So I got fitted for a driver, and...

[kiteman]

The driver I hit the best was the driver I currently own! Waste of money maybe...but the Trackman results were worth some $ amount, I guess. Golf stores had my clubhead speed at 110 or so, in reality I was only swinging 102-106, hell I even had quite a few after I was winded under 100mph. That surprised me. I would assume the golf store monitors are off and not Trackman, but it begs the question, "why?"

 

I will say this to all those who are considering getting fitted...if you can go demo clubs at a Golfsmith or any local indoor place with some type of launch monitor. And you can find a driver that shows a LA of 15 or so, under 3,000rpms spin consistently, and a smash factor around 1.4, you do not need to spend the money on a proper fitting. It's just probably not going to get much better than that. Now, if you're super serious about the game, compete, etc. then it probably is worth getting fitted. But for the average Joe, I really think in-store, personal fitting is the way to go.

 

Hope I saved a couple of guys $100+ :D

[JStang]

Why do you think you were swinging 102-106 if Trackman was telling you 110? 1.4 smash isn't exactly great. Not awful, but I wouldn't buy a club from a fitting based off of a 1.4 smash. Did you go to a big box store that only had the stock shaft options or did they have a lot of choices?

[I.AM.PACO]

I've worked with your type many a time and your results are very common. The Retail / Golf economic engine doesn't like to see your results but it happens a lot.

 

You sir, Are a "grooved in" hitter. Your driver might as well be Linus' blanket because it - over time - has become fit like a glove as you and your swing and mind have grooved it in.

 

If it ain't broke ................

[kiteman]

Why do you think you were swinging 102-106 if Trackman was telling you 110? 1.4 smash isn't exactly great. Not awful, but I wouldn't buy a club from a fitting based off of a 1.4 smash. Did you go to a big box store that only had the stock shaft options or did they have a lot of choices?

 

Trackman was saying 102-106, the big box stores' monitors were saying 110+.

 

I had several smash factors over 1.45, highest was 1.47. I think a higher percentage were around 1.4 though.

 

The Retail / Golf economic engine doesn't like to see your results but it happens a lot.

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean?

 

You sir, Are a "grooved in" hitter. Your driver might as well be Linus' blanket because it - over time - has become fit like a glove as you and your swing and mind have grooved it in.

 

I have owned said driver for 6 days, so I would hardly call that fit like a glove. Hence why I mentioned if you know what to look for, you can fit yourself pretty decently in a store, assuming you can find a combo that gets you the LA/spin rates I mentioned above.

[Golfrnut]

1. Anything under 1.47 is not a quality strike, and really opens the door to a loss in ball speed, gear effects, and distance. 1.4 is definitely nowhere near "good"!

 

Let's take an example of what's left on the table with a good strike.

 

100MPH head speed, 140 ballspeed if you have a 1.4 smash factor.

100MPH head speed, 147 with a 1.47 smash factor.

 

That's 7 MPH of ball speed, and that's equal to about 2 yards per MPH of ball speed gained. That little bit can cost you 15+ yards. And that's just from ball speed, that doesn't include manipulation of the launch angle and possibly the spin rate.

 

2. Most golf store monitors do not read club head speed, so the displayed smash factor means nothing...it's useless. Big box stores will "cheat" a club head speed reading by dividing what it sees as balls speed. What it uses is all depending on how the monitor is set up. It's not accurate nor useful.

 

3. If you were fit for that driver, it's not a very good one.

 

People will spend $500 for 5 yards gained, so being able to gain 15 yards just by optimizing what they already have seems like a pretty good investment no?

[roadtrippin4550]

The driver I hit the best was the driver I currently own! Waste of money maybe...but the Trackman results were worth some $ amount, I guess. Golf stores had my clubhead speed at 110 or so, in reality I was only swinging 102-106, hell I even had quite a few after I was winded under 100mph. That surprised me. I would assume the golf store monitors are off and not Trackman, but it begs the question, "why?"

 

I will say this to all those who are considering getting fitted...if you can go demo clubs at a Golfsmith or any local indoor place with some type of launch monitor. And you can find a driver that shows a LA of 15 or so, under 3,000rpms spin consistently, and a smash factor around 1.4, you do not need to spend the money on a proper fitting. It's just probably not going to get much better than that. Now, if you're super serious about the game, compete, etc. then it probably is worth getting fitted. But for the average Joe, I really think in-store, personal fitting is the way to go.

 

Hope I saved a couple of guys $100+ :D

 

Horrible advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes, it would be good to go to a place like this before a fitting and try a few things out, give you an idea of what your options are. An educated person was always the easiest fittings I ever had. On a regular basis, the average Joe saw a drastic improvement from a club fitting, where your serious/competitive player we saw a little improvement, but never leaps and bounds.

 

1) 1.4 smash on a driver is no good. Most people who are interested enough in golf to be considering a fitting are either invested in improving their golf game, or are happy with their golf game and looking for an advantage from the equipment. In both of these cases, 1.4 should be the very low end of what would be an acceptable smash factor for someone who is relatively new to the game and a good club fitter would be able to find a head/shaft combo and specs that would help to improve that.

 

2) 15 degrees launch and under 3000 spin leaves a lot for interpretation. At what you claim your swing speed is, those are not good numbers. At your swing speed you should be somewhere around 12-13 launch and 2300-2400 spin to optimize ball flight with ideal impact conditions. Now, I don't know your attack angle, or if you are swinging outside in, or your ball flight so those numbers may not be the best for you, but they would be what I was shooting for as a clubfitter.

 

3) A proper fitting is more than hitting clubs and finding something that is acceptable. For someone who has more than 600 posts on here I would expect a little more knowledge about equipment. The point of going to a fitting is to have a professional who understand the principles of ball flight and the swing to analyze not just how far the ball went but all of the 26 numbers that Trackman associates with every single shot you hit and find what is best. You clearly did not get that.

 

WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT TAKE KITEMANS ADVICE!!!!!!!!!! WORST ADVICE I HAVE SEEN ON WRX TO DATE!!!!!!

[kiteman]

heh, okay. sorry, didn't mean to offer bad advice.

 

for the record, I swing inside to out, apparently (according to trackman). I always thought I swung over the top, so that surprised me. my angle of attack was almost always neutral. occasionally I was -1 and occasionally +1. but I guess that is expected for an average golfer. also my spin numbers were under 3,000 no matter HOW bad the strike. Good strikes were at 2100. LA was varied, but 15 was tops, I think average was 13. again, I would think that makes sense for an average Joe golfer like me, to have varied numbers that is.

 

maybe my fitter sucked, and there is a better driver for me. but it would be hard for me to spend $150 again to find out, know what I mean? that's the only reason I think I gave the advice I did...some fitters are better than others, so if you can semi-fit yourself, you might do as good as a lot of fitters would. and save yourself some money :)

 

also, I don't know what to think on smash factor numbers. I recently read that Adam Scott's smash factor is only 1.43, while Bubba's is 1.55. I forget where I read it. Anyway, if true, then 1.4 isn't all that bad IMO

[Golfrnut]

Nope...1.4 is still bad.

 

Both of those guys are right near the limit, which is 1.49(without tricking the monitor/another topic). Those guys are not giving up ball speed. Wherever you got the info, it's wrong.

 

Are you playing a driver at stock length? If so, that's probably the first place to start to improving those numbers.

[gregflat9]

Adam Scott's smash factor is 1.43.... with a 7 iron you mean?!

[kiteman]

Nope...1.4 is still bad.

 

Both of those guys are right near the limit, which is 1.49(without tricking the monitor/another topic). Those guys are not giving up ball speed. Wherever you got the info, it's wrong.

 

Are you playing a driver at stock length? If so, that's probably the first place to start to improving those numbers.

 

I am. I am also 6'6". The fitter said I do not need a shorter shaft. Maybe he is wrong?

 

See you guys being all useful and stuff is proving my point why fitting stinks, you guys are doing a better job virtually than the actual person I paid!! haha

[Exactice808]

Nope...1.4 is still bad.

 

Both of those guys are right near the limit, which is 1.49(without tricking the monitor/another topic). Those guys are not giving up ball speed. Wherever you got the info, it's wrong.

 

Are you playing a driver at stock length? If so, that's probably the first place to start to improving those numbers.

 

I am. I am also 6'6". The fitter said I do not need a shorter shaft. Maybe he is wrong?

 

See you guys being all useful and stuff is proving my point why fitting stinks, you guys are doing a better job virtually than the actual person I paid!! haha

 

Here is the coin flip.

 

Trackman vs Big Box Store vs Legit fitting.

 

1) Trackman is all good if operated by a person that knows what they are doing as well as intending to provide you important feedback

2) Big box stores are the biggest hit or miss, Do you know if the employee is an actual fitter or just a college student employee paying their student loans? (No disrespect to said employees, just making a point)

3) Legit fitting is exactly that, I have been to mutiple fittings at a box store and NO where near are they anything like a legit fitting I had with an actual Pro. NIGHT and Day

 

 

So the question is did the golf store employee actually fit you or just gave you some clubs to hit on a monitor and base it on that....

 

 

As posted many times.... the info you provided and are interpreting is very very skewed and I would say extremely inconsistent to even make the assumption that your driver is better than something new.

 

 

Secondly what scares me more, is that "because your are 6'6" you dont need a shorter shaft? While Height is a factor, Ball strike ability is a greater factor. If you had 2 drivers a 46" driver vs a 43" driver, with that the 46" driver nets you a smash of 1.4 vs the 43" driver that nets you 1.5..... um yeah...... Golfnut already showed you the large increase in "BALL SPEED" that is more important than anything else......

 

So I would caution your advise my friend!

 

 

Good luck on your search, I would highly recommend finding a true reputable fitter....

 

 

 

*edit*

 

Your point in fitting is fine, yes you can self fit to a certain extent, As feel and visuals are a huge part of the game. But OPTIMIZING for the Most OPTIMAL golf shot is another animal.

 

I have self fit many times and more so take advise from other players "You spin the ball to much", "You hit the ball too high", "You swing too hard" etc etc etc.... yeah all good until you hit a real fitter that measures and takes into account everything....

 

 

The harsh realization is that you are no where near optimal, and taking your pride down a little bit, will allow for a greater over optimization to your game....

[Golfrnut]

Yep he was more than likely not doing you any favors. You would be much better off with a shorter shaft and a Lie angle change if needed. Stock driver shaft lengths are good for nothing more then creating inconsistencies and making it harder than it has to be

[kiteman]

Yep he was more than likely not doing you any favors. You would be much better off with a shorter shaft and a Lie angle change if needed. Stock driver shaft lengths are good for nothing more then creating inconsistencies and making it harder than it has to be

 

My in-laws are in NC, maybe I should hit you up next time I'm there to get a proper fitting. I'm starting to feel like I just got played for $150.

[Exactice808]

Yep he was more than likely not doing you any favors. You would be much better off with a shorter shaft and a Lie angle change if needed. Stock driver shaft lengths are good for nothing more then creating inconsistencies and making it harder than it has to be

 

My in-laws are in NC, maybe I should hit you up next time I'm there to get a proper fitting. I'm starting to feel like I just got played for $150.

 

Honestly, It depends on how you interpret the numbers. The system measure something and you take that away.

 

 

couple of thoughts.

 

 

1) You got a launch angle and you got spin.

2) What is your setup. you stated 1.4 smash, but likely this was a set smash factor, so do you remember your ball speed by any chance? From there you can divide your average swing speed from that to see what your estimated smash was..... Example, I have an average ball speed of 150mph, My swing speed averages about 102 150/102 my average smash is 1.47. This is my estimates based on various LM's I have tried, the day at my legit fitting though I was nearing 1.49-1.5 smash, but of course my swing speed was measured near 98-100 a little lower. Anyways you get my point.

3) With this Smash estimation you can get the idea if the current driver setup is allowing you to get the most optimal smash factor (Net highest ball speed) ball speed is basically everything at this point, That means you are striking the most optimal place on the face of the club. From there you can tweak your face angles at impact, your dynamic loft (AoA) and your swing path for draws or fades. But if you are not getting optimal strikes it doenst matter how fast you swing the club.

4) From there, if you are really netting only 1.4 smash, this is a good sign to start messing around with club lengths and shaft weight. With these, this should help you to sync your swing to allow a better impact at the ball. Depending on your actual swing, the general rules apply.

4a) Fast Hard swing, -Heavier Shaft, Slow, Moderate swing - lighter. (General rule of thumb) Once that is set, then length of shaft, Seems like the trend is 45.5-46 inches, this is ridiculous. Im maxing out at 45" already. I would say if you can at least get it back to 45" or even 44.5" thats another chance. to maximize/optimize

 

 

 

From there, its launch angle and spin..... thats another animal.... but it was not all lost, it basically told you that your quality of strike needs work and something else is missing.

 

Good luck again OP!!!!

[Golfrnut]

Yep he was more than likely not doing you any favors. You would be much better off with a shorter shaft and a Lie angle change if needed. Stock driver shaft lengths are good for nothing more then creating inconsistencies and making it harder than it has to be

 

My in-laws are in NC, maybe I should hit you up next time I'm there to get a proper fitting. I'm starting to feel like I just got played for $150.

 

I'm glad you think that highly of me, haha, but don't do any fittings. I do some club work and tuning for some people, but not on a scale worthy of noting. I wasn't prepared to spend the money on the overhead it would take to start something to do fittings on a business scale. If I was going to do it, I was going to do it right, and that requires quite a bit of money. I can support a full shop, and I pretty much have one, but getting OEM support and keepibg as many shaft/head options as I would want to have around takes a lot of money.

 

Anyways...back on topic

 

i can't speak for the rest of the club, and how well it fits, but length is something that can be adjusted/tuned without a lot of effort or breaking the bank. Howard Jones did a fantastic writeup on how to self tune your own driver to get ot as good as you can. I would research and find the link for you, but I'm on my phone and trying search really sucks. You can look for it or I'm sure someone might post it on here.

[Exactice808]

Yep he was more than likely not doing you any favors. You would be much better off with a shorter shaft and a Lie angle change if needed. Stock driver shaft lengths are good for nothing more then creating inconsistencies and making it harder than it has to be

 

My in-laws are in NC, maybe I should hit you up next time I'm there to get a proper fitting. I'm starting to feel like I just got played for $150.

 

I'm glad you think that highly of me, haha, but don't do any fittings. I do some club work and tuning for some people, but not on a scale worthy of noting. I wasn't prepared to spend the money on the overhead it would take to start something to do fittings on a business scale. If I was going to do it, I was going to do it right, and that requires quite a bit of money. I can support a full shop, and I pretty much have one, but getting OEM support and keepibg as many shaft/head options as I would want to have around takes a lot of money.

 

Anyways...back on topic

 

i can't speak for the rest of the club, and how well it fits, but length is something that can be adjusted/tuned without a lot of effort or breaking the bank. Howard Jones did a fantastic writeup on how to self tune your own driver to get ot as good as you can. I would research and find the link for you, but I'm on my phone and trying search really sucks. You can look for it or I'm sure someone might post it on here.

 

Got your back Golfrnut, You have helped so many! Especially me!

 

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...up-diy-fitting/

 

OP see above, great write up!

[nbg352]

1.50 is the max smash allowed under USGA ruling.

Very few golfers hit that number consistently or often.

Stock OEM shafts are absolutely fine for the large majority of golfers. To suggest otherwise is to accuse the major OEMs of sabotaging their own product. They don't do that.

Stock answer around here is get a shorter shaft. Get you right up to that magical 1.50 smash. This only works around 25 - 30% of the time. Control and distance "might" improve but a bad swing...or less than stellar swing will still produce shots well below the 1.50 mark, most of the time.

Trackman and Flightscope, properly calibrated, are pretty simple tools to use and are accurate to a fault.

Self fitting is a perfectly viable solution to paying a fortune to a fitter. Especially for those who believe they know more than most fitters. Many on this site should always self fit. Most probably do anyway, even if a qualified fitter is being paid for the service.

Am I going to get flamed? You bet.

Better that then have readers believe that everyone should be able to get to 1.5, that the answer is shorter shafts bought from 3rd party OEMs, that most monitors are juiced or wrong or being operated by idiots or that OEM stock shafts are crap. Because most of the time, all of that is complete hogwash.

 

There...that's done. Time for lunch.

[Golfrnut]

1.50 is the max smash allowed under USGA ruling.

Very few golfers hit that number consistently or often.

Stock OEM shafts are absolutely fine for the large majority of golfers. To suggest otherwise is to accuse the major OEMs of sabotaging their own product. They don't do that.

Stock answer around here is get a shorter shaft. Get you right up to that magical 1.50 smash. This only works around 25 - 30% of the time. Control and distance "might" improve but a bad swing...or less than stellar swing will still produce shots well below the 1.50 mark, most of the time.

Trackman and Flightscope, properly calibrated, are pretty simple tools to use and are accurate to a fault.

Self fitting is a perfectly viable solution to paying a fortune to a fitter. Especially for those who believe they know more than most fitters. Many on this site should always self fit. Most probably do anyway, even if a qualified fitter is being paid for the service.

Am I going to get flamed? You bet.

Better that then have readers believe that everyone should be able to get to 1.5, that the answer is shorter shafts bought from 3rd party OEMs, that most monitors are juiced or wrong or being operated by idiots or that OEM stock shafts are crap. Because most of the time, all of that is complete hogwash.

 

There...that's done. Time for lunch.

 

 

1.50 isn't technically obtainable either....

 

What exactly does it take to get a consistent smash factor? Are you stating this based on handicap? If so, what is the magic number? And where are you getting the 25-30% stat? You've done a study I take it? So who here is presenting hogwash?

 

Very few can obtain a good smash consistently because they are not properly put into a club that will help them do that. Nothing new, or uncommon.

[nbg352]

1.50 is the max smash allowed under USGA ruling.

Very few golfers hit that number consistently or often.

Stock OEM shafts are absolutely fine for the large majority of golfers. To suggest otherwise is to accuse the major OEMs of sabotaging their own product. They don't do that.

Stock answer around here is get a shorter shaft. Get you right up to that magical 1.50 smash. This only works around 25 - 30% of the time. Control and distance "might" improve but a bad swing...or less than stellar swing will still produce shots well below the 1.50 mark, most of the time.

Trackman and Flightscope, properly calibrated, are pretty simple tools to use and are accurate to a fault.

Self fitting is a perfectly viable solution to paying a fortune to a fitter. Especially for those who believe they know more than most fitters. Many on this site should always self fit. Most probably do anyway, even if a qualified fitter is being paid for the service.

Am I going to get flamed? You bet.

Better that then have readers believe that everyone should be able to get to 1.5, that the answer is shorter shafts bought from 3rd party OEMs, that most monitors are juiced or wrong or being operated by idiots or that OEM stock shafts are crap. Because most of the time, all of that is complete hogwash.

 

There...that's done. Time for lunch.

 

 

1.50 isn't technically obtainable either....

 

What exactly does it take to get a consistent smash factor? Are you stating this based on handicap? If so, what is the magic number? And where are you getting the 25-30% stat? You've done a study I take it? So who here is presenting hogwash?

 

Very few can obtain a good smash consistently because they are not properly put into a club that will help them do that. Nothing new, or uncommon.

If 1.50 isn't "technically obtainable, why are you throwing it around like it is not only obtainable but that everyone can achieve it? For the record, it is technically possible...I've seen it enough times to know it is. The ability to hit a golf ball properly, with a high smash factor is based in large part on good swing mechanics....and that is certainly something that contributes to a golfers handicap. I get my stats from 9 years of watching people hit balls on a Flightscope. So, experience tells that 25 - 30% feels about right. The answer to your question regarding hogwash? I'll leave that to the readers........

[Golfrnut]

1.50 is the max smash allowed under USGA ruling.

Very few golfers hit that number consistently or often.

Stock OEM shafts are absolutely fine for the large majority of golfers. To suggest otherwise is to accuse the major OEMs of sabotaging their own product. They don't do that.

Stock answer around here is get a shorter shaft. Get you right up to that magical 1.50 smash. This only works around 25 - 30% of the time. Control and distance "might" improve but a bad swing...or less than stellar swing will still produce shots well below the 1.50 mark, most of the time.

Trackman and Flightscope, properly calibrated, are pretty simple tools to use and are accurate to a fault.

Self fitting is a perfectly viable solution to paying a fortune to a fitter. Especially for those who believe they know more than most fitters. Many on this site should always self fit. Most probably do anyway, even if a qualified fitter is being paid for the service.

Am I going to get flamed? You bet.

Better that then have readers believe that everyone should be able to get to 1.5, that the answer is shorter shafts bought from 3rd party OEMs, that most monitors are juiced or wrong or being operated by idiots or that OEM stock shafts are crap. Because most of the time, all of that is complete hogwash.

 

There...that's done. Time for lunch.

 

 

1.50 isn't technically obtainable either....

 

What exactly does it take to get a consistent smash factor? Are you stating this based on handicap? If so, what is the magic number? And where are you getting the 25-30% stat? You've done a study I take it? So who here is presenting hogwash?

 

Very few can obtain a good smash consistently because they are not properly put into a club that will help them do that. Nothing new, or uncommon.

If 1.50 isn't "technically obtainable, why are you throwing it around like it is not only obtainable but that everyone can achieve it. For the record, it is technically possible...I've seen it enough times to know it is. The ability to hit a golf ball properly, with a high smash factor is based entirely on good swing mechanics....and that is certainly something that contributes to a golfers handicap. I get my stats from 9 years of watching people hit balls on a Flightscope. So, experience tells that 25 - 30% feels about right. The answer to your question regarding hogwash? I'll leave that to the readers........

 

 

1.50 is only achievable due to manipulating the strike location relative to where the head speed is measured. Again, a driver head cannot physically go that high, unless of course it would be deemed illegal for play. You can get higher on the monitor than that if you want, doesn't mean it's technically doable. There's a large difference between watching people on a monitor, and knowing how to actually use one and what the numbers mean.

 

Don't believe I said anything about 1.50, believe I listed 1.47 did I not?

 

And what's a low enough handicap for you? Or higher? Lasted I kept one, I was at a 9.7. Here are MY numbers of MY flightscope.

 

 

 

I can say it because I can back it up with some actual data....

 

I have more samples of the same if you want.

[nbg352]

1.50 is the max smash allowed under USGA ruling.

Very few golfers hit that number consistently or often.

Stock OEM shafts are absolutely fine for the large majority of golfers. To suggest otherwise is to accuse the major OEMs of sabotaging their own product. They don't do that.

Stock answer around here is get a shorter shaft. Get you right up to that magical 1.50 smash. This only works around 25 - 30% of the time. Control and distance "might" improve but a bad swing...or less than stellar swing will still produce shots well below the 1.50 mark, most of the time.

Trackman and Flightscope, properly calibrated, are pretty simple tools to use and are accurate to a fault.

Self fitting is a perfectly viable solution to paying a fortune to a fitter. Especially for those who believe they know more than most fitters. Many on this site should always self fit. Most probably do anyway, even if a qualified fitter is being paid for the service.

Am I going to get flamed? You bet.

Better that then have readers believe that everyone should be able to get to 1.5, that the answer is shorter shafts bought from 3rd party OEMs, that most monitors are juiced or wrong or being operated by idiots or that OEM stock shafts are crap. Because most of the time, all of that is complete hogwash.

 

There...that's done. Time for lunch.

 

 

1.50 isn't technically obtainable either....

 

What exactly does it take to get a consistent smash factor? Are you stating this based on handicap? If so, what is the magic number? And where are you getting the 25-30% stat? You've done a study I take it? So who here is presenting hogwash?

 

Very few can obtain a good smash consistently because they are not properly put into a club that will help them do that. Nothing new, or uncommon.

If 1.50 isn't "technically obtainable, why are you throwing it around like it is not only obtainable but that everyone can achieve it. For the record, it is technically possible...I've seen it enough times to know it is. The ability to hit a golf ball properly, with a high smash factor is based entirely on good swing mechanics....and that is certainly something that contributes to a golfers handicap. I get my stats from 9 years of watching people hit balls on a Flightscope. So, experience tells that 25 - 30% feels about right. The answer to your question regarding hogwash? I'll leave that to the readers........

 

 

1.50 is only achievable due to manipulating the strike location relative to where the head speed is measured. Again, a driver head cannot physically go that high, unless of course it would be deemed illegal for play. You can get higher on the monitor than that if you want, doesn't mean it's technically doable. There's a large difference between watching people on a monitor, and knowing how to actually use one and what the numbers mean.

 

Don't believe I said anything about 1.50, believe I listed 1.47 did I not?

 

And what's a low enough handicap for you? Or higher? Lasted I kept one, I was at a 9.7. Here are MY numbers of MY flightscope.

 

 

 

I can say it because I can back it up with some actual data....

 

I have more samples of the same if you want.

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

[avrag]

 

What exactly does it take to get a consistent smash factor?

 

Lots of practice with Dr. Scholl's footspray on the clubface.

[Golfrnut]

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

 

My point was to put some sort of value on it. You state that it's not a realistic expectation. I'm stating from experience, and can show data to reinforce my point, that it is. It isn't a mythical creature. People are a lot more consistent than you think, and that you are trying to get people to believe. The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included.

 

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

 

Well aware. That's why I stated it above. I can show you 1.51 shots too, doesn't mean it's valid.

[nbg352]

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

 

My point was to put some sort of value on you it. You state that it's not a realistic expectation. I'm stating from experience, and can show data to reinforce my point, that it is. It isn't a mythical creature. People are a lot more consistent than you think, and that you are trying to get people to believe. The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included.

 

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

 

Well aware. That's why I stated it above. I can show you 1.51 shots too, doesn't mean it's valid.

I've seen many at 1.52 and a few even higher. Usually toed draws........

1.50 is the standard used, even though max is .003 lower than that......

[Golfrnut]

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

 

My point was to put some sort of value on you it. You state that it's not a realistic expectation. I'm stating from experience, and can show data to reinforce my point, that it is. It isn't a mythical creature. People are a lot more consistent than you think, and that you are trying to get people to believe. The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included.

 

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

 

Well aware. That's why I stated it above. I can show you 1.51 shots too, doesn't mean it's valid.

I've seen many at 1.52 and a few even higher. Usually toed draws........

1.50 is the standard used, even though max is .003 lower than that......

 

You are doing nothing but trying to talk in circles here, and trying to move the discussion off topic.

[nbg352]

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

 

My point was to put some sort of value on you it. You state that it's not a realistic expectation. I'm stating from experience, and can show data to reinforce my point, that it is. It isn't a mythical creature. People are a lot more consistent than you think, and that you are trying to get people to believe. The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included.

 

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

 

Well aware. That's why I stated it above. I can show you 1.51 shots too, doesn't mean it's valid.

I've seen many at 1.52 and a few even higher. Usually toed draws........

1.50 is the standard used, even though max is .003 lower than that......

 

You are doing nothing but trying to talk in circles here, and trying to move the discussion off topic.

I am? Exactly what am I talking circles around? Isn't the topic about you telling the OP, an amateur that he should be at least achieving a 1.47 smash? Yep, you did...gave him a number that applies to pros...they should not be below 1.47. An amateur, like the OP, like most of us, regardless of handicap, should be at around 1.42 and above. Most of us can hit 1.47 or above, sometimes with some consistency, especially if we delete our not quite so good strikes from the Flightscope database........

You just told me that I think 1.50 is not attainable and then went on to state that technically it is unattainable even after publishing your own? figures, where lo and behold, is one drive at 1.50...on a Doppler radar driven Flightscope, no less. The standard norm, then, according to both Flightscope and Trackman is 1.50, a number many amateurs will unfortunately rarely see.

While I do not for one second believe that 45 1/2" for a driver is out of control, ( hate blanket statements), I will agree that most amateurs would likely benefit from a driver 44" or less. But at 6'6" tall, our OP may be one who would benefit from a 45" driver, just so he can set up normally to the ball. Speculative, I suppose, but very possible, given his height. And neither of us knows that until we actually get to see the guy in person..

And while we're at it....While stock OEM shafts aren't for everyone, they are absolutely fine for most, in the right flex, at the right weight and at the correct length for the golfer. Only the very most discriminating golfer benefits from installing an after market shaft. Especially today, when most OEM stock shafts are not made for but are the real deal with OEM graphics added.

Finally, there is no need to insult fitters. If you are one yourself, not even vanity should allow you to categorize either myself or most other fitters thusly: "The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included".

I fit each person individually, according to their physical stature and their golf swing. Almost all of them leave happy and most stay happy. Almost none will allow me to shorten their driver.

[Golfrnut]

Why do you insist on bringing up handicap? I certainly didn't in my first post and only in response to you in the second. Your obsession it seems, not mine.

 

My point was to put some sort of value on you it. You state that it's not a realistic expectation. I'm stating from experience, and can show data to reinforce my point, that it is. It isn't a mythical creature. People are a lot more consistent than you think, and that you are trying to get people to believe. The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included.

 

1.5 is rounded up from 1.497....technically you are kind of right.......

The following link is very helpful :

www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

 

Well aware. That's why I stated it above. I can show you 1.51 shots too, doesn't mean it's valid.

I've seen many at 1.52 and a few even higher. Usually toed draws........

1.50 is the standard used, even though max is .003 lower than that......

 

I am? Exactly what am I talking circles around? Isn't the topic about you telling the OP, an amateur that he should be at least achieving a 1.47 smash? Yep, you did...gave him a number that applies to pros...they should not be below 1.47. An amateur, like the OP, like most of us, regardless of handicap, should be at around 1.42 and above. Most of us can hit 1.47 or above, sometimes with some consistency, especially if we delete our not quite so good strikes from the Flightscope database........

You just told me that I think 1.50 is not attainable and then went on to state that technically it is unattainable even after publishing your own? figures, where lo and behold, is one drive at 1.50...on a Doppler radar driven Flightscope, no less. The standard norm, then, according to both Flightscope and Trackman is 1.50.

While I do not for one second believe that 45 1/2" for a driver is out of control, ( hate blanket statements), I will agree that most amateurs would likely benefit from a driver 44" or less. But at 6'6" tall, our OP may be one who would benefit from a 45" driver, just so he can set up normally to the ball. Speculative, I suppose, but very possible, given his height. And neither of us knows that until we actually get to see the guy in person..

And while we're at it....While stock OEM shafts aren't for everyone, they are absolutely fine for most, in the right flex, at the right weight and at the correct length for the golfer. Only the very most discriminating golfer benefits from installing an after market shaft. Especially today, when most OEM stock shafts are not made for but are the real deal with OEM graphics added.

Finally, there is no need to insult fitters. If you are one yourself, not even vanity should allow you to categorize either myself or most other fitters thusly: "The problem is using driver lengths that are out of control, not fitting the club properly, and people like yourself that just deem it "acceptable"....fitters, or so-called fitters, included".

I fit each person individually, according to their physical stature and their golf swing. Almost all of them leave happy and most stay happy. Almost none will allow me to shorten their driver.

 

I'm not gonna even bother with a long-winded response. It's obvious by all your previous posts that you really don't understand anything of what you are trying to preach about. The only reason, that people accept that they are being told that low smash factor numbers are "okay" is because they really don't know any better, just like you don't know any better. Meanwhile they are hampered by gear effects, have no idea where the ball is going to go or how far, and we get posts here asking us if they were cheated out of money or they can't understand why they didn't see any improvement. And yes, for the record, that makes you part of the problem. Do yourself, and anyone else that may choose to listen to you a favor and educate yourself more about what it is you are saying, because until you do, you are only doing them a disservice and feeding them garbage. I gave you data, and the only rebuttal you have to the fact that I can sit here and blatantly, and very easily, prove you wrong is that I manipulate the data? Get outta here with that ignorant nonsense. You have no real idea what you are talking about, I can easy show you that you really have no idea what you are talking about, as I already have. Hell, I have 4 wood and hybrid/rescue data that is in the mid/high 1.4s. Mediocre swing for me? At best! But I have clubs that will give me enough consistency to get in the sweet spot. I can post for data for a good while to prove my point, I'm sure others that own monitors and can actually effectively use them can as well. But it doesn't do a whole lot of good if your only response is that the numbers are somehow "doctored". There isn't a need to doctor them. Hell, if I cared that much I wouldn't even worry about posting them....with my doctored "95 MPH" swing speed and all.

[Golfrnut]

I must have spent all day on this one then?

 

Should I be quitting my day job? Obviously I'm pro material?!? Maybe it's just all photoshop?

 

I can do this for a while...

 

 

 

[Golfrnut]

And Kiteman, my apologies for hijacking your thread a little bit to prove a point.

 

Hopefully, from the data I have posted, you can see I am not by any means feeding you "hogwash". I've got no reason to sit here and lie to you and fill your head full of garbage, that wouldn't be worth my time to type it. Better numbers than what you say you are currently getting are definitely obtainable. The first priority is getting yourself in the center of the club, and being as consistent as you can. Once you do that, you can move on to tweaking launch, spin, etc. If you are all over the club face and the numbers are inconsistent to start, you'll never get close to where you want to be, or could be.

 

Fine someone reputable in your area, that will help to get you where you need to be. If you can't find anyone, follow the link that Exactice posted above,there is a ton of good info in that thread. Actually, it's well worth the read regardless of which path you take.

[nbg352]

 

 

 

I'm not gonna even bother with a long-winded response. It's obvious by all your previous posts that you really don't understand anything of what you are trying to preach about. The only reason, that people accept that they are being told that low smash factor numbers are "okay" is because they really don't know any better, just like you don't know any better. Meanwhile they are hampered by gear effects, have no idea where the ball is going to go or how far, and we get posts here asking us if they were cheated out of money or they can't understand why they didn't see any improvement. And yes, for the record, that makes you part of the problem. Do yourself, and anyone else that may choose to listen to you a favor and educate yourself more about what it is you are saying, because until you do, you are only doing them a disservice and feeding them garbage. I gave you data, and the only rebuttal you have to the fact that I can sit here and blatantly, and very easily, prove you wrong is that I manipulate the data? Get outta here with that ignorant nonsense. You have no real idea what you are talking about, I can easy show you that you really have no idea what you are talking about, as I already have. Hell, I have 4 wood and hybrid/rescue data that is in the mid/high 1.4s. Mediocre swing for me? At best! But I have clubs that will give me enough consistency to get in the sweet spot. I can post for data for a good while to prove my point, I'm sure others that own monitors and can actually effectively use them can as well. But it doesn't do a whole lot of good if your only response is that the numbers are somehow "doctored". There isn't a need to doctor them. Hell, if I cared that much I wouldn't even worry about posting them....with my doctored "95 MPH" swing speed and all.

I have no doubt that some of your strikes are up there or that there are times when you can repetitively do it. If you didn't delete a couple of not quite perfect for illustration purposes hits, so be it. My apology. But I don't need your data...and remember, it is just your data.....to tell me what I have seen over and over and over. and that is, with rare exception, most average golfers are also very average ball strikers. Especially with driver. 1.50 consistently, just does not happen. Many times they come to me at 1.30 or so and leave at mid 1.40 or so, but only the good ball strikers ever get consistent 1.47 or above numbers. Obviously, if you are actually averaging 1.48 with your driver, you are an above average striker of the ball regardless of your 94.4mph club speed and you have a driver that fits you. But don`t confuse your numbers with the norm. Because your numbers do not speak to the norm. Many of the average golfers I see can`t imagine hitting a fairway wood or hybrid with a smash factor in the 1.40s. And they never will until they fix their swings. And that, most often is the problem. Fitters fit clubs. To the best of their ability in most cases. They do not fix swings.......although a change in lie angle, weight, length may contribute to an improvement in that regard.

Now go fix that hook.......