

    It's not really about assigning blame. It all comes from the swing BUT the equipment can prove to be an influence on the swing for many people in a variety of ways - some more than others. Equipment wont fix swing flaws - but a poor fit can amplify or increase the severity of the flaws while a good fit can some times reduce the severity of the misses or inconsistencies. And IMO, for the higher handicappers it does tend to be more managing consistency. Lots of possibilities - here are just a few examples e.g. the results with the longer clubs are almost always going to be more inconsistent and have much bigger misses if they can not get consistent center face contact vs if they can (thanks to gear effect), and playing length can have a huge effect on the consistency of that face impact. Swing weight and shaft weight can effect the consistency of the transition and release and even help manage grip pressure issues. Face angle, and some times lie angle, may help mitigate the severity of a face-to-path issue and say turn a 40 yard slice into a 20 yard slice (been there - done that :-)

    Post edited by Stuart_G on
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 8:59am #49

    @ironcat said:
    It doesn't work that way Stuart - the base of the claim is from the golf industry

    If you want to argue with the golf industry - good luck with that - last I checked there was no such member here in the forum. But I guess it is easier to argue against some vague and nameless source than actually have to deal with specifics.

    @ironcat said:
    Once again, It doesn't work that way Stuart - it's like me saying there is a spaghetti monster in space and claiming it's factually true until you prove otherwise.

    You did make a claim and try and pass it off as factual - that is what's being challenged here and that's why the burden of proof is back on you. Rant all you want or keep your contributions to opinions - there are plenty of those types of posts here on the forums and they're fine - but once you try and pass something off as factual, you have to be prepared to defend it.

    And yes - that is exactly how the scientific community works.

    @ironcat said:
    As we have clearly demonstrated,

    The fact that you think you've clearly demonstrated anything is a clear indication that any attempt to continue this discussion would be a complete waste of time. So take care and good luck.

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 9:15am #50

    @Stuart_G said:

    @ironcat said:
    It doesn't work that way Stuart - the base of the claim is from the golf industry

    If you want to argue with the golf industry - good luck with that - last I checked there was no such member here in the forum. But I guess it is easier to argue against some vague and nameless source than actually have to deal with specifics.

    @ironcat said:
    Once again, It doesn't work that way Stuart - it's like me saying there is a spaghetti monster in space and claiming it's factually true until you prove otherwise.

    You did make a claim and try and pass it off as factual - that is what's being challenged here and that's why the burden of proof is back on you. Rant all you want or keep your contributions to opinions - there are plenty of those types of posts here on the forums and they're fine - but once you try and pass something off as factual, you have to be prepared to defend it.

    And yes - that is exactly how the scientific community works.

    @ironcat said:
    As we have clearly demonstrated,

    The fact that you think you've clearly demonstrated anything is a clear indication that any attempt to continue this discussion would be a complete waste of time. So take care and good luck.

    If you have faith in the golf industry telling you that an exotic up-charge shaft, or a new driver head with 200rpm of less spin will make you a better golfer and are happy to believe this and buy into it without evidence there's little point debating it further TBH.

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 12:11pm #51

    @ironcat said:
    If you have faith in the golf industry telling you that an exotic up-charge shaft, or a new driver head with 200rpm of less spin will make you a better golfer and are happy to believe this and buy into it without evidence there's little point debating it further TBH.

    Actually it's the fact that you still haven't' managed to learn anything about what I really do think that makes it pointless. But don't worry, that doesn't bother me in the least.

    Post edited by Stuart_G on
  • J13J13 Dad golf Members Posts: 15,361 ✭✭

    Lots of discussion about if it's longer but every driver performs well when hit in the center. My advice would be to focus on what the driver does when you miss. Does it make your misses less punishing? Are you getting higher ball speeds on your miss? Those are the things that will make a difference on a golf course, not if you get another 4-6yds when struck perfectly.

    Driver - TBD
    Nike VR Pro LTD 15* / Aldila RIP 80X
    Srixon 745's 4-PW / Modus Tour 120 TX
    Callaway MD3 50, 54, 60 / Modus 125
    Odyssey White Hot Versa #6 Tour issue
    Srixon Zstar XV


    GolfWRX WITB Podcast - Irons reveal 11/14/18 http://www.golfwrx.c...utm_content=sub

    GolfWrx WITB Podcast 2017 : http://www.golfwrx.com/482668/tgtg-golfwrx-forum-member-j13-talks-witb-and-club-testing/

    WITB- http://www.golfwrx.c.../page__st__1590

    INSTAGRAM- @Jminis13
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,586 ✭✭

    Not sure I buy that one fitting where you're hitting it better means it's the club. Literally every time I get something new I hit it great for a week ( or at least I perceive I do) and then it's back to same old same old.

    Like I said I'm plus and I think my swing varies to point where I don't know if a fitting one day would result in my clubs working as well on another day, so not sure how a bogey golfer would. I think fitting is very overrated for all but elite players and quality lessons are highly underrated.

    If you're working on changing your swing for the better who is to say your changes won't change your fit, especially if fitting is so important and personal. It's constantly chasing your tail. Not to mention fitters have a vested interest in fitting being relevant. Unless you're elite or abnormal in proportion or preference, I really don't think it is.

    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,442 ✭✭

    @ironcat said:

    @ironcat said:

    It doesn't work that way. You cannot declare something as a fact simply because it can't be disproved.

    ..

    @nsxguy said:

    Why not ? You've done it.

    No offense but your entire contribution in this thread smacks of "conspiracy theory".

    Why not?

    Because the alternative is to live in a world where every claim is true until proven otherwise; which means Unicorns and Leprechauns must surely exist because they cannot be disproven.

    That's a logical fallacy.
    😂

    @Krt22 said:

    In the modern world of "data and science" the burden of proof is a two way street, being a keyboard pundit doesn't change that , at least not if you want people to take your position seriously.

    It really isn't a two way street, as highlighted above.

    This is starting to play out as a debate on faith vs fact. By all means one can have faith, but faith is also not fact. And if you have faith in the golf industry telling you that an exotic up-charge shaft, or a new driver head with 200rpm of less spin will make you a better golfer and are happy to believe this and buy into it without evidence there's little point debating it further TBH.

    It's clear you won't be convinced otherwise; and who am I to try. The golf equipment industry is worth upwards of $20 billion for a reason.

    To each his own.

    No, this is not fact vs faith as you have furnished zero facts. You are simply pushing your opinion as factual, and for some reason think you are exempt from the same standard that you are holding everyone else to, of backing said opinions with data/facts. You are free to have your own opinion on the matter but please save us the lecture on the "scientific method" when you yourself are not us using anything of the sort.

    In your own words, that's not how it works.

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,070 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 5:49pm #55

    @pinhigh27 said:
    Not sure I buy that one fitting where you're hitting it better means it's the club. Literally every time I get something new I hit it great for a week ( or at least I perceive I do) and then it's back to same old same old.
    Like I said I'm plus and I think my swing varies to point where I don't know if a fitting one day would result in my clubs working as well on another day, so not sure how a bogey golfer would. I think fitting is very overrated for all but elite players and quality lessons are highly underrated.
    If you're working on changing your swing for the better who is to say your changes won't change your fit, especially if fitting is so important and personal. It's constantly chasing your tail. Not to mention fitters have a vested interest in fitting being relevant. Unless you're elite or abnormal in proportion or preference, I really don't think it is.

    I did say that answer was "The simple version". IF the improvement came from the equipment having a subtle influence on the swing, some people can and do revert to their natural tendencies. But if you have one session where you hit 2 balls with club A, then 2 balls with club B, then 2 more with A, and 2 more with B - and there is a consistent difference between the two clubs - how can you say the equipment is not providing some influence of some type?

    Second, particularly for better players or even those who have spent a decent amount of time with various equipment tend to gravitate to equipment that's in the right ball park for them - or maybe more accurately they gravitate away from equipment that's a poor fit for them. In essence they tend to do a decent job of fitting themselves. So is your experience really about comparing the results of one club that's a good fit with another that's a bad fit? or two that are really not all that different? Have you ever demo'd or tried a club that you KNEW would NOT work for you right there from the first or second swing? I know I have. Sometimes I think we take that inherent understanding for granted here on GolfWRX and forget that it's really something that we had to learn - usually the hard way. IMO It's the folks who don't have a lot of that experience with different equipment or don't know any better that can gain the most. It's another generality but better players have also been found to be able to adjust to equipment changes a lot better than the higher handicap players. It's for those reasons (and likely others) that Tom Wishon and others believe that the higher handicappers are more likely to benefit from a good fitting and it's actually less critical for the more elite players - which seems consistent with your own experience. But the only real data on that is unpublished experiences of those who have built a rep for fitting.

    But I certainly will agree that within a certain range of specs, sometimes people spend way too much time and worry about over analyzing the fit of the club, particularly with respect to one head model over another or one shaft profile. My personal philosophy is a lot less sophisticated. It's less about finding a perfect fit and more about avoiding a bad fit - making sure there are no specs that are causing noticeable problems with the swing or result.

    I also don't see any real conflict between equipment fitting and instruction or lessons. I see the two as mutually exclusive - not in any kind of competition with each other. Fitting results wont get in the way of any kind of improvement the player chooses to pursue. And there is no way to predict what might be a good fit or not after the improvement so it's not like there is a better option to play than what happens to fit with their current swing. Personally I don't find that swing improvements make all that much different to the fit as often as people think they might. Changes rarely happen quickly so people tend to learn the improvements with whatever equipment they happen to have. I've made a lot of changes to my swing in the last few years - and at most I had to tweak the lie angles of my irons once. For me, changes due to aging have played a much bigger role in the equipment changes than swing changes.

  • ironcatironcat the cat Members Posts: 524 ✭✭
    edited Apr 22, 2019 7:08pm #56

    @ironcat said:

    @ironcat said:

    It doesn't work that way. You cannot declare something as a fact simply because it can't be disproved.

    ..

    @nsxguy said:

    Why not ? You've done it.

    No offense but your entire contribution in this thread smacks of "conspiracy theory".

    Why not?

    Because the alternative is to live in a world where every claim is true until proven otherwise; which means Unicorns and Leprechauns must surely exist because they cannot be disproven.

    That's a logical fallacy.
    😂

    @Krt22 said:

    In the modern world of "data and science" the burden of proof is a two way street, being a keyboard pundit doesn't change that , at least not if you want people to take your position seriously.

    It really isn't a two way street, as highlighted above.

    This is starting to play out as a debate on faith vs fact. By all means one can have faith, but faith is also not fact. And if you have faith in the golf industry telling you that an exotic up-charge shaft, or a new driver head with 200rpm of less spin will make you a better golfer and are happy to believe this and buy into it without evidence there's little point debating it further TBH.

    It's clear you won't be convinced otherwise; and who am I to try. The golf equipment industry is worth upwards of $20 billion for a reason.

    To each his own.

    No, this is not fact vs faith as you have furnished zero facts. You are simply pushing your opinion as factual, and for some reason think you are exempt from the same standard that you are holding everyone else to, of backing said opinions with data/facts. You are free to have your own opinion on the matter but please save us the lecture on the "scientific method" when you yourself are not us using anything of the sort.

    In your own words, that's not how it works.

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,442 ✭✭

    Yep, I'm pretty sure that is what everyone does each time you harp about the "scientific method" and then follow it up with a bunch of conjecture.

  • Redjeep83Redjeep83 Members Posts: 5,123 ✭✭

    For me, I go through an adjustment period with a driver. I too kept my r11 driver for awhile and was fit into it at top facility, I kept trying other drivers but never saw an improvement. Few years ago, I just went ahead and bought a 2016 m2 because it sounded great and was popular on tour. At first I wasn't hitting it better but as I adjusted to the driver over time, I gained a good amount with it over the R11 I was using. I don't know the exact amount of yardage I gained but playing the course I was hitting area's consistently that I didn't prior. Can't imagine going back to that R11 now. I think in this case, the M2 was more forgiving than R11 and I finally adjusted on how to hit this particular driver which resulted in more distance.

Leave a Comment

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