Fitting priorities

The club that has always been hardest for me to get comfortable with is irons. I am totally flummoxed by this. So I am going to a fitter that has both trackman and grass and full suite of options that my teaching pro uses. I have been fit a few times before, and have tried to self-fit, all with mixed results. I am now pretty knowledgeable about the various parameters, although not as much as most fitters. But enough to at least help guide a fitter's thinking about what I want. I hope.

Here's my question. A fitting can optimize different things - roughly 1) % of solid contact (smash, maybe encourage a little better swing with right weight/balance); 2) ball behavior (launch, spin, dispersion, etc) overall (average, std deviation) and/or 3) help on mishits. At least this is my assumption.

I *think* I want to optimize % of solid contact as a first priority and then ball behavior (on solid contact) I think help on mishits is the least valuable because except for maybe the bladiest of blades, most near hits end up roughly in the same place and really bad swings produce really bad results regardless of club.

Does this make sense as an approach? Thx....Chuck

Your #1 goal should be **_consistent_** solid contact. That's going to be a function of shaft weight, flex, and flex profile more than anything else.

Once you've got a shaft selected ball behaviour is a function of loft and head design. Loft is going to be the primary influencer, then things like COG and face design (traditional vs hot face).

> @jvincent said:

> Your #1 goal should be **_consistent_** solid contact. That's going to be a function of shaft weight, flex, and flex profile more than anything else.

>

> Once you've got a shaft selected ball behaviour is a function of loft and head design. Loft is going to be the primary influencer, then things like COG and face design (traditional vs hot face).

Thx. That’s what I am thinking is right although I didn’t know the shaft was so dominant in consistent (%) solid contact.

So would you choose the head first and then vary shafts?

If you're like me, the look of the head matters a lot. I can't hit something I don't like the look of so I'd start with a head that I like the look of. You can always adjust lofts and lies after the fact. One thing to consider with the head is if the sole design fits your game / course conditions.

That said, shaft fit is the most important IMHO. Total weight and flex profile will influence how you deliver the club. Using myself as an example, I get way too quick in transition with shafts that are too light and as a result my consistency suffers.

I used to be much more focused on look and feel. These still matter but truth is, the overriding aesthetic value for me is a ball struck in the center of the face with a compressed ball. That and then ball behavior are what matter most. I’ve played everything from baby blades to other jdm blades and cbs to p790 to ... I just want to flush it and hit the green.

Wow.Over complicating it? In mid 2000s it was are you going Ping G5 or Titleist 695cb or hey those Bridgestones J33cb are great! And thr TM 200 are great too! Shafts were dgs300 or dgr300.When its too complicated go back in time....

> @wmblake2000 said:

> The club that has always been hardest for me to get comfortable with is irons. I am totally flummoxed by this. So I am going to a fitter that has both trackman and grass and full suite of options that my teaching pro uses. I have been fit a few times before, and have tried to self-fit, all with mixed results. I am now pretty knowledgeable about the various parameters, although not as much as most fitters. But enough to at least help guide a fitter's thinking about what I want. I hope.

>

> Here's my question. A fitting can optimize different things - roughly 1) % of solid contact (smash, maybe encourage a little better swing with right weight/balance); 2) ball behavior (launch, spin, dispersion, etc) overall (average, std deviation) and/or 3) help on mishits. At least this is my assumption.

>

> I *think* I want to optimize % of solid contact as a first priority and then ball behavior (on solid contact) I think help on mishits is the least valuable because except for maybe the bladiest of blades, most near hits end up roughly in the same place and really bad swings produce really bad results regardless of club.

>

> Does this make sense as an approach? Thx....Chuck

To me the priorities should be - 1 & 2 - correct length and lie.

Are your current clubs causing you to squat (clubs too short), or forced to grip down (clubs too long)?? Is the toe too upright causing the ball to draw too often, or too flat - causing the ball to fade too often?

The combination of length and lie will have a direct impact on your directional consistency.

The two are not really that separate - just two different symptoms of the similar issues of poor fitting equipment.

IMO - the priority is to optimize the consistency of the swing based on how various changes to the equipment influence the swing for the particular individual. That in turn will lead to more consistent impact and ball flight and the player to get the most out of what their swing can deliver. Different individuals will have different sensitivities to different equipment changes so will have different priorities but it's generally done through manipulation of the 1) grip size 2) playing length 3) shaft weight 4) swing weight 5) face angle for woods/hybrids - offset for irons 6) shaft stiffness. Then finally lie angle and loft are really just final tweaks to get the "best" ball flight out of the resulting swing.

Everyone else has pretty much said what I would. To me a consistent strike with less than 100% ideal launch/MOI/Spin/etc is better than perfect Launch/MOI/Spin/etc less often.

> @Stuart_G said:

> The two are not really that separate - just two different symptoms of the similar issues of poor fitting equipment.

>

> IMO - the priority is to optimize the consistency of the swing based on how various changes to the equipment influence the swing for the particular individual. That in turn will lead to more consistent impact and ball flight and the player to get the most out of what their swing can deliver. Different individuals will have different sensitivities to different equipment changes so will have different priorities but it's generally done through manipulation of the 1) grip size 2) playing length 3) shaft weight 4) swing weight 5) face angle for woods/hybrids - offset for irons 6) shaft stiffness. Then finally lie angle and loft are really just final tweaks to get the "best" ball flight out of the resulting swing.

So... using launch monitor, key data are smash factor consistency, location on face? What are the things I would be most looking at for consistency?

> @wmblake2000 said:

> So... using launch monitor, key data are smash factor consistency, location on face? What are the things I would be most looking at for consistency?

>

Assuming the LM can actually measure club parameters (e.g. Foresight GC2 w/o HMT is a good LM commonly used but can not) Smash can tell a little bit about impact quality but there are other influences (dynamic loft, face-to-path) as well so it's better to just use foot powder spray or even impact tape. Also, it's important to realize that the radar units (TM, Flightscope) and photo based units (Forsight) treat club head speed a little differently. For the radars it's usually independent of the impact location (geometric center of the head) while I think foresight (GC2w/HMT and GCQuad) tries to calculate it at the impact location. So in the later case you can have a consistent swing but inconsistent impact will show an inconsistent swing speed anyways. The other side to that is that the smash factor is a more 'accurate' representation of the COR of the impact. No 'right' or 'wrong' - just different approaches.

Most of the ball numbers (ball speed, horizontal and vertical launch, spin, spin axis) can be used to judge consistency in general but may not necessarily point you in the direction of what might be causing it. Everyone can be a little different but for seeing how the club changes are effecting the swing, I tend to focus more on: Club head speed, dynamic loft, path, face-to-path, and AoA (combined with the impact information from the foot powder spray).

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > So... using launch monitor, key data are smash factor consistency, location on face? What are the things I would be most looking at for consistency?

> >

>

> Assuming the LM can actually measure club parameters (e.g. Foresight GC2 w/o HMT is a good LM commonly used but can not) Smash can tell a little bit about impact quality but there are other influences (dynamic loft, face-to-path) as well so it's better to just use foot powder spray or even impact tape. Also, it's important to realize that the radar units (TM, Flightscope) and photo based units (Forsight) treat club head speed a little differently. For the radars it's usually independent of the impact location (geometric center of the head) while I think foresight (GC2w/HMT and GCQuad) tries to calculate it at the impact location. So in the later case you can have a consistent swing but inconsistent impact will show an inconsistent swing speed anyways. The other side to that is that the smash factor is a more 'accurate' representation of the COR of the impact. No 'right' or 'wrong' - just different approaches.

>

> Most of the ball numbers (ball speed, horizontal and vertical launch, spin, spin axis) can be used to judge consistency in general but may not necessarily point you in the direction of what might be causing it. Everyone can be a little different but for seeing how the club changes are effecting the swing, I tend to focus more on: Club head speed, dynamic loft, path, face-to-path, and AoA (combined with the impact information from the foot powder spray).

>

Thanks, as always, for your generous sharing and insight. Since I can only change shafts at a place with CG2 (with HMT), I can't use (well, I guess I could) foot spray. But your parameters give me something to work on... Thanks. PS: Hope spring has really started to spring in your neck of the woods!

> @wmblake2000 said:

> Thanks, as always, for your generous sharing and insight. Since I can only change shafts at a place with CG2 (with HMT), I can't use (well, I guess I could) foot spray.

Never used it myself but I believe the HMT impact location information should be accurate enough.

> @wmblake2000 said:

> The club that has always been hardest for me to get comfortable with is irons. I am totally flummoxed by this. So I am going to a fitter that has both trackman and grass and full suite of options that my teaching pro uses. I have been fit a few times before, and have tried to self-fit, all with mixed results. I am now pretty knowledgeable about the various parameters, although not as much as most fitters. But enough to at least help guide a fitter's thinking about what I want. I hope.

>

> Here's my question. A fitting can optimize different things - roughly 1) % of solid contact (smash, maybe encourage a little better swing with right weight/balance); 2) ball behavior (launch, spin, dispersion, etc) overall (average, std deviation) and/or 3) help on mishits. At least this is my assumption.

>

> I *think* I want to optimize % of solid contact as a first priority and then ball behavior (on solid contact) I think help on mishits is the least valuable because except for maybe the bladiest of blades, most near hits end up roughly in the same place and really bad swings produce really bad results regardless of club.

>

> Does this make sense as an approach? Thx....Chuck

You sound like the guys that reachout to me for set of Sterling single lengths. Simplifies everything with little downside once you adjust to the system/concept. I beat some young,long flat-bellies today. Point and shoot to rye center of the green, warm the putter.

@wmblake2000 what are your problems with irons? Explain please .

> @BB28403 said:

> @wmblake2000 what are your problems with irons? Explain please .

Weakest part of my game. If I hit irons equivalent to rest of game, I'd break 80 consistently. I drive it consistently well, (not long, but long enough for age 67), chip and putt decently, and even hit 4 wood decently. Irons - a variety of misses. Basically not solid often enough. Toe, a little fat, right (push, not fade so much). I think my swing is more solid than my iron performance. Ironically, the irons I have played the best recently were blades with heavish shafts, which makes no sense. My guess it's a mix of shaft weight and/or lie angle.

What I wish I could do is get a launch monitor outside on grass with P790, G410 heads and a few shafts I could swap in and out for a couple of hours, maybe two days' trials. I could figure it out if I could get access to those tools.

You don't really need to be able to swap shafts to dial in the weight - flex and stiffness yes, but not weight. In fact it's better if you do not since changing shafts can change multiple variables at the same time (e.g. not just weight, but balance pt (SW), and stiffness typically can change as well, possibly even grip and length). It's usually better to actually change only one variable at a time to dial in that particular parameter. So starting with a shaft that's a bit on the light side - and for most it only has to be in the right general ball park for stiffness - you can use lead tape around the shaft below the grip to test different shaft weights and lead tape on the head can test different swing weights.