Optimize Your Set with the Clubmaker’s Calculator (MAJOR UPDATE!)

[pearsonified]

[Major update 5/11/16]

 

The Clubmaker's Calculator now includes all relevant geometric data about your clubs, including a handy diagram that lets you see precisely how your clubs differ throughout the bag.

 

Check out this update post to see what's new and to gain some insights on what I'm now referring to as geometric optimization.

 

Also, I've modified some of the terminology used throughout this thread. Impact WtF is now simply the club butt-to-floor distance (BtF), and I've introduced a new dimension, distance to ball (DtB). The Calculator has been updated to reflect these changes in terminology.

 

•••••••••••••••••

 

Some of you may recall my previous thread about single-length (and eventually custom-length) irons.

 

My custom-length journey was ultimately about one thing—achieving more consistent impact conditions (and thus feels) throughout the bag. People get fit for their clubs for the same reason, and I think all of us are searching for the same thing: We want to hit the ball better and be more consistent.

 

More viscerally, we want to achieve that perfect feeling at impact—a solid compression followed by the unmistakable *thwack* of a well-struck shot—over and over again.

 

Custom-length clubs were my first attempt at hacking my tools and fine-tuning them for performance. And when you boil it down, fine-tuning your clubs comes down to 3 main things:

• length
  
• lie angle
  
• swing weight/MOI tuning, which primarily concerns head weight
  

I spent a lot of time on club length and MOI tuning, but I based my lie angles off Adams' players' iron specs (and thus didn't give it much thought). Recently, however, I've been messing with my lie angles, and it's really opened my eyes to clubfitting in a whole new way.

 

It's become clearer than ever that blanket terms like "two degrees flat" or "one degree up" are only relative terms. They don't always mean what you might expect because, in the golf equipment industry, there is wide variance on the [1] lie angle given to each club and [2] the lie angle progression throughout a set.

 

Instead of thinking of lie angles in relative terms like "two flat" or "one up," it's much more enlightening and revealing to think of them in absolute terms...or even better, relative to the length of the club.

 

The bottom line here is that if you know the length of a club and its lie angle, you can determine the wrist-to-floor distance at impact necessary to produce a perfectly square strike.

 

I thought this was an interesting revelation, so I did what any intrepid club ho would do—I set about analyzing each set of clubs I own and looking at the impact wrist-to-floor distances.

 

I got about a third of the way through this process before the FUGGIT impulse hit, and I ended up building a cool little web app to analyze golf clubs with special attention to length, lie angle, and impact wrist-to-floor distances.

 

Introducing the Clubmaker's Calculator. You can use it not only to learn more about the impact characteristics of your set, but also about precisely what you can tweak to improve these characteristics and make them more consistent. (And it's surprisingly well-suited for use on mobile devices, which is handy when taking club specs to your local golf shop.)

 

I think it's got some merit, and it's really got me mulling over the idea of WtF tuning as being the key to customizing a set that allows your swing and your feels to transition seamlessly between clubs.

 

Happy tuning, and I'll be interested to hear about any insights you glean from the calculator!

[Juice__25]

Cool little calculator. Will there be older clubs available from the drop down menu?

 

Is there an option to quickly change all of the lies or club lengths relative to standard, say +/- 1" or +/- 1*? I just went in and changed the numbers individually.

 

Will mess around with it more this weekend. Looking forward to other people's comments and feedback.

[pearsonified]

Juice, I may make older clubs available, but even if I don't, it shouldn't hinder you in the least.

 

If you know the specs of your clubs, you can simply pick something generic from the dropdown list (like Titleist 716 MBs, which have a standard 3-P), and then just enter the specs of your clubs in the length and lie angle columns. The calculator will adjust based on any values you change, and you can analyze your entire set this way.

 

The calculator was really designed for people to change the numbers individually and (hopefully) to tinker with lengths and lie angles and see that something like 2º up throughout the set may not be the most optimal solution. Perhaps a better answer is 2º up on 7-P, standard on 5-6, and 1º flat on the 4-iron (for more consistent WtF impact conditions).

[Dan42nepa]

this is great.,. I just got a set of ping g30's but have been thinking of getting a backup or used set to play around with. I even considered getting a vice to set my own lie angles and lofts.

[Golfrnut]

This is missing a lot of necessary data in order to be accurate. That's just the way it is. I don't care how much math you do, this king of stuff cannot be done statically. Things like head cg location, toe droop, shaft lead bend position at impact...all have to be considered. Additionally, lie angles can be used to tune ball flight and by no means have to be level at impact. There is a lot of variables here that you are not considering. This is why you cannot fit clubs on paper.

[pearsonified]

This is missing a lot of necessary data in order to be accurate...Things like head cg location, toe droop, shaft lead bend position at impact...all have to be considered.

 

It looks like you've missed the entire point of this Calculator's existence. That said, in a massively spergy sense, you are correct—the ultimate fitting analysis would include more specific calculations regarding the items you mentioned.

 

In reality, however, a few things are true:

 

For starters, 99.9% of "fittings" don't bother considering the impact WtF distance (or any other specific geometric property of the swing relative to the club(s) you're using).

 

More often than not, a fitter will measure your standing WtF, watch you hit a few balls on the monitor and lie board, and then work with you to determine whether or not you need length and lie adjustments. If adjustments are deemed necessary, the standard is to apply the same adjustments to each club.

 

Fact is, OEMs release clubs with vastly different lie angles (there is no real standard), and beyond that, the range of lie angles can vary greatly from set-to-set. Because of this, the ubiquitous fitting technique of applying the same adjustments to each club is an inaccurate, ham-fisted approach.

 

Next, you have blithely dismissed additional data that can be used enhance club customizations, when this is all the calculator seeks to provide. It's not the be-all-end-all answer for clubfitting (I shouldn't even have to say that), but it is a handy tool that competent fitters and tinkerers can use to better understand the geometric swing characteristics of the clubs they're customizing.

 

Furthermore, we've all had the following feeling: Why does a stock 9-iron feel so different from a stock 4-iron? Well, if the impact WtF distance of your 9-iron is 32" while the 4-iron is 34", then yeah—those two clubs are going to feel very different from one another.

 

Perhaps your hands are strong and stable when making a pass at 32", but you lose face control when your hand/wrist assembly is raised up another 2" to accommodate the 4-iron.

 

And perhaps you'd hit that 4-iron better if the impact WtF were closer to 32.5"...my testing suggests this is indeed true for most people!

 

The bottom line is that the Clubmaker's Calculator simply provides additional geometric data that can be useful for fine-tuning any set of clubs for maximum performance.

 

Finally, for completeness, I'll address some of the specifics you mentioned:

 

I talk about toe droop in the companion text beneath the calculator. Because of this phenomenon, longer clubs need to have a greater impact WtF than shorter clubs...but the actual difference isn't nearly as much as the common 2" difference you'll find among stock offerings from major OEMs. In reality, the difference is probably only 1/2" or less. In an ideal world, your total impact WtF differences throughout the set will just be enough to accommodate toe droop...and nothing more. This will yield similar impact conditions with every club, which is NOT TRUE of any OEM offering.

 

CG location is, for all reasonable mathematical calculations, constant between clubs and between sets of clubs. Remember physics class? You always modeled systems with some gross assumptions in place; in this case, the CG location is assumed to be relatively constant (which is true for an impact WtF analysis).

 

And lie angles don't have to be level at impact? If you care about making square contact and being in total control of sidespin, it sure would be nice if they were!

 

The player who soles the club squarely through impact is going to be a superior striker to the player who consistently strikes the ball with an angled sole. Every player should strive to be as square as possible at impact, and the Calculator is a helpful tool for achieving this goal.

[Golfer_LD]

OP,

 

Have you done any reading or research on TLT (True Length Tecnology)? Judging by your posts and the relationship between Length, Lie, and WTF makes me think that you may enjoy the read.

 

http://www.danscustomgolfshop.com/tlt-and-tft.html#truelength

[pearsonified]

Golfer_LD, thanks for the link to the TLT article! I had not seen this before, but the principles espoused in TLT represent a full-scope application of the impact WtF distance.

 

The progressive shaft gapping is especially interesting, too, as every WtF analysis I've conducted thus far points in this direction. I'm looking forward to modeling a few sets per TLT specs.

[Golfrnut]

I get where you are trying to go with it, but it just gets a lot more complicated that what you can really do with an online calculator.

 

WTF...as an example, is only going to get you into a static playing position, and that should really be the only goal. You are only attempting to set up a person for success starting with the setup. It's not really meant to be a measurement that is a common denominator for the dynamic of the swing.

 

Handle raising and lowering would be better answered by a good teacher and/or someone with a biomechanics background over me, but, a lot of what you are saying to be good/bad comes down to differences/faults within swing mechanics. Lie angle is not done to fix this, it's done to marry the right angles(or best that you can give), to the players swing. This is not something you try to control by saying this or that angle is best, it's golfer, and swing dependent. People would literally drive themselves to quitting golf trying to chase a dynamic WTF measurement.

 

I will address some of the other areas.

 

Toe droop. There is no standard or fixed number, or common answer to this, since it's all going to be golfer dependent. Planes, release angles, release timing, swing speeds, swing speed differences, shaft bend profiles across the set, etc are all going to matter when it comes to how much/how little deflection is going to be there.

 

CG location. Going to have to disagree for much of the reasons I stated above.

 

Lie angles. They absolutely do not have to be level at impact. What you are looking for is consistency and desired shot shape. Clubs move in 3D, so the chances that a person zeros out all attack angles at the moment of impact is next to impossible. This is why most people, who are consistent, and good ball strikers, have a primary shot shape. Then you also have to marry the primary shot shape with desired shot shape. I have bent quite a few irons for people to adjust for swing tendencies and not so much to be "level". This is another reason that lie boards, IMO, are garbage. It's an attempt to govern when someone should be, not where it might be best for them to be or where they would "like to be". If I have someone that hits a falling draw, but likes to see a fade, bending the lie angle a bit flat is a whole lot easier than trying to alter their swing path from a positive number to a negative. Same with someone who has a push, or push fade. The player gets what he wants, and he doesn't have to change natural swing patterns to get it. Same goes for consistency through the set, if some produce draws, and some produce a fade, lie angles can be alters to build consistency. And, you do not have to be level, or married to what a lie board says, to be "correct" for the player. This is a game of misses, consistency, and comfort...this is why I say this can't be done on paper or with a calculator.

 

As for your last comment, completely disagree. There again, you are basing this on having to have a level lie angle at impact, and it's not true. OEMs have been increasing lie angles on drivers for a good while now to combat the average golfers "slice". Same for going flat to reduce the probability of someone drawing or going left for the right handed golfer. Fitters, the good ones, know how to accomplish the above. The ones that are solidifying lie angles to what lie boards say are not properly using the adjustment as an advantage and as beneficial as it can be.

 

In the end, the calculator is just a different way/argument against the static numbers that OEMs put on a club during the assembly/manufacturing process. You are just trying to say that your numbers are better than theirs...which is perfectly fine, it's your opinion on something that you created by you so I would not expect any different. But, it doesn't correctly attack how to do it properly through dynamic fittings and marrying clubs to the persons swing, patterns, misses, desires, etc...which is what a proper fitting is.

[Jazzmastafish]

PEARSONIFIED, awesome stuff man. I really do have to thank you. It was your intriguing custom length set of irons, which you detailed on this forum over a year ago, which was much more radical of a change than the one I had in mind for my own set, coupled with Tom Wishon's article about length fitting that mentioned 3/8" increments, that convinced me to pull the trigger on making changes to my irons.

 

I just plugged my personalized specs into your Clubmaker's Calculator, and WOW, the changes I have made to my iron set over the past year and a half really did bring the optimal impact WTF into a very small range across the board, even though I may have gotten to this solution through a slightly different method/though process. I will now share my results with the forum. But first some background on my swing and why the changes I made seem to work FOR ME.

 

I am 5'7", or 1 Lingmerth (a new unit of measure I just made up). And I feel because of this, I don't have an upright two-plane Freddy Couples, Bubba Watson type action, I've always had a pretty flat swing. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me I was flat... Although one of my backswing faults is getting TOO flat. Anyway, I'd been playing with my irons for over 10 years without ever getting fit! :( But looking back I always knew my long irons were just too long to hit consistently and I always knew the toe was well above the ground at address and thus impact.

 

I relied on "raw talent" ;) and hard work at the range to learn to hit a draw (with the help of upright lie angles...) to rid myself of my beginner's push fade/slice stuff (I'm self taught...) to make the high school team. I would put myself in good positions in the 9 hole matches, only to blow it on the long par 3 7th at our home course with a poorly struck 5 iron... If only I had gotten fit back in the day, maybe that story would be different.

 

But fast forward to last winter, I had reworked my swing back in college, then, since college, I really delved into different swing theorys, testing things out. I felt like my swing was technically decent, but I started hitting really bad hooks from time to time. As an engineer, I decided to research the geometry of the "standard" lie angles in relation to the standard lengths at 1/2" increments and found that there really isn't a standard. And knowing how trig functions tend to work, I knew that the relationship was not linear, as the standards are often laid out (1 degree per 1/2" lie angle progression, roughly). I made a spreadsheet (Google Docs, click to read-only) based on the trigonometric formula at play that relates WTF* to shaft length and lie angle. The spreadsheet confirmed what I had been feeling, which was that the lie angles were a bit too upright, and the degree to which they were too upright increased in the longer, lower lofted irons.

 

So the first step, was to finally go in and get lie angles looked at the old fashioned way. I went in and hit off a lie board and based on the tale of the impact tape, they recommended lie angles bent flat, 2* flat in the PW & 9, 3* flat 8 & 7 and 4* flat in the rest of the long irons. Sure enough that was pretty close to what I had calculated in my spreadsheet, so I said go for it. Took em out to the course last season and noticed a big difference in my iron play. Random hooks mostly eliminated.

 

So while I had seemingly fixed my lie angle problem, I still felt like the long irons were too long and took a little too much effort to swing. So that brought me back to Tom Wishon's feature article on length fitting, that mentioned 3/8" length increments. I went back into the same shop I had the lie angles bent flat, and told them of my 3/8" increment plan. They said they'd do it but wanted me to know the swing weights would be way light. Of course, I knew that, and I told them I was prepared to add my own lead tape, and that i even had a spreadsheet to calculate how much lead tape I would need to go back to stock swingweight, as well as how much lead tape I would need to do a poor-man's MOI match. The guy told me he was interested to hear how it would work out for me.

 

So, FOR ME, I decided the std 36" 9 iron felt great, and went with 3/8" increments up from there. After I got them back from the shop, progressively trimmed, and with fresh grips, I got to work adding lead tape based on my spreadsheet. Then I went to the simulator to hit balls and, man I really liked the feel and was hitting them great. I couldn't say for sure because I don't have a MOI scale, but I would say I did a pretty good job making them all feel it took about the same effort to swing all the irons. After my good session at the simulator, I took my clubs back into the shop. I asked them if I could measure my clubs on their swingweight scale, and what do you know. I managed to poor-man's MOI match them, which is to say the swingweight decreases half a point each longer club.

 

Now that brings us to current day, and I see Pearsonified's post about his Clubmaker Calculator. I'm interested to see how my irons really turned out, because his calculator is a little bit more elegant than my spreadsheet, in that you can go in reverse of my spreadsheet with the click of a button and that it all runs behind the scenes... And what do you know, all of my impact WTFs spat out by the calculator for my specs are within a tight 1" range. This just goes to show, again, that I have set up my irons, FOR ME, to get into a more consistent impact position with my hands across all of my irons.

 

 

 

You might say, wow that progression of lie angles does look pretty linear. And it is, but it took me getting rid of the standard 1/2" increments to achieve this apparent linearity. But everyone's height and WTF and swing style is different. So that linearity just isn't there, as this image I found on a link that someone wanted the OP to look at.

 

 

 

Now, I will play devil's advocate a minute and take the other side, sure lie angles don't have to be completely parallel to the ground at impact for most players. But for me, I sure as heck don't want the toe pointing up, the heel will bottom out first, possibly closing the clubface, and I could be actually aiming 3-4 degrees LEFT of where I THINK I'm aiming. Sure there's toe droop, but that I estimate mentally to be negligible with a 130g true temper s300 iron shaft.

 

I will finish by saying, my work with my irons is not done. They are quite old and they have served me well, but I want to really dial in these specs so that I can order sets in the future with these specs and/or show a future fitter what I'm looking for. The next step will be to go back in and hit off a lie board and see if maybe the lie angles are a little too flat in the 4 iron or something, but I don't think so based on my spreadsheet and now the clubmaker's calculator.

 

One final note, this was a pretty cheap thing to do, because luckily, I wasn't making any shorter clubs longer to get the 3/8" increments, so I never had to remove weight from a clubhead. This is another reason I probably won't be experimenting with single length irons anytime soon, or even take it to the level that Pearsonified has - the investment is just too high for me right now. Plus I think I've found a good fit for myself. And I did it all without the help of Golfsmith. Screw those guys. Support your local independent clubmaker!

 

*(I will say that I didn't set out to come to this conclusion about WTF, the initial purpose of the spreadsheet, was FOR ME, to confirm that switching to 3/8" length increments starting with the standard length 9 iron, would mean that I could achieve a realistic static lie angle with the long irons without snapping the head off trying to bend it 5 degrees. At the bottom of the spreadsheet, you can see what my formula told me I would need to bend the long irons to without shortening... Basically get to the same point Pearsonified was making, but starting from a different place and working independently. Hope this made sense. Thanks.)

[pearsonified]

Golfrnut, if you're intimidated by the work I've done, just say so :D

 

No one is saying these numbers are better than any others. The only thing I'm claiming is that the Clubmaker's Calculator provides quick and easy access to geometric information about club specs that is not normally available (or even considered by fitters, so far as I can tell).

 

Are there super ninja fitters out there who take all of this into account and more? Absolutely. Will more than 5% of the GolfWRX audience (and I'm being generous here) ever get fitted by one of these guys? F no.

 

While Golfrnut's post was mostly a rambling mess, I want to address a couple of points specifically:

 

Handle raising and lowering would be better answered by a good teacher and/or someone with a biomechanics background over me, but, a lot of what you are saying to be good/bad comes down to differences/faults within swing mechanics. Lie angle is not done to fix this, it's done to marry the right angles(or best that you can give), to the players swing. This is not something you try to control by saying this or that angle is best, it's golfer, and swing dependent. People would literally drive themselves to quitting golf trying to chase a dynamic WTF measurement.

 

As far as vacuous statements go, this is right up there with the best.

 

The club length and lie angle create a very specific geometric condition where a truly square club face is only possible at a specific WtF distance at impact. Is a player always going to hit this position? No. But if he's hitting a club with an impact WtF that is 2" higher than he's comfortable with, he's going to be very inconsistent with that club.

 

There is no arguing this point. It's absolutely asinine to think any player is going to be as consistent throughout the bag with a 2" WtF range as he could be with a 1" or less WtF range.

 

To dismiss the calculator OR the consideration of impact WtF on these grounds is akin to saying, "I'm not here to think; I just want to sling sh*t at the walls and see what happens."

 

Just to make myself perfectly clear—if you think there's some magic golf genie or some indescribable physical property that allows a person to seamlessly go between clubs with a 2" impact WtF gap and make perfect contact every time, you're going to be disappointed to learn that nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm saying it's EASIER to do if the impact WtF gap is smaller.

 

And the thing is, this isn't a bold assertion, and I'm not even the first person to make it. The TLT/TFT article linked above (and available here) uses impact WtF as a basic premise behind the geometric modeling for its advanced clubfitting charts.

 

I think the results speak for themselves, and though you may have a different opinion, at least mine is backed up by math and not baseless adages like "flat lies cause cuts" or other over-generalized nonsense that gets repeated until every moron with a lie board simply assumes it's true.

 

Bottom line? There's a ton of "truisms" in clubfitting that break down under scrutiny. The Clubmaker's Calculator is an attempt to eliminate the need for relying on "conventional wisdom" by providing a mathematical basis for club customizations.

[Golfrnut]

There again, there are many more dynamic variables are not considering in your math. If you want to use a constant WTF measurement, then you would use a single length iron. WTF changes because posture changes. Posture changes due to shaft length changes. When you start trying to keep dynamic WTF measurements the same, you start changing shaft and arm plane angles and force different swings to compensate. You may keep WTF angles the same/roughly the same, but you change about everything else to do so. For instance, now wrist angles at setup change. Now the golfer has to compensate and make more wrist set with the shorter irons than they do with the longer irons. This throws timing off, and it now changes all the angles of the club in the backswing and downswing. That's just one example. Now the shoulder planes turn differently in relation to what the arms have to do to keep the shaft planes consistent. For every action, there is a reaction. You are trying to make the lie angles and WTF measurements govern the swing, and that is the opposite of what fitting is for. It would all be well and dandy if we all swing with the same posture/shaft planes across the set, but we do not. That is where constant length irons will work, trying to do this with different lengths changes more than things than it keeps the same. It's just trading off multiple other things to keep one thing consistent.

 

You are looking at wrist to floor, and not wrists in relation to the body, how the clubs moves around the body to stay on plane, and everything else matching up. This is where consistency is built.

 

And no I'm not the least but intimidated by your work. I understand the bigger picture.

[pearsonified]

Do either of the following characterizations apply to your game?

1. You hit shorter irons well, but struggle with poor contact (and likely hooks) with longer irons.
   
2. You hit longer irons well, but shorter irons simply don't feel right, making you less effective with them. (You're probably tall, too.)
   

If either of those describes you, I have an equipment recommendation that will help you out.

 

First, some background: Most OEMs sell standard length/lie iron sets with a 1º difference in lie angle per inch difference in shaft length. There is some—but overall very little—deviation from this.

 

The result of the standard OEM approach to length vs. lie angles is an impact WtF distance that varies by up to 2" throughout the set.

 

Geometrically speaking, this means typical impact conditions with a 4-iron are drastically different from those of a 9-iron. Specifically, the impact WtF of the 4-iron is well over 1" higher than the impact WtF of the 9-iron in most iron sets. (Although the shaft droop phenomenon implies that a 4-iron should have a slightly higher impact WtF than a 9-iron, the difference due to droop is much, much smaller than 1".)

 

With this in mind, let's revisit the characterizations at the top of this post.

 

Type 1: Many players report feeling quite comfortable and confident with their shorter clubs (typically 7-P), but they exhibit a pretty drastic drop in consistency and confidence with longer clubs. What's the deal here?

 

Quite simply, the impact WtF of the shorter clubs is in the "sweet spot" range for these players, but the impact WtF of the longer clubs is too tall, forcing them into positions that compromise their ability to strike the ball consistently.

 

In other words, the conventional wisdom that "longer clubs are harder to hit" is sort of true, but not strictly because of the length. The massive difference in impact geometry required for a perfect strike—which is related to both the length and lie of a club—is why longer clubs are harder to hit (for some).

 

The remedy for Type 1 players is to lower the impact WtF distance of their longer clubs, thus bringing them closer to their "sweet spot" impact WtF distance.

 

What follows is a sample recommendation for a Type 1 player, which involves tweaking only the lie angles to compress the impact WtF range (this is the cheapest and easiest option). For this example, we'll assume the player is happiest with his 8-iron; using the 8-iron's 32.665" impact WtF as a guide, we'll tweak the other clubs in the set based on this "sweet spot" value:

 

Club	Length   Initial Lie	Initial WtF	 Final Lie	Final WtF
3	39	 60		33.775		 57.5		32.892
4	38.5	 61		33.673		 58.5		32.827
5	38	 62		33.552		 59.5		32.742
6	37.5	 62.5		33.263		 60.75		32.719
7	37	 63		32.967		 62		32.669
8	36.5	 63.5		32.665		 63.5		32.665
9	36	 64		32.357		 65		32.627
P	35.75	 64		32.132		 65.5		32.531
G	35.5	 64		31.907		 66		32.431

 

In the sample recommendation above, notice how the initial WtF range varies by 1.868", but the final WtF range varies by only 0.461"! Also notice how the initial lie angles differ by only 4º through the set, but the final lie angles differ by 8.5º.

 

Geometric analyses of this nature reveal that, in order to maintain a consistent impact WtF "sweet spot" throughout a set, lie angle differences of ~2º per inch of shaft are necessary (as opposed to the OEM "standard" of about 1º per inch, which yields an undesirably large impact WtF range).

 

Type 2: The remedy for a player who excels with longer irons but struggles with shorter ones is similar, except we'll use a longer club's impact WtF as the basis for the set, effectively raising the impact WtF "sweet spot" for the whole set.

 

Quick aside here: Going "1º up" or "2º flat" raises or lowers the impact WtF of every club in a set, but it does not tune the impact WtF "sweet spot" for the entire set. A better approach would be to start with a WtF sweet spot-optimized set, and then to raise or lower all the lie angles from there.

 

In other words, tweaking lie angles alone does not achieve what you want *unless* the impact WtF has already been optimized for the set.

 

So, back to the player who hits longer irons better than shorter ones...Here's a sample recommendation that uses a 6-iron impact WtF of 33.263" as the basis for an optimized set:

 

Club	Length   Initial Lie	Initial WtF	  Final Lie	  Final WtF
3	39	 60		33.775		  59		  33.430
4	38.5	 61		33.673		  60		  33.342
5	38	 62		33.552		  61.25		  33.316
6	37.5	 62.5		33.263		  62.5		  33.263
7	37	 63		32.967		  64          33.255
8	36.5	 63.5		32.665		  65.5		  33.214
9	36	 64		32.357		  67.25		  33.199
P	35.75	 64		32.132		  68          33.147
G	35.5	 64		31.907		  69          33.142

 

In this sample recommendation, the average impact WtF distance is nearly 0.6" higher than the Type 1 recommendation from above. Effectively, this is like having clubs that are 1/2" over standard, except the lengths of the shafts all remain the same!

 

From an optimized basis like this, you can now raise or lower all lie angles by the same amount to raise or lower the average impact WtF of the entire set (for ultra-fine tuning). For example, using the Type 2 recommendation above as a base, reducing all the lie angles by 1º would lower the impact WtF about 0.3".

[exrog]

I am interested in trying this, but am confused on how to start. are you talking about cutting the shafts to a certain length or bending the heads flat or upright and how do you find the WtF? i'm pretty sure my stance is the same with a 4 iron or a pw. I just stand 2 or 3"s farther away from the ball. also which wrist am I using to measure. i'm right handed. thanks for your help. P.S. I clicked on the pearsonified link and lost 2 hrs. reading the comments. I am on your side 100%. i'm new to this site and haven't figured out how to PM anyone so I hope you see this

[denkea]

There again, there are many more dynamic variables are not considering in your math. If you want to use a constant WTF measurement, then you would use a single length iron. WTF changes because posture changes. Posture changes due to shaft length changes. When you start trying to keep dynamic WTF measurements the same, you start changing shaft and arm plane angles and force different swings to compensate. You may keep WTF angles the same/roughly the same, but you change about everything else to do so. For instance, now wrist angles at setup change. Now the golfer has to compensate and make more wrist set with the shorter irons than they do with the longer irons. This throws timing off, and it now changes all the angles of the club in the backswing and downswing. That's just one example. Now the shoulder planes turn differently in relation to what the arms have to do to keep the shaft planes consistent. For every action, there is a reaction. You are trying to make the lie angles and WTF measurements govern the swing, and that is the opposite of what fitting is for. It would all be well and dandy if we all swing with the same posture/shaft planes across the set, but we do not. That is where constant length irons will work, trying to do this with different lengths changes more than things than it keeps the same. It's just trading off multiple other things to keep one thing consistent.

 

You are looking at wrist to floor, and not wrists in relation to the body, how the clubs moves around the body to stay on plane, and everything else matching up. This is where consistency is built.

 

And no I'm not the least but intimidated by your work. I understand the bigger picture.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. If you maintain and athletic posture at setup it shouldn't change regardless of the club you are using.

 

If you change your posture due to different clubs and their length I guarantee you that some of your swings will be off balance.

[Golfrnut]

There again, there are many more dynamic variables are not considering in your math. If you want to use a constant WTF measurement, then you would use a single length iron. WTF changes because posture changes. Posture changes due to shaft length changes. When you start trying to keep dynamic WTF measurements the same, you start changing shaft and arm plane angles and force different swings to compensate. You may keep WTF angles the same/roughly the same, but you change about everything else to do so. For instance, now wrist angles at setup change. Now the golfer has to compensate and make more wrist set with the shorter irons than they do with the longer irons. This throws timing off, and it now changes all the angles of the club in the backswing and downswing. That's just one example. Now the shoulder planes turn differently in relation to what the arms have to do to keep the shaft planes consistent. For every action, there is a reaction. You are trying to make the lie angles and WTF measurements govern the swing, and that is the opposite of what fitting is for. It would all be well and dandy if we all swing with the same posture/shaft planes across the set, but we do not. That is where constant length irons will work, trying to do this with different lengths changes more than things than it keeps the same. It's just trading off multiple other things to keep one thing consistent.

 

You are looking at wrist to floor, and not wrists in relation to the body, how the clubs moves around the body to stay on plane, and everything else matching up. This is where consistency is built.

 

And no I'm not the least but intimidated by your work. I understand the bigger picture.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. If you maintain and athletic posture at setup it shouldn't change regardless of the club you are using.

 

If you change your posture due to different clubs and their length I guarantee you that some of your swings will be off balance.

 

Posture isn't going to be the same due to the different club lengths. This goes right back to the original point.

[pearsonified]

are you talking about cutting the shafts to a certain length or bending the heads flat or upright and how do you find the WtF? i'm pretty sure my stance is the same with a 4 iron or a pw. I just stand 2 or 3"s farther away from the ball.

 

First, you can modify either the length, the lie, or both to achieve a different impact WtF. If you change only the length, you can maintain a more consistent distance away from the ball at address (throughout your set). If you change only the lie, you will have to stand much farther from the ball as your clubs get longer.

 

I don't necessarily mind standing a bit farther from the ball, but I definitely struggle with hooks when the WtF of a particular club gets too high relative to my distance away from the ball. Because of this, I have modified the impact WtF of my irons to achieve the following:

• The impact WtF of my set only changes by 0.44" from 4i through G.
  
• The distance I need to stand away from the ball only changes by 2.4" through the set
  

​With a standard OEM-spec set, both the impact WtF and the distance away from the ball vary by larger amounts. Impact WtF is typically in the 1.8-1.9" range, and distance from ball is typically in the 3.3-3.5" range.

 

By compressing these ranges, I've created a set of irons that requires smaller adjustments from club to club. This promotes a more consistent swing shape throughout the set and more consistent impact conditions, too.

 

Posture isn't going to be the same due to the different club lengths.

 

This is absolutely correct. My goal with the Clubmaker's Calculator is to provide everyone with a quick and easy way to MINIMIZE the posture/swing shape/impact differences throughout the set.

 

We are all looking for more consistency. One way to do this is to set up your clubs to promote consistency around the impact conditions you're most comfortable with.

[brownhound]

Very interesting, I've read pearsonified's posts about compressed length sets and made an moi matched set this winter with 2011 tp heads and used recoil shafts, finished range of lengths from 35.5 on pw to 37.5 on 4 iron. These were the lengths that previous owner had trimmed the recoils. Tutelman's calculations of progressive swingweights were used to approximate MOI match. The clubs feel great but I find I hit the longer clubs much better with a "high hands" setup, and the 5 iron is particularly hook-prone. My next step is to get basic loft/lie setup and experiment with lie angles on some shorter shafted iron sets.

 

I'm curious , are you actually measuring dynamic wtf at impact or are you measuring that at address ?

 

I've thought about setting up a ruler/grid and using the iphone 6 slo-mo feature to try and measure actual wtf at impact. Thanks for the insights,

[pearsonified]

I'm curious , are you actually measuring dynamic wtf at impact or are you measuring that at address ?

 

I called it impact wrist-to-floor, but the measurement really refers to the position of your hands in the triangle formed by your hands, the club head, and the point on the ground directly beneath your hands.

 

Fact is, your hands and the club are never in this exact orientation at address or impact, so the Impact WtF mentioned here is really just a reference point for how geometrically different your clubs are. (And it turns out the longer irons in sets with traditional length progressions have a significantly different geometric requirements.)

 

Also, if you're hooking your longer irons, the most logical next step is to flatten the lie angles to bring their Impact WtF down to a value that is closer to your shorter irons. You can do this with the Calculator by simply entering your club specs into the fields in the table. (In other words, it doesn't matter which set of clubs you select at the top because you can always edit the values.)

 

For reference, here are the current specs for my Adams CMBs, which range in length from 36" to 37.5", with a 1/2" bump every two clubs. So P and G are 36", 8 and 9 are 36.5", etc.

 

In the graphic from the link above, you can see that my Impact WtF varies by only 0.441" throughout the set. Compared to standard OEM sets that have Impact WtFs that vary by 1.7-1.8" on average, my irons provide a much more consistent and comfortable hand position and posture at address (and thus impact, too) throughout the set.

 

The bottom line? Once you know your sweet spot Impact WtF numbers, you can really build your entire set around the positions most comfortable to you.

[pearsonified]

The concept of geometric optimization (the basis for the Clubmaker's Calculator) is more easily understood via illustration.

 

In the following images, you'll be able to compare the two most critical geometric factors affecting your swing—butt-to-floor distance (BtF — butt of club to ground when the club is properly soled) and distance to ball (DtB — horizontal component of distance from butt of club to club head).

 

The "big idea" behind single-length irons is that by achieving an identical BtF and DtB with each club, the player can make a more consistent swing more often (some would say a "single-plane" swing, but that is a potentially confusing misnomer).

 

Because of the variables involved, I think custom-length irons are a more realistic option for most people. After seeing the images below, I think you'll agree, and I think you'll be blown away at how much geometric optimization you can achieve with this approach.

 

First, here's what a standard-spec set of Titleist 716 AP2s looks like:

 

 

 

Next, here's a custom-length and lie-optimized set that could be made with any heads you like (but forged heads are easiest to work with):

 

 

Take special note of the diagrams in the images above. The ball is at the point in the lower right where the clubs come together, and each club (shown in gray) extends away from it at the length and lie angles shown in the table.

 

You can see that, throughout the set, the Titleists have a pretty significant difference in both BtF and DtB. If you've ever felt like your long irons were harder to hit than your short irons, now you can literally see why.

 

Overall, the Titleist specs are:

• 1.64" BtF range
  
• 3.83" DtB range
  
• 33.12" median BtF (which is pretty tall!)
  
• 17.06" median DtB (I think 16.5"-17.75" is the sweet spot range for people with 33-35" standing wrist-to-floor values)
  

These geometric ranges have serious implications for how you feel—and perform—with different clubs. You might be decent with clubs in the middle of the ranges (or specifically, clubs with a BtF and DtB that are near your personal "sweet spot"), but you may struggle with clubs on either extreme of the ranges.

 

Again, the idea behind single-length irons is to reduce those ranges to 0, and by extension, to tune the entire set around a player's optimal BtF and DtB values.

 

The second, optimized set pictured above features:

• 0.2" BtF range (87.8% reduction)
  
• 1.21" DtB range (68.4% reduction)
  
• 32.67" median BtF (which is getting very close to the Goldilocks zone for me, a 6-foot guy with a 34" standing wrist-to-floor)
  
• 17.37" median DtB
  

When optimized in this manner, the entire set will play pretty close—in geometric and thus swing-and-feel terms—to the precise dimensions where the player is most comfortable.

 

Better still, unlike single-length irons, the optimized specs pictured above are easily achievable with just about any forged club from any OEM.

 

It all boils down to determining the BtF and DtB conditions you like best. I'm currently building my second BtF- and DtB- optimized set, and I'll be using the specs pictured above.

 

With my previous set of Adams CMBs, I really focused on MOI-matching and also on reducing the amount of weight necessary to add to each head (and especially longer irons) to achieve this. The easiest way to reduce needed weight is to add length, and as a result, my set ranged from 36-37.5" and featured the following specs:

• 0.44" BtF range
  
• 2.4" DtB range
  
• 32.60" median BtF
  
• 16.97" median DtB
  

Where this set was more MOI-optimized, my new set will be more geometrically optimized. As a result, every club in my forthcoming set of optimized MB2s will have a BtF value between 32.598" and 32.798" and a DtB value between 16.969" and 18.180"—both of which I *think* are my "Goldilocks zones."

[pearsonified]

[5/11/16] Major update to the Clubmaker's Calculator, featuring:

• Club diagram, complete with geometric stats for selected clubs in your set
  
• Simplified controls to shift the focus to the clubs themselves
  
• Now includes the two most important geometric components of your clubs: butt-to-floor distance (BtF) and distance to ball (DtB)
  
• Club diagram calculates the BtF and DtB averages and ranges for your set (critical info for geometric optimization)
  
• All OEM club sets updated with lofts so clubmakers can access this data easily
  
• Supplemental information updated to more accurately portray the process and benefits of geometric optimization
  

The new club diagram is the most exciting feature in this update. It's one thing to know (and manipulate) the specs of your clubs; it's quite another to see those specs represented in a diagram that can enhance your understanding of the geometric optimization process.

 

For me, one of the immediate takeaways from using the club diagram is to see how different OEMs choose to optimize their sets while operating within the relatively static constraint of 1/2" shaft progressions.

 

For example, Titleist maintains a tight geometric grouping with 5-P, but the 3 and 4-irons are significant geometric departures from the rest of the set. Therefore, it's no surprise that many Titleist players struggle with these longer irons—geometrically, they're different enough at both address and impact that they will affect consistency.

 

Titleist 716 AP2

 

 

With its 588 CB and MB line, Cleveland took the exact opposite approach—larger geometric gaps in the 7-P range, and much tighter gaps in the 3-6 range. (I think this approach is superior for 1/2" progressions because it reduces the BtF range throughout the set—especially on scoring clubs—and impact consistency and shot shape are more a product of BtF than DtB.)

 

Cleveland 588 CB

 

Another way of looking at the specs above is how they influence swing shape. The Titleist specs promote a more upright swing throughout the bag, while the Cleveland specs favor a (relatively) flatter swing.

 

Many great ball strikers and teachers favor a flatter swing and thus a shallower angle of attack, so this adds another level of intrigue to the differing specs from OEMs. For the record, I'm not convinced that flatter lies (or just a flatter club geometry in general) are any better than upright ones; in fact, I think as long as the player is able to keep the face square through the impact zone, an upright geometry is going to be easier to hit on line more of the time. Your mileage may vary, obviously.

 

And the insights don't stop here. You may have heard that PING has the tightest manufacturing standards in the business, and the Clubmaker's Calculator suggests this is indeed true. Thanks to its super-accurate casting process, PING in the only OEM to offer an absolutely perfect stepwise progression of BtF and DtB in its irons. This results in a lower-than-average BtF range, which has the greatest affect on address and impact conditions.

 

PING i

 

Each approach detailed above has its merits, and each attempts to solve the same problem—how to achieve the most consistent address and impact conditions while accommodating the "industry standard" 1/2" shaft progressions.

 

And this is why single-length irons are so alluring. With SL irons, the BtF and DtB ranges are zero, and in theory, the entire set can be tuned to the player's ultimate geometric sweet spot. Needless to say, the potential consistency gains throughout the bag are tremendous.

 

Despite the obvious benefits, I've covered the reasons why single-length irons are probably not the best answer for most people. Instead, a geometrically optimized set is the cheapest and most achievable solution for most golfers.

 

Bottom line? The Clubmaker's Calculator is the most useful tool for helping you achieve this optimization with your irons.

 

Finally, in my next post, I'll detail a few different ways you can optimize your set on the cheap. I think you'll be surprised at some of the "hacks" you can employ to make your most troublesome clubs easier to hit.

[jbhawx]

Introducing the Clubmaker's Calculator. You can use it not only to learn more about the impact characteristics of your set, but also about precisely what you can tweak to improve these characteristics and make them more consistent. (And it's surprisingly well-suited for use on mobile devices, which is handy when taking club specs to your local golf shop.)

 

 

This site is gold. I've been using excel to do the very thing does, but without the fancy graphics or detailed information. LOL. I can now get way more intel into my current setup. Thanks!

[pearsonified]

This site is gold. I've been using excel to do the very thing does, but without the fancy graphics or detailed information. LOL. I can now get way more intel into my current setup. Thanks!

Glad you dig it! I was using Excel, too, but the Clubmaker's Calculator is faster and provides the exact information I need in a tight little package.

[jbhawx]

This site is gold. I've been using excel to do the very thing does, but without the fancy graphics or detailed information. LOL. I can now get way more intel into my current setup. Thanks!

Glad you dig it! I was using Excel, too, but the Clubmaker's Calculator is faster and provides the exact information I need in a tight little package.

 

So here is my setup based on the Calculator. 4-9 are MP-60s and the wedges are all 588 RTX 2.0. How would I go about reading this?

 

 

Thanks.

[pearsonified]

How would I go about reading this?

First, when you hover over a club (a row in the table) or click on a club if you're using a mobile device, that club will be highlighted in red in the diagram, and its associated specs will appear in the lower left corner of the diagram.

 

Second, regarding your current set, your 4-9 are quite different geometrically from your wedges (PW-LW). You can see this clearly in the diagram, as the 4-9 appear in a nice stepwise progression on the left, but the wedges are stacked on top of one another on the right.

 

What this means is that your wedges, as currently configured, will require you to stand much closer to the ball (perhaps uncomfortably so) and execute a much more upright swing (relative to your 4-9 irons) for flush contact. In other words, in their current states, your irons and wedges don't flow together, and you likely feel more comfortable with one or the other.

 

If you are more comfortable with your irons, then I'd recommend adjusting the lies on your wedges as follows:

• PW 63º
  
• GW 63.5º
  
• SW 63.5º
  
• LW 64º
  

On the other hand, if you are more comfortable with your wedges, then you should adjust the lies on your irons more upright by 1º per club.

 

If you perform either of these optimizations, you will have a nicely-balanced set with a BtF range of around 1.55" from 4-LW, which is very good! Your DtB range will be around 3.73", and that is also a reasonably tight range for a 4-LW set, especially considering you are only manipulating lie angles, which is a relatively cheap modification.

[tbowles411]

Question....would this work for guys with bad backs? I'm toying with making my short irons longer because my back simply won't let me get down that far.

[driveandputtmachine]

Interesting. When I started tinkering around with my irons, looking for better accuracy and more consistency I did a few things.

 

First, I went from Project x 6.5(130g) to Recoil F5 soft stepped (110g)

I also play the the lower lofted clubs much longer. PW down are 37" long, then I go up in 1/4 increments from there with 4* loft spacing.

Yes I played around to do a bit of lightening on the wedges, and luckily some had shaft weights, to get my SW where I wanted them.

 

However one thing I noticed is that my ballstriking with my irons has never been better. My GIR went from below 50%(I believe it was 43%) to 66%, my yardages have become better spaced, and I hit many shots closer to the hole once I tweaked my lie angles based on ball flight. All of my irons have gotten better, but the short irons are where I stopped missing greens and started hitting it close. Now when when I input my numbers into this calculator it makes some sense as to the why that I saw my improvements. Before I had not "data" behind my guesses, I just figured less length difference and correct swingweights were the reason. Which is sort of true.

 

So according to the tool supplied what I found by trial/error/ball flight was a set with a close relationship as far as the btw at .225. I am guessing FOR ME there is a correlation between the lower btw gap and my consistency with direction and distance of my irons.

[jbhawx]

Interesting. When I started tinkering around with my irons, looking for better accuracy and more consistency I did a few things.

 

First, I went from Project x 6.5(130g) to Recoil F5 soft stepped (110g)

I also play the the lower lofted clubs much longer. PW down are 37" long, then I go up in 1/4 increments from there with 4* loft spacing.

Yes I played around to do a bit of lightening on the wedges, and luckily some had shaft weights, to get my SW where I wanted them.

 

However one thing I noticed is that my ballstriking with my irons has never been better. My GIR went from below 50%(I believe it was 43%) to 66%, my yardages have become better spaced, and I hit many shots closer to the hole once I tweaked my lie angles based on ball flight. All of my irons have gotten better, but the short irons are where I stopped missing greens and started hitting it close. Now when when I input my numbers into this calculator it makes some sense as to the why that I saw my improvements. Before I had not "data" behind my guesses, I just figured less length difference and correct swingweights were the reason. Which is sort of true.

 

So according to the tool supplied what I found by trial/error/ball flight was a set with a close relationship as far as the btw at .225. I am guessing FOR ME there is a correlation between the lower btw gap and my consistency with direction and distance of my irons.

 

How do you like the 1/4" increments? I've been curious about doing this as well. Does it help the irons feel relatively the same?

[driveandputtmachine]

Interesting. When I started tinkering around with my irons, looking for better accuracy and more consistency I did a few things.

 

First, I went from Project x 6.5(130g) to Recoil F5 soft stepped (110g)

I also play the the lower lofted clubs much longer. PW down are 37" long, then I go up in 1/4 increments from there with 4* loft spacing.

Yes I played around to do a bit of lightening on the wedges, and luckily some had shaft weights, to get my SW where I wanted them.

 

However one thing I noticed is that my ballstriking with my irons has never been better. My GIR went from below 50%(I believe it was 43%) to 66%, my yardages have become better spaced, and I hit many shots closer to the hole once I tweaked my lie angles based on ball flight. All of my irons have gotten better, but the short irons are where I stopped missing greens and started hitting it close. Now when when I input my numbers into this calculator it makes some sense as to the why that I saw my improvements. Before I had not "data" behind my guesses, I just figured less length difference and correct swingweights were the reason. Which is sort of true.

 

So according to the tool supplied what I found by trial/error/ball flight was a set with a close relationship as far as the btw at .225. I am guessing FOR ME there is a correlation between the lower btw gap and my consistency with direction and distance of my irons.

 

How do you like the 1/4" increments? I've been curious about doing this as well. Does it help the irons feel relatively the same?

 

I love the 1/4 increments, I am hitting my irons more consistently than I ever have before. I will caution that if you don't make other changes you will end up needing a good bit of lead tape if you are MOI or SW your set.

 

Luckily because my short irons are so much longer than what I had been playing them at, and most of them had hosel weights in the them to achieve that weight I did not have to grind much off of any of my wedges, I also like a much higher SW in my clubs. I am playing my short irons in the D7 range and my long irons stay in the D6 range. This is all from memory, I have my info on my board above my work bench at home.

 

In short 1/4 (or any custom length is for everyone) but having clubs that can accept lead tape or have weight ports helps tremendously to achieve what you like. In short I discovered I liked my 7 iron with a 110 gram shaft, and once I achieved solid contact with weighting then I moved up and down from there. I tried to adjust my lie angles based on keeping the angle similar with only 1/4 increments. It was a lot of work and I can walk you through it, but with the tool above, you don't have to do as much guessing as I did.

[MBarger]

Here's a dumb question: I've gone through the calculator site top to bottom and haven't found where I can find my BtF and DtB optimal ranges. I'm assuming WtF and DtB are two sides of a right triangle and BtF is the hypotenuse. I have 33" WtF. What are my optimal ranges?