2020 Best Driver: Members Choice

Costco Putter

How far should you hit you clubs?

Poll: Best Fairway

Poll: Best Hyrid

Tour Photo Galleries
Fitting Tall Golfers With NO Chart or Preconceived Ideas!
rybo ·
rybo
Members Posted: WRX Points: 133Handicap: +1.6Posts: 2,239 Platinum Tees
What if there were no fitting charts or preconceived ideas on what a tall player should be using? Truly no limiting 'standards' (which none really exist anyway). How would club length be determined?<br />
<br />
Stepping back after some rather contentious dialogue in another post that left me extremely frustrated, it was obvious there needs to be a way to 'fit' tall people for proper club length without the limits currently being set by charts or preconceived ideas. As a tall individual I believe these are stopping any chance of being correctly fit. Those of us over 6' 2" fall into the 1% of the population for height and trying to get properly fit for our proportions is nearly impossible. In 34 years of golf I have never truly felt comfortable; either hunched over, excessive shoulder roll, overly active legs, bent too far at waist, the list just goes on and on. Ultimately the clubs have always felt too short, seriously at times it felt like I was playing with kids clubs. I have been fit by some of the best, was with Cleveland for a few years when I played the minitours, went through their fittings and still something was not right. As recently as August, I was fit by Ping and this produced a set of unusable clubs. They are literally shorter then what I was playing but they fit their chart.<br />
<br />
After doing some research for the other post I came across what for me was a complete game changer.... the study of Anthropometry. It's the study of human proportions for use in ergonomics and there are pictorial charts that show how much different body parts change as height changes. When you dive deep into these charts they show and prove the human body has different rates of change for different body parts as height changes. I feel the two measurements of interest are the shoulder height from ground and arm length as it relates to WTF. Interestingly shoulder height changes much quicker then arm length, at a ratio of more than 2:1. Crunched some numbers, figured out the different rates of change for each of the body parts, put it in chart form and added it to the post. Well you would have thought the world was coming to an end. How dare I use scientifically accepted charts to mathematically show a 6' 4" person need such long clubs, that's preposterous, look at how different these are from established 'standards'! Are you crazy?!?! More back and forth and eventually the mods shut the post down. <br />
<br />
<br />
So what to do? Then it hit me, what if there were no charts? No preconceived limiting ideas. Just the golfer, grips, shafts and heads. How would the tall golfer be fit for length? Especially someone like myself who falls into the 1% for height. Since the golf industry doesn't really have any standards I started looking for something to be used as a starting point that ones height would have no effect. Hit number two happened. Almost all OEM's, component MFG's and boutique mfg's use a 64* lie angle for their wedges. It's pretty much the one constant within the golf industry, the lone exception being Mizuno who uses 63*. This 64* lie angle is used for lob, sand, gap, pitching wedges and sometimes 9 irons, basically 25% the clubs in of everyone's bag! Started thinking how I could use the 64* lie angle as the starting point for fitting. Hit number three! I temporarily installed an uncut 3 iron shaft into wedge head and bent it to an exact 64*. Then I got into my natural setup position without the club in my hands to naturally set up how ever my body wanted to. Then gripped the club starting with it on it's heel and slowly moved the shaft within my grip letting the excess go beyond my hands until the scoring lines sat parallel to the ground. Waggled it a few times, mimicked an impact position as best I could, took some really slow motion type of swings, just played with it until I felt there was some confidence marking a spot on the shaft as the length that provided the length needed for both my natural set up and a repeatable length that kept the face square with the sole truly centered with no toe up or down. Marked the shaft above the butt of my left hand, then took a measurement to the mark......38"! Whoa....that's much longer than any wedge I've played. Repeated this same process a few times and kept getting the same result. Decided it must be right. I now had my low length limit for full shots based on the universal 64* lie angle club specification. <br />
<br />
What about an upper limit? My longest iron is a 4 iron. Needing a known lie angle I checked multiple OEM's and frankly the consistency of the 64* lie angle used in wedges is simply not there when it comes to long irons. Long irons have lie angles all over the place. Did some quick math subtracting a 1/2* per club to the 4 iron and ended up with 61*. This closely matched the standard specs of the CG16 T spec heads I was experimenting with so decided to use the 61*. Temporarily installed another uncut 3 iron shaft into the 4 iron head and bent to exactly 61*. Again took my natural set up position and moved the shaft up and down within my grip until the head was sitting flat. Mimicked impact position, some slow swings, etc. Marked a spot for the length and it was almost 40.5" Established an upper length limit. <br />
<br />
Now I had low and high length limits of 38" and 40.5" respectively for the know lie angles of 64* and 61*. All of this with no chart or limiting preconceived ideas of +1", +2", +1/2", +1*, +3* etc. These clubs fit me in every respect. My natural posture was accounted for, any variation in arm length accounted for, difference in hand size accounted for, how much I bend my legs, how wide and high my shoulders are, literally every difference my body could have was accounted for. A true custom fit with no charts or preconceived ideas. <br />
<br />
Built the set to the following:<br />
4 61* 40.5"<br />
5 61.5* 40"<br />
6 62* 39.5"<br />
7 62.5* 39"<br />
8 63* 38.5"<br />
9 63.5 38.25"<br />
P 64* 38"<br />
G 64* 38"<br />
<br />
Also built sand and lob wedges to 38"/64*.<br />
<br />
To the range! From the first swing there was a natural pure strike with dead center contact. My posture feels better then it ever has and I am able to stand taller, shoulders feel more at ease, now able to swing back and through with no resistance, legs were much quieter, swing plane feels natural and was able to work under the plane of glass with ease, etc. Stayed for about 3 hours hitting balls with an ease I had never had before, did a lie angle check using a sharpie line on a ball and determined I needed about a 2* upright club in the short irons and a about 1/2* upright in the long irons. Probably due to shaft droop more then anything. Bent the clubs a bit upright and went back the next morning....perfect!<br />
<br />
At this point I am totally sold. I was able to fit all of my body proportions with no chart, establish a custom low and high length limits that are repeatable and for the first time in 34 years truly feel like the clubs are long enough. All of this has been quite liberating really. <br />
<br />
The sand and lob wedge did not work so well at 38" for me, simply too long for half shots, little chips, etc. This may change as time goes on using the longer clubs but for now I decided to reduce each of these two clubs by a successive 1/4", so the SW is 37.75" and LW is 37.5". Thought about why the length fitting may not have worked as well for these two clubs and my theory is your lead shoulder does not rise as much for half shots and chips around the green, so the additional length may not be necessary. Even standard length clubs have the SW and LW shorter then the PW.<br />
<br />
<br />
Couple of thoughts<br />
<br />
Club length does not change with a lie angle change. You can not fix a length problem with a lie angle change. And when a club is bent upright it actually shortens the effective playing length, the distance between the center of the face and the butt of the club and most definitely has an impact on the swing plane becoming steeper. This idea of upright lie angles as a way to accommodate additional length used by the OEM's is borderline malpractice. It's nothing but a bad measurement taken from the wrong spots. Bending a clubhead up or down moves just that, the clubhead, the shaft doesn't magically lengthen and there is no effective length change. Lie angles are the relationship of the sole to the centerline of the hosel from a fixed axis point. Moving a lie angle up or down only moves the clubhead, you will still need the same length from your shoulder and hands to the ground. <br />
<br />
<br />
Once the low limit playing length has been established, then and only then can any consideration be made for lie angle adjustment. The shortest length you can use to reach the ground for your proportions, posture, grip, etc can not be changed. It's your personal low limit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lets put things in perspective, the average male is 5' 9" and has a WTF of 34". Using myself I am 6' 4" and have a WTF of 38". Using standard clubs, the 5' 9" golfer will have a lob wedge that is 1" longer than his WTF and a pitching wedge that is 1 3/4" longer than his WTF. I have a lob wedge that is 1/2" shorter than my WTF and a pitching wedges that is equal to my WTF. My clubs are still SHORTER in respect to my WTF then the average height individuals WTF. So really not all that long.<br />
<br />
<br />
This type of length fitting likely won't work very well with shorter golfers as it would likely reduce club length too much. However shorter golfers start with clubs that are already sufficiently long enough while tall golfers start with clubs that are no where near long enough. Two completely different issues in both form and complexities. I openly state I have no idea the issues shorter golfers deal with, just as shorter golfers really have no idea what issues taller golfers deal with.<br />
<br />
<br />
Short drivers and fairway woods, and tall people....not a good combination. The only consideration that should be made for driver length is can the head be returned to its proper orientation at impact. Too short of a driver with an even or worst yet upward angle of attack is a recipe for disaster. Pretty much guarantees a popcorn fade, with zero chance for a draw. A fairway wood that is too short and the head will be toe down. Lie angle matters and since it can not be changed length is needed to produce a head that can be returned in its correct square orientation at impact. For me I have found driver is best at 46.5" for a GBB and 44.25" and 43.75" for my 3 and 5 woods.
<br />
Stepping back after some rather contentious dialogue in another post that left me extremely frustrated, it was obvious there needs to be a way to 'fit' tall people for proper club length without the limits currently being set by charts or preconceived ideas. As a tall individual I believe these are stopping any chance of being correctly fit. Those of us over 6' 2" fall into the 1% of the population for height and trying to get properly fit for our proportions is nearly impossible. In 34 years of golf I have never truly felt comfortable; either hunched over, excessive shoulder roll, overly active legs, bent too far at waist, the list just goes on and on. Ultimately the clubs have always felt too short, seriously at times it felt like I was playing with kids clubs. I have been fit by some of the best, was with Cleveland for a few years when I played the minitours, went through their fittings and still something was not right. As recently as August, I was fit by Ping and this produced a set of unusable clubs. They are literally shorter then what I was playing but they fit their chart.<br />
<br />
After doing some research for the other post I came across what for me was a complete game changer.... the study of Anthropometry. It's the study of human proportions for use in ergonomics and there are pictorial charts that show how much different body parts change as height changes. When you dive deep into these charts they show and prove the human body has different rates of change for different body parts as height changes. I feel the two measurements of interest are the shoulder height from ground and arm length as it relates to WTF. Interestingly shoulder height changes much quicker then arm length, at a ratio of more than 2:1. Crunched some numbers, figured out the different rates of change for each of the body parts, put it in chart form and added it to the post. Well you would have thought the world was coming to an end. How dare I use scientifically accepted charts to mathematically show a 6' 4" person need such long clubs, that's preposterous, look at how different these are from established 'standards'! Are you crazy?!?! More back and forth and eventually the mods shut the post down. <br />
<br />
<br />
So what to do? Then it hit me, what if there were no charts? No preconceived limiting ideas. Just the golfer, grips, shafts and heads. How would the tall golfer be fit for length? Especially someone like myself who falls into the 1% for height. Since the golf industry doesn't really have any standards I started looking for something to be used as a starting point that ones height would have no effect. Hit number two happened. Almost all OEM's, component MFG's and boutique mfg's use a 64* lie angle for their wedges. It's pretty much the one constant within the golf industry, the lone exception being Mizuno who uses 63*. This 64* lie angle is used for lob, sand, gap, pitching wedges and sometimes 9 irons, basically 25% the clubs in of everyone's bag! Started thinking how I could use the 64* lie angle as the starting point for fitting. Hit number three! I temporarily installed an uncut 3 iron shaft into wedge head and bent it to an exact 64*. Then I got into my natural setup position without the club in my hands to naturally set up how ever my body wanted to. Then gripped the club starting with it on it's heel and slowly moved the shaft within my grip letting the excess go beyond my hands until the scoring lines sat parallel to the ground. Waggled it a few times, mimicked an impact position as best I could, took some really slow motion type of swings, just played with it until I felt there was some confidence marking a spot on the shaft as the length that provided the length needed for both my natural set up and a repeatable length that kept the face square with the sole truly centered with no toe up or down. Marked the shaft above the butt of my left hand, then took a measurement to the mark......38"! Whoa....that's much longer than any wedge I've played. Repeated this same process a few times and kept getting the same result. Decided it must be right. I now had my low length limit for full shots based on the universal 64* lie angle club specification. <br />
<br />
What about an upper limit? My longest iron is a 4 iron. Needing a known lie angle I checked multiple OEM's and frankly the consistency of the 64* lie angle used in wedges is simply not there when it comes to long irons. Long irons have lie angles all over the place. Did some quick math subtracting a 1/2* per club to the 4 iron and ended up with 61*. This closely matched the standard specs of the CG16 T spec heads I was experimenting with so decided to use the 61*. Temporarily installed another uncut 3 iron shaft into the 4 iron head and bent to exactly 61*. Again took my natural set up position and moved the shaft up and down within my grip until the head was sitting flat. Mimicked impact position, some slow swings, etc. Marked a spot for the length and it was almost 40.5" Established an upper length limit. <br />
<br />
Now I had low and high length limits of 38" and 40.5" respectively for the know lie angles of 64* and 61*. All of this with no chart or limiting preconceived ideas of +1", +2", +1/2", +1*, +3* etc. These clubs fit me in every respect. My natural posture was accounted for, any variation in arm length accounted for, difference in hand size accounted for, how much I bend my legs, how wide and high my shoulders are, literally every difference my body could have was accounted for. A true custom fit with no charts or preconceived ideas. <br />
<br />
Built the set to the following:<br />
4 61* 40.5"<br />
5 61.5* 40"<br />
6 62* 39.5"<br />
7 62.5* 39"<br />
8 63* 38.5"<br />
9 63.5 38.25"<br />
P 64* 38"<br />
G 64* 38"<br />
<br />
Also built sand and lob wedges to 38"/64*.<br />
<br />
To the range! From the first swing there was a natural pure strike with dead center contact. My posture feels better then it ever has and I am able to stand taller, shoulders feel more at ease, now able to swing back and through with no resistance, legs were much quieter, swing plane feels natural and was able to work under the plane of glass with ease, etc. Stayed for about 3 hours hitting balls with an ease I had never had before, did a lie angle check using a sharpie line on a ball and determined I needed about a 2* upright club in the short irons and a about 1/2* upright in the long irons. Probably due to shaft droop more then anything. Bent the clubs a bit upright and went back the next morning....perfect!<br />
<br />
At this point I am totally sold. I was able to fit all of my body proportions with no chart, establish a custom low and high length limits that are repeatable and for the first time in 34 years truly feel like the clubs are long enough. All of this has been quite liberating really. <br />
<br />
The sand and lob wedge did not work so well at 38" for me, simply too long for half shots, little chips, etc. This may change as time goes on using the longer clubs but for now I decided to reduce each of these two clubs by a successive 1/4", so the SW is 37.75" and LW is 37.5". Thought about why the length fitting may not have worked as well for these two clubs and my theory is your lead shoulder does not rise as much for half shots and chips around the green, so the additional length may not be necessary. Even standard length clubs have the SW and LW shorter then the PW.<br />
<br />
<br />
Couple of thoughts<br />
<br />
Club length does not change with a lie angle change. You can not fix a length problem with a lie angle change. And when a club is bent upright it actually shortens the effective playing length, the distance between the center of the face and the butt of the club and most definitely has an impact on the swing plane becoming steeper. This idea of upright lie angles as a way to accommodate additional length used by the OEM's is borderline malpractice. It's nothing but a bad measurement taken from the wrong spots. Bending a clubhead up or down moves just that, the clubhead, the shaft doesn't magically lengthen and there is no effective length change. Lie angles are the relationship of the sole to the centerline of the hosel from a fixed axis point. Moving a lie angle up or down only moves the clubhead, you will still need the same length from your shoulder and hands to the ground. <br />
<br />
<br />
Once the low limit playing length has been established, then and only then can any consideration be made for lie angle adjustment. The shortest length you can use to reach the ground for your proportions, posture, grip, etc can not be changed. It's your personal low limit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lets put things in perspective, the average male is 5' 9" and has a WTF of 34". Using myself I am 6' 4" and have a WTF of 38". Using standard clubs, the 5' 9" golfer will have a lob wedge that is 1" longer than his WTF and a pitching wedge that is 1 3/4" longer than his WTF. I have a lob wedge that is 1/2" shorter than my WTF and a pitching wedges that is equal to my WTF. My clubs are still SHORTER in respect to my WTF then the average height individuals WTF. So really not all that long.<br />
<br />
<br />
This type of length fitting likely won't work very well with shorter golfers as it would likely reduce club length too much. However shorter golfers start with clubs that are already sufficiently long enough while tall golfers start with clubs that are no where near long enough. Two completely different issues in both form and complexities. I openly state I have no idea the issues shorter golfers deal with, just as shorter golfers really have no idea what issues taller golfers deal with.<br />
<br />
<br />
Short drivers and fairway woods, and tall people....not a good combination. The only consideration that should be made for driver length is can the head be returned to its proper orientation at impact. Too short of a driver with an even or worst yet upward angle of attack is a recipe for disaster. Pretty much guarantees a popcorn fade, with zero chance for a draw. A fairway wood that is too short and the head will be toe down. Lie angle matters and since it can not be changed length is needed to produce a head that can be returned in its correct square orientation at impact. For me I have found driver is best at 46.5" for a GBB and 44.25" and 43.75" for my 3 and 5 woods.
Posted:
Comments
2196
1
<br />
n/a
n/a
320
73
<br />
Thank you VERY much for doing this. I have always felt the same way with my clubs. Basically the longer clubs don't need to be too much longer but the short irons always feel like I am hunched over or not in a true athletic position. I am 6'5" with a WTF of 40". I would love to experiment with this and am in the process of building another set of irons. Can you give me a ball park of where to start based off your findings? Thanks and look forward to a great conversation in and learning in this post. <br />
<br />
Steve
Callaway Epic Flash 15*
Srixon zU45 20, 23
Srixon z745 59i
Srixon z945 PW
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 51*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 56*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 60*
TM Spider Mini
Srixon ZStar
696
0
2196
1
<br />
While your WTF is more in proportion to someone who is 6' 7" using the method explained above to determine your lower length limit with the 64* lie angle is going to be of the utmost importance and you may have other body parts that make up some of the difference from your higher than normal WTF. I am a bit reluctant to advise a length since you fall pretty far outside the boundaries for your height and wtf. This is exactly why doing the low length limit fitting will be so important for you.<br />
<br />
I was shocked to find I was a completely average 6' 4" individual when I had always assumed due to the fitting charts that I had short arms.
2196
1
<br />
6' 1" and 36" WTF is within a 1/10" of being exactly here the math shows you should be for your height. You are quite the average 6' 1" individual. PW and gap wedge will probably fall around 36 3/8"
3202
0
<br />
Looking at your long club experiment you stick with the .5" increments in length. I've seen Wishon and others move towards a smaller increment for taller golfers, I suppose to stay within the available equipment. I would think that the single length irons might be most appropriate for golfers that need longer clubs since the low lofted irons would remain at more manageable lengths.<br />
<br />
What shafts and heads did you use in your experiment? What kind of swing weight or moi did you see? How did the 4 iron play? I would think that the total radius (arms + club) of the arc would limit accuracy the longer it is.
n/a
n/a
2196
1
<br />
Actually I have a fully operational and mathematically generated chart that shows the proportions for shoulder height and arm length that used the direct measurements provided from the anthropometric charts. I am extremely reluctant to post it due to the last fiasco in the other thread. <br />
<br />
I stuck with 1/2" increments because that is what the fitting gave me. I didn't dictate the fitting, the fitting dictated what would work!<br />
<br />
If you do a search you will find I have done everything 1/8" to 1/2" increments. Played 3/8" for the last 6 years or so. <br />
Here is a link where I went from single length to 1/8"<br />
<br />
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1385016mysinglelengthexperimentevolvedinto18lengthprogression/page__p__14210900#entry14210900<br />
<br />
Why did neither work as well as what I have now? because the shorter clubs were still too short, I was still having to bend over too much, slump my shoulders, bend too much at the waist, etc etc etc. **** the 1/8" literally just jammed all the clubs up to something that was still too short but this made them more playable. Still not right just more playable. <br />
<br />
Currently using Cleveland CG16 T Spec heads and i95 Steelfibers. I also have jumbo grips on all clubs as I have pretty large hands, actually they are oversized to average for my height. The 4 iron is great! Long and straight, and unfortunately your comment of 'I would think that the total radius (arms + club) of the arc would limit accuracy the longer it is' is exactly reason us tall people have been having so many issues being fit properly. It's a preconceived idea. How about since are we taller we need longer clubs. This will make it easier to return the clubhead in its proper orientation!<br />
<br />
Ordered another set of Steelfibers yesterday to put in a set of Bridgestone J40 DPC's. Shafts should be here Thursday but I'm headed out of town Friday morning so it may not be until next week before they are built.<br />
<br />
I was in Pinehurst last week for a member guest. Used the clubs built a week earlier. Played courses 9, 7 & 2 and I led the field in eagles and birdies over the 3 rounds, 2 and 11 respectively. If I could have putted even just a bit better, could have easily doubled the birdie count. Also played two practice rounds on 9 & 7 and the clubs were phenomenal.
2196
1
80
0
<br />
I think I'll try this with a wedge. I'm also 6'5" with a 40" WTF (in bare feet).<br />
<br />
You just put a bare 3 iron shaft into a wedge head? No grip?
2196
1
<br />
2196
1
<br />
yes a bare 3 iron shaft, no grip. It's for the purpose of fitting the length only. Needed something exceptionally long so I would ensure there was no chance I would come out of my natural posture. <br />
<br />
When you build the club you will need a wedge shaft for the wedge head.
n/a
n/a
6017
0
<br />
Assuming a wedge plays with a very high swing weight in this concept. Do you play everything else to "match" those, in terms of how the weight swings?
320
73
<br />
My thoughts exactly. Assume starting with lighter heads and choosing a sub 100g shaft would help? What about flex with these longer shafts? Move up in flex as a general rule or stay the same?
Callaway Epic Flash 15*
Srixon zU45 20, 23
Srixon z745 59i
Srixon z945 PW
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 51*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 56*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 60*
TM Spider Mini
Srixon ZStar
30826
86
<br />
<br />
<br />
if you have the large hands to go with the height the swing weight almost takes care of itself by using a midsize or larger grip with several under wraps.... it counter balances the effective higher swingweight feel.... it gives an overall higher weight but the swingweight if built without tip weights has been good for me... This is a very good thread by the way OP... one of the most informed regarding a minority slice of our game and comunity to be fitted. you are on to something great that is the root cause of myself vowing to fit myself form now on...
696
0
1080
0
<br />
By keeping all your wedges (and maybe even the 9 iron) at say 64 or 65 lie and the (same) length you determine to be the wedge starting point is sound, then by using the 1/2 degree lie change dropping down to the 4 iron you can keep these clubs from getting crazy long. I do feel the 1/2 inch for every 1/2 degree change is too much and may cause the long irons to be longer than needed.<br />
<br />
Everything I do is about keeping the player in their strongest athletic address position  for every club, and RYBO has a very reasonable approach at a great starting point. Keeping these really tall players with high WTF really do require wedges up into the 38" range. It's not unreasonable as these guys have been squatting and bending over way too far with their +1" clubs all their life. Successfully fitting the very tall is not that hard if you understand all the parameters of a proper fitting  and building techniques.
Regards Dan
True Length Technology
True Frequency Technology
n/a
n/a
2196
1
<br />
When I tried single length irons I ported my wedges to remove weight. So my wedges are not as heavy as standard wedges, somewhere in he high 270's. <br />
<br />
Here is a pic!<br />
<br />
2196
1
<br />
Obviously some of this is still a work in progress but with the scores I've been putting up in the last two weeks I'm happy to keep trying different things. 67, 70, 78, 70 & 68. That's my last 5 rounds, the first 3 are from Pinehurst, the last two are my home course yesterday and today. These simply work and the proximity to the hole has been so good! <br />
2196
1
<br />
2196
1
<br />
80
0
<br />
It seems like it's one thing to be comfortable in a static stance, it's another to swing and hit the middle of the clubface
n/a
n/a
2196
1
<br />
I'm only using the static set up position as a starting point to determine length. If you go back I did state I mimicked the impact position. This was to see if if there was enough length to at least keep the head square. I would totally expect most every tall golfer is going to need some degree of upright lie angles due to the dynamic move of the swing and toe droop. Again set length first then determine lie angle.
551
0
<br />
I've used clubs +1/2" and +1" but the standard length just feels natural as that is what I grew up using. I also play my driver a touch under standard at 45.25".
[font=arial, helvetica, sansserif]Taylormade M2 Tour 15*  Kuro Kage Silver TiNi 70 S[/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,sansserif]Cobra F7 34 Hybrid 19.5*  Aldila Rogue Black 85H X
Cobra King Pro CB 4PW  Project X 6.5
Callaway MD3 Black Shamrock LE  50, 54, 58  Tour Issue DG S200[/font]
[font=arial, helvetica, sansserif]Bettinardi Queen B 8 35.25"  Lamkin Deep Etched Cord w/ 4 wraps under top hand[/font]
1186
10
<br />
Midsize grips, bigger hands/fingers, and stronger/heavier body frame all just seem to go natural with heavier clubs. The weakening of shaft flex is mitigated if you use lighter heads, so it's not really an issue. But think about it, if you take a D4 sand wedge and add 2.25 inches to the shaft, you've made the swing weight E7.5, which is really quite heavy. Compare that to the +2.25" in my sand wedge that is an E2 from Ping. That's only half as much change and not as much of an effect on shaft flex. That said, my sand wedge doesn't go very far for my swing speed, but boy does it ever go high and spin  about 100105 max and nearly as high as a lob wedge. By the time I'm at an 8 or 9 iron with their lighter D7/D8 swing weights, they still go high and stop on a dime, but the distances are more appropriate  150 for the 9 iron and low 160's for the 8 iron.
969
3
<br />
I'm 6'5, not sure on WTF.
696
0
<br />
What do you think? Does this make any sense?
n/a
n/a
2196
1
<br />
This makes total sense. I have a very good friend who is 5' 8" who had some type of fusion lower back surgery and can not bend from his waist very well. He plays +1/2" or + 3/4" in his irons and wedges.
2196
1
<br />
Something to consider is every 1/2" increase in club length only provides .450" change in hand height at a 64* lie angle. So lets say your hand height is 2" higher than 'standard' you would need a club that is almost 2 1/4" longer just to reach your hands. This is why it is so important to add club length liberally for taller golfers.<br />
<br />
<br />
Using my height as an example<br />
<br />
76" (6' 4") Height<br />
<br />
60.88" Shoulder Height<br />
26.82" Total arm length including hand<br />
34.06" Golfer hand height<br />
<br />
67.736" Length from shoulder height to ground at 64*<br />
34.06" Golfer Hand Height<br />
33.676" Club Grip Height needed at 64*<br />
<br />
37.468" Club length provides a 33.676" hand height<br />
<br />
Interestingly when doing the low limit length test I repeated at 38", per the anthropometric data and calculations the shortest I should be using is 37.468". Roughly a 1/2" difference, very close! Now I did reduce the sand wedge to 37.75" but not due to the chart, it just felt more user friendly. I repeated at 38" due to some variation in posture or body part sizes. While I think the chart can be useful it has limits due to being based on averages, doing the low length limit test accounts for all of the differences in body parts/posture we all have from averages and is ultimately a direct measurement of what you require. <br />
<br />
The length of ones arm from the shoulder creates one radius and the club from the ground up creates another radius. At some point these two radius's have to meet up. You can either do it with additional club length or by contorting your body to fit the club. I'd much rather have sufficient club length and good posture/swing mechanics.
2196
1
<br />
The aspect of playing what you have become used to/grew up playing can not be overlooked. I have been on something of a lengthening journey over the past 34 years changing increment lengths, lengthening clubs, single length, shafts, grips, etc. So for me to transition to what is now by far the longest length I have ever played, one would have to suspect those 34 years and many iterations of different builds has made it much easier. I can not say if jumping up in length all at once would have worked as well, just don't know. What I am playing now just feels so right and basically matches up with the anthropometric calculations for my height and the minimum length attained from the low limit length fitting.
n/a
n/a
320
73
<br />
I have always found myself looking to WITB and hoping to see the clubs specs of folks like Chris Wood, Stuart Cink, Robert Karlsson, and they all seem to sport around +1" or less. Craig Smith from the UK is the tallest current pro golfer at 6'8" tall but have not found any info on his club specs.
Callaway Epic Flash 15*
Srixon zU45 20, 23
Srixon z745 59i
Srixon z945 PW
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 51*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 56*
Cleveland RTX4 Proto 60*
TM Spider Mini
Srixon ZStar