Someone explain this to me -- adding length and effective lie angle

[tgoodspe1991]

Can someone please explain this to me or clear this up: I've been doing reading and research on how effective lie angle changes as you lengthen a club. Everywhere I read, including this official Callaway site (https://www.callawaygolfpreowned.com/more/customization-services/) says that for every 1/2" you lengthen a club, you effectively make the club 1* more upright.

 

I don't understand how that's possible.

 

If I have an 8-iron that is 36.5" and at 63* lie angle, and I have a 7-iron that is 37" and a 62.5* lie angle, and I lengthen my 8-iron 1/2" to my 7-iron length, then won't I just have an 8-iron that is now 37" in length but still 63* lie angle? So only .5* more upright?

 

I'm just lost on how 1/2" equates to a full 1* lie angle change...?

[Buzzkill]

Don't have any advice BUT I never was a believer in lie changing with length!

[Nessism]

The actual lie angle doesn't change when extending but just as the title of this thread states, the effective lie angle becomes more upright.

Reason being you will hold the club at the same distance from the ground regardless of the shaft length. A club with a longer shaft will have the head further away from you and the toe will stick up higher, thus a more effective upright lie.

[tgoodspe1991]

> @Nessism said:

> The actual lie angle doesn't change when extending but just as the title of this thread states, the effective lie angle becomes more upright.

> Reason being you will hold the club at the same distance from the ground regardless of the shaft length. A club with a longer shaft will have the head further away from you and the toe will stick up higher, thus a more effective upright lie.

 

Right, so I'll hold a 37" 7-iron the same height off the ground as a 37" 8-iron. So why would the 8-iron be 1* upright "effectively" instead of just the .5* more upright that it actually is?

[Adam C]

It can be a bit confusing but the 1 degree increments are actually correct for 1/2 inch changes in length when based purely on right angle triangle geometry. When you change the hypotenuse length (ie the shaft) in half inch increments, the lie angle moves about 1 degree each time. It actually more when the club is shorter (under 38 inches if I remember correctly) and less as the club gets longer. Of course this assumes that you don't change your setup whereby your hands are at a different height. OEMs however move the lie angles at 1/2 degrees per 1/2 inch change for two reasons. First, some do it to try and promote more of a draw ball flight caused by an upright lie. Second, as the club gets longer and swings faster, the golfer's hands naturally raise up from centrifugal force pulling the head away from the golfer which causes the toe to drop some. There may also be some small amount of toe droop that is mitigated by the upright lie, although I think the amount in irons is minimal.

[Nessism]

> @tgoodspe1991 said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > The actual lie angle doesn't change when extending but just as the title of this thread states, the effective lie angle becomes more upright.

> > Reason being you will hold the club at the same distance from the ground regardless of the shaft length. A club with a longer shaft will have the head further away from you and the toe will stick up higher, thus a more effective upright lie.

>

> Right, so I'll hold a 37" 7-iron the same height off the ground as a 37" 8-iron. So why would the 8-iron be 1* upright "effectively" instead of just the .5* more upright that it actually is?

 

Ping used to say 1/2" of add length changes the effective lie angle 3/4 degree. Other companies saw other things.

What number is right? 1*, 3/4*, 1/2*? I don't know...and I'm too lazy to calculate it.

[Stuart_G]

> @Nessism said:

> Ping used to say 1/2" of add length changes the effective lie angle 3/4 degree. Other companies saw other things.

> What number is right? 1*, 3/4*, 1/2*? I don't know...and I'm too lazy to calculate it.

 

And the calcs wouldn't do much good anyways since it will depend a lot on the golfer's physical attributes and swing posture - so any calcs would only be valid for that particular golfer.

 

The guidelines are never meant to be exact - they're just to get you in the right ballpark - and it's "close enough" for most. Dynamic testing (yes, for each club) is the only way to dial in the lie angles to any higher amount of accuracy if/when it's needed.

 

 

[Awainer1]

1/2 inch =1/2 degree. I guess effective lie angle could mean different things to different people but in my experience this is hard and fast.

[tgoodspe1991]

> @"Adam C" said:

> It can be a bit confusing but the 1 degree increments are actually correct for 1/2 inch changes in length when based purely on right angle triangle geometry. When you change the hypotenuse length (ie the shaft) in half inch increments, the lie angle moves about 1 degree each time. It actually more when the club is shorter (under 38 inches if I remember correctly) and less as the club gets longer. Of course this assumes that you don't change your setup whereby your hands are at a different height. OEMs however move the lie angles at 1/2 degrees per 1/2 inch change for two reasons. First, some do it to try and promote more of a draw ball flight caused by an upright lie. Second, as the club gets longer and swings faster, the golfer's hands naturally raise up from centrifugal force pulling the head away from the golfer which causes the toe to drop some. There may also be some small amount of toe droop that is mitigated by the upright lie, although I think the amount in irons is minimal.

 

Then would it be more accurate to say that a 1/2" change in length does change effective lie angle by 1*, but that modern lie angle progression of .5* for every 1/2" isn't enough? I know clubs of the past used to change lie angle by 1* for every club.

 

So while on _paper_ it looks like the 1/2" change is only making it effectively .5* more upright to the next longest club, in actuality that's because the next longest club is already .5* upright from where it geometrically should be. If I made both my 8-iron and 7-iron a 64* lie angle, and then lengthened the 8-iron to the 7-iron, then obviously _on paper_ it looks like nothing changed. But the paper doesn't show the fact that in reality 7-iron is already 1* upright from where it should be.

 

Am I making sense/on the right track?

 

[Adam C]

> @tgoodspe1991 said:

> > @"Adam C" said:

> > It can be a bit confusing but the 1 degree increments are actually correct for 1/2 inch changes in length when based purely on right angle triangle geometry. When you change the hypotenuse length (ie the shaft) in half inch increments, the lie angle moves about 1 degree each time. It actually more when the club is shorter (under 38 inches if I remember correctly) and less as the club gets longer. Of course this assumes that you don't change your setup whereby your hands are at a different height. OEMs however move the lie angles at 1/2 degrees per 1/2 inch change for two reasons. First, some do it to try and promote more of a draw ball flight caused by an upright lie. Second, as the club gets longer and swings faster, the golfer's hands naturally raise up from centrifugal force pulling the head away from the golfer which causes the toe to drop some. There may also be some small amount of toe droop that is mitigated by the upright lie, although I think the amount in irons is minimal.

>

> Then would it be more accurate to say that a 1/2" change in length does change effective lie angle by 1*, but that modern lie angle progression of .5* for every 1/2" isn't enough? I know clubs of the past used to change lie angle by 1* for every club.

>

> So while on _paper_ it looks like the 1/2" change is only making it effectively .5* more upright to the next longest club, in actuality that's because the next longest club is already .5* upright from where it geometrically should be. If I made both my 8-iron and 7-iron a 64* lie angle, and then lengthened the 8-iron to the 7-iron, then obviously _on paper_ it looks like nothing changed. But the paper doesn't show the fact that in reality 7-iron is already 1* upright from where it should be.

>

> Am I making sense/on the right track?

>

 

If you take the numbers and plug them into your right triangle, you can compare them against what the OEM lie angle is, given each OEM might be slightly different in their numbers.

Example: Assume Side A (distance from the ground to your hands holding the club or the very end of the grip straight down to the ground when sitting at address) is 32 inches.

Your hypotenuse the the total length of the club.

From these two measurements we can get the angle A (ie the lie angle) and see what happens when we change the club length. Again this assumes the golfer is not adjusting posture with a longer club and changing the Side A measurement.

Here are some measurements.

3 iron at 39 inch = 55.14

4 iron at 38.5 inch = 56.22

5 iron at 38 inch = 57.36

6 iron at 37.5 inch = 58.58

7 iron at 37 inch = 59.87

8 iron at 36.5 inch = 61.25

9 iron at 36 inch = 62.73

Wedge at 35.5 inch = 64.34

Compare this to the OEMs where the PW is at 64 degrees and it moves in half inch increments down to the 3 iron at 60.5 degrees. This again is where we look at why the OEMs move this way. Possible reasons; draw biasing longer irons, and compensation for centrifugal force. Although I don't know specifically the percentage of one of these reasons vs. the other, I believe in most cases it's the compensation reason. I think that because you find these progressions across almost all iron brands and types including players clubs where you would not usually want to promote a draw bias in better players clubs. Hope this answered your question??

[Stuart_G]

> @"Adam C" said:

> Example: Assume Side A (distance from the ground to your hands holding the club or the very end of the grip straight down to the ground when sitting at address) is 32 inches.

 

Except in reality, that's not going to be a constant for all clubs and will also vary with the club length. Which makes the calculated increments void.

 

 

[tgoodspe1991]

> @"Adam C" said:

> > @tgoodspe1991 said:

> > > @"Adam C" said:

> > > It can be a bit confusing but the 1 degree increments are actually correct for 1/2 inch changes in length when based purely on right angle triangle geometry. When you change the hypotenuse length (ie the shaft) in half inch increments, the lie angle moves about 1 degree each time. It actually more when the club is shorter (under 38 inches if I remember correctly) and less as the club gets longer. Of course this assumes that you don't change your setup whereby your hands are at a different height. OEMs however move the lie angles at 1/2 degrees per 1/2 inch change for two reasons. First, some do it to try and promote more of a draw ball flight caused by an upright lie. Second, as the club gets longer and swings faster, the golfer's hands naturally raise up from centrifugal force pulling the head away from the golfer which causes the toe to drop some. There may also be some small amount of toe droop that is mitigated by the upright lie, although I think the amount in irons is minimal.

> >

> > Then would it be more accurate to say that a 1/2" change in length does change effective lie angle by 1*, but that modern lie angle progression of .5* for every 1/2" isn't enough? I know clubs of the past used to change lie angle by 1* for every club.

> >

> > So while on _paper_ it looks like the 1/2" change is only making it effectively .5* more upright to the next longest club, in actuality that's because the next longest club is already .5* upright from where it geometrically should be. If I made both my 8-iron and 7-iron a 64* lie angle, and then lengthened the 8-iron to the 7-iron, then obviously _on paper_ it looks like nothing changed. But the paper doesn't show the fact that in reality 7-iron is already 1* upright from where it should be.

> >

> > Am I making sense/on the right track?

> >

>

> If you take the numbers and plug them into your right triangle, you can compare them against what the OEM lie angle is, given each OEM might be slightly different in their numbers.

> Example: Assume Side A (distance from the ground to your hands holding the club or the very end of the grip straight down to the ground when sitting at address) is 32 inches.

> Your hypotenuse the the total length of the club.

> From these two measurements we can get the angle A (ie the lie angle) and see what happens when we change the club length. Again this assumes the golfer is not adjusting posture with a longer club and changing the Side A measurement.

> Here are some measurements.

> 3 iron at 39 inch = 55.14

> 4 iron at 38.5 inch = 56.22

> 5 iron at 38 inch = 57.36

> 6 iron at 37.5 inch = 58.58

> 7 iron at 37 inch = 59.87

> 8 iron at 36.5 inch = 61.25

> 9 iron at 36 inch = 62.73

> Wedge at 35.5 inch = 64.34

> Compare this to the OEMs where the PW is at 64 degrees and it moves in half inch increments down to the 3 iron at 60.5 degrees. This again is where we look at why the OEMs move this way. Possible reasons; draw biasing longer irons, and compensation for centrifugal force. Although I don't know specifically the percentage of one of these reasons vs. the other, I believe in most cases it's the compensation reason. I think that because you find these progressions across almost all iron brands and types including players clubs where you would not usually want to promote a draw bias in better players clubs. Hope this answered your question??

 

Extremely helpful. I understand now why the 1/2" change makes the 1* difference. It seems what I see on paper is OEM's compensating for a variety of factors. So their irons are in reality getting progressively upright from the "natural" state.

[bunta]

do a sharpie ball test off turf, with a couple of different length shafts with the same head. It will prob cost you a few $ to do the test but it will satisfy your curiosity and a peace of mind on the course. Forget what anyone says because after all, the test would reveal what YOU NEED the lie angles to be for your clubs and your swing.

[BB28403]

I think there is a lot of confusion out there nowadays about lengthened clubs. Only have them if your fitter tells you to buy them. Otherwise your brain is misleading you and your golf game will suffer.

[Adam C]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @"Adam C" said:

> > Example: Assume Side A (distance from the ground to your hands holding the club or the very end of the grip straight down to the ground when sitting at address) is 32 inches.

>

> Except in reality, that's not going to be a constant for all clubs and will also vary with the club length. Which makes the calculated increments void.

>

>

Okay Stuart, just for you I ran the numbers again, this time factoring in slight incremental height increases (side A) as the club gets longer. I factored a 1 inch change over an 8 club set 3-pw. This is probably the most you would see from a decent golfer as the height of the hands really does not change much. Posture stays consistent. If you have more than an inch height difference from longest to shortest club, your golf game has bigger issues than lie angle variation.

 

Wedge- 35.5 with side A 32 = 64.34

9 iron- 36 with side A 32.14 = 63.22

8 iron 36.5 with side A 32.28 = 62.18

7 iron 37 with side A 32.42 = 61.19

6 iron 37.5 with side A 32.56 = 60.26

5 iron 38 with side A 32.7 = 59.38

4 iron 38.5 with side A 32.84 = 58.54

3 iron 39 with side A 32.98 = 57.74

 

As you see here we still have approx 1 degree spacing although longer clubs go a little under while shorter go over.

[Stuart_G]

> @"Adam C" said:

> Okay Stuart, just for you I ran the numbers again, this time factoring in slight incremental height increases (side A) as the club gets longer. I factored a 1 inch change over an 8 club set 3-pw. This is probably the most you would see from a decent golfer as the height of the hands really does not change much. Posture stays consistent. If you have more than an inch height difference from longest to shortest club, your golf game has bigger issues than lie angle variation.

>

 

Thanks. Appreciate the effort - but I don't need the numbers because I know how meaningless they really are. Posture is not a constant (unless you're using single length set) and the vast majority of golfers aren't even close to being halfway decent and have lots of issues with their swings. You want to find out what increments are really needed for any individual, stick to dynamic testing. GEARS data would be the ideal (and might be interesting to go over) but not very available.

 

[JRS]

there's no right or wrong way but most good players accommodate the different length of clubs at address by varying their hip bend and keeping everything else mostly the same. the right angle triangle construct doesn't really apply here because the hands move higher and further from the legs as the club gets longer.

 

the other option is to keep the posture the same, and thus the height of the hands the same, and vary the angle between shaft and forearms. more often than not it's less good players doing this. in theory you could apply the right angle triangle here.... EXCEPT, almost no one hits the ball with the same shaft angle they had at address.

 

you also have shaft droop to factor in. longer clubs need to be more upright statically because they will flatten more at speed. the actual number is not important. all you need to know is that if you make the shaft longer the toe will be more up and the converse if you make it shorter.

[Adam C]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @"Adam C" said:

> > Okay Stuart, just for you I ran the numbers again, this time factoring in slight incremental height increases (side A) as the club gets longer. I factored a 1 inch change over an 8 club set 3-pw. This is probably the most you would see from a decent golfer as the height of the hands really does not change much. Posture stays consistent. If you have more than an inch height difference from longest to shortest club, your golf game has bigger issues than lie angle variation.

> >

>

> Thanks. Appreciate the effort - but I don't need the numbers because I know how meaningless they really are. Posture is not a constant (unless you're using single length set) and the vast majority of golfers aren't even close to being halfway decent and have lots of issues with their swings. You want to find out what increments are really needed for any individual, stick to dynamic testing. GEARS data would be the ideal (and might be interesting to go over) but not very available.

>

This has gone off the tracks from where the OP started. I was trying to explain how and why the golf club changes lie in relation to length (ie the 1/2 inch = 1 degree) by using something simple that everyone can understand, the right triangle. I was not ever saying anything about fitting or individual lie angle needs. Just about how the math of it works and reasons why the stated equation from the OP differs from the OEM standard iron specs. If you read all my posts, you will see that was always my stance.

 

[Hack Daddy]

> @"Adam C" said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @"Adam C" said:

> > > Okay Stuart, just for you I ran the numbers again, this time factoring in slight incremental height increases (side A) as the club gets longer. I factored a 1 inch change over an 8 club set 3-pw. This is probably the most you would see from a decent golfer as the height of the hands really does not change much. Posture stays consistent. If you have more than an inch height difference from longest to shortest club, your golf game has bigger issues than lie angle variation.

> > >

> >

> > Thanks. Appreciate the effort - but I don't need the numbers because I know how meaningless they really are. Posture is not a constant (unless you're using single length set) and the vast majority of golfers aren't even close to being halfway decent and have lots of issues with their swings. You want to find out what increments are really needed for any individual, stick to dynamic testing. GEARS data would be the ideal (and might be interesting to go over) but not very available.

> >

> This has gone off the tracks from where the OP started. I was trying to explain how and why the golf club changes lie in relation to length (ie the 1/2 inch = 1 degree) by using something simple that everyone can understand, the right triangle. I was not ever saying anything about fitting or individual lie angle needs. Just about how the math of it works and reasons why the stated equation from the OP differs from the OEM standard iron specs. If you read all my posts, you will see that was always my stance.

>

 

I think the generalization has zero validity. The one major factor we are not discussing is arm length.

 

Short golfer with long arms vs tall golfer with short arms... or... short golfer short arms vs tall golfer long arms. Completely throws the lie angle in relation to extension out the window. As Stu said, the only way you're going to figure this out is with a sharpie.

[Nessism]

The math is the math and has a high degree of validity. Where the variability comes in relates to how the person's stance and swing changes with a longer club. Regardless, the 1/2" = 1* is a very good rule of thumb that will satisfy most people's needs. Thanks to Adam C for doing the math.

[tgoodspe1991]

I don’t know why I need to do a sharpie test, I’m not talking about fitting myself right now. Im just discussing the generalization that I’ve heard everywhere from prestigious fitters about the 1/2” and 1* thing.