Chicken or the Egg... Fitting or Lessons

[SUMM1T]

Fitting a tour pro is not easy, however, fitting a high handicap player is not easy. If it were easy, this section of this site would be way less busy with comments about poor fittings. I have to discard more shots with a high handicap player than I do with a low handicap player. In general, I will have less room for improvement for the better player, but that is a big generalization. I enjoy fitting high handicappers because I get to teach them what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. They seem to come in without any preconceived notions about the process and aren't limited by their own pride or desires of playing club x with shaft y because Tiger does. Either way, fitting is not an easy process and a good fitter takes their time to ensure their customers are happy.

 

All that said, getting fit is not only for players who have perfected their swing. I always suggest to my clients that you need to clearly define what your expectations are in golf. If you want to continually improve and challenge yourself, then get lessons and be fit. If you want to just be able to get around the track and don't have time to commit to practicing what you were taught, getting fit can still help and doesn't require long term investment. A good fitter will do more than tell you what clubs to play. They will show you "weak spots" in your game, highlight placing you are doing well in and show you what works and why. I always include full gap testing in my fittings as well, and I have had clients tell me that was the most rewarding part of the fit because they thought they hit their clubs X distance, and once they found out their true distances, they played better because they played within themselves.

[delmer]

I was offered both, I took them.

 

I'm sitting at 20, I started at f-----g awful.

 

My two guys worked together.

 

As it was explained to me: My point of ball contact is my point of ball contact, based on my physical stature. A club fitting addresses that. My lessons help me to repeatedly get me back to my point of contact to hopefully hit the ball in front of me. Fitting won't help that.

 

Three years later and they feel like a pair of worn gloves, they just feel right.

 

I never understood why there isn't more static fitting in terms of irons. Most professionals (note: most) have several things in common at impact - the handle of the club traces an imaginary line through the belt, the toe and heel enter at the same time, the arms hang with just a tiny bend in the elbows and they hand directly under the shoulders.

 

You could get a whole lot right about an iron from someone just standing in an ideal impact position and you measuring them with tape, IMO. I never understood why people watch a 15 handicap sidebend their shoulder 30 degrees under their body into impact and conclude they need super-flat clubs because of their "swing".

 

Please note this is probably due to a misunderstanding on my part, but the best golf swings are a turn with a hinge then a turn with an unhinge - simple. You can "fit" someone for most of that (not shaft, though) without the player swinging a club IMO. They have an ideal impact, it seems to me. I don't understand why you would encourage an extremely poor impact position by "fitting" a club to help it.

 

Fitting a tour pro is easy because their swings are extraordinarily repeatable. Fitting a 15 is hard because typically someone who is a 15 doesn't make the same swing twice in a row.

 

With that being said when I was a teaching pro and a fitter I would fit beginners with something like the Ping fitting chart to get them started with equipment that is close to fitting. Doing a detailed fitting with a beginner just doesn't make sense to me. When you start hitting the center of the face consistently and groove a repeatable swing a full fitting is so much more powerful than if you would put a beginner through one.

 

Fitting a tour pro is “easy”?!

 

I don’t agree, because of the margins. 70.82 makes you the best player in the world and 72.16 makes you lose your job.

 

Fitting anyone well is hard. As a player gets better their swing becomes more repeatable but their margin for error gets tiny. Good/great players want way more from their clubs than something they can get airborne and like to look at. They need a ton of tools and can only bag 14 clubs.

 

Their swing repeats but it’s not iron Byron. They still have small variations except every single shot counts a whole whole lot, and it’s a bad fitting if you leave 2% of their driver distance on the table (about 4.8 yards a round, 18 yards a tournament, is massive).

 

I couldn’t disagree more with your post.

 

I've fit quite a few Tour Pros and winners of both the US Am and the US Sr. Am. Fitting them, for the most part, is extremely easy. Getting them to put a new club in the bag is a different can of worms.

 

I don't think that 4 yards per round is massive with a driver and to be honest with you most of the elite elite players that I have fit over the years don't have a driver that is 100% optimized in their bag. A guy like Jordan Spieth is a perfect example. He knows the TS2 is longer and is better for him but that thing sat in his trunk for a couple months before he put it in his bag. Tour pros for the most part aren't chasing a couple yards and would rather have an old favorite in their bag than something that will go 4 yards longer per round.

 

Now if you're talking about fitting a tour pro and making a noticeable difference in numbers that is a tough task because they've already been through so many fittings that you're trying to find something that multiple other fitters missed.

 

Usually when you see someone credit their equipment for a win it isn't "my club tech tweaked my driver to go 1.3 yards longer" or "we bumped my irons an eighth degree flat" it's almost always a putter change. Occasionally you'll see a driver change but 90+% of the time it's a stroke or putter change.

[pinestreetgolf]

I was offered both, I took them.

 

I'm sitting at 20, I started at f-----g awful.

 

My two guys worked together.

 

As it was explained to me: My point of ball contact is my point of ball contact, based on my physical stature. A club fitting addresses that. My lessons help me to repeatedly get me back to my point of contact to hopefully hit the ball in front of me. Fitting won't help that.

 

Three years later and they feel like a pair of worn gloves, they just feel right.

 

I never understood why there isn't more static fitting in terms of irons. Most professionals (note: most) have several things in common at impact - the handle of the club traces an imaginary line through the belt, the toe and heel enter at the same time, the arms hang with just a tiny bend in the elbows and they hand directly under the shoulders.

 

You could get a whole lot right about an iron from someone just standing in an ideal impact position and you measuring them with tape, IMO. I never understood why people watch a 15 handicap sidebend their shoulder 30 degrees under their body into impact and conclude they need super-flat clubs because of their "swing".

 

Please note this is probably due to a misunderstanding on my part, but the best golf swings are a turn with a hinge then a turn with an unhinge - simple. You can "fit" someone for most of that (not shaft, though) without the player swinging a club IMO. They have an ideal impact, it seems to me. I don't understand why you would encourage an extremely poor impact position by "fitting" a club to help it.

 

Fitting a tour pro is easy because their swings are extraordinarily repeatable. Fitting a 15 is hard because typically someone who is a 15 doesn't make the same swing twice in a row.

 

With that being said when I was a teaching pro and a fitter I would fit beginners with something like the Ping fitting chart to get them started with equipment that is close to fitting. Doing a detailed fitting with a beginner just doesn't make sense to me. When you start hitting the center of the face consistently and groove a repeatable swing a full fitting is so much more powerful than if you would put a beginner through one.

 

Fitting a tour pro is “easy”?!

 

I don’t agree, because of the margins. 70.82 makes you the best player in the world and 72.16 makes you lose your job.

 

Fitting anyone well is hard. As a player gets better their swing becomes more repeatable but their margin for error gets tiny. Good/great players want way more from their clubs than something they can get airborne and like to look at. They need a ton of tools and can only bag 14 clubs.

 

Their swing repeats but it’s not iron Byron. They still have small variations except every single shot counts a whole whole lot, and it’s a bad fitting if you leave 2% of their driver distance on the table (about 4.8 yards a round, 18 yards a tournament, is massive).

 

I couldn’t disagree more with your post.

 

I've fit quite a few Tour Pros and winners of both the US Am and the US Sr. Am. Fitting them, for the most part, is extremely easy. Getting them to put a new club in the bag is a different can of worms.

 

I don't think that 4 yards per round is massive with a driver and to be honest with you most of the elite elite players that I have fit over the years don't have a driver that is 100% optimized in their bag. A guy like Jordan Spieth is a perfect example. He knows the TS2 is longer and is better for him but that thing sat in his trunk for a couple months before he put it in his bag. Tour pros for the most part aren't chasing a couple yards and would rather have an old favorite in their bag than something that will go 4 yards longer per round.

 

Now if you're talking about fitting a tour pro and making a noticeable difference in numbers that is a tough task because they've already been through so many fittings that you're trying to find something that multiple other fitters missed.

 

Usually when you see someone credit their equipment for a win it isn't "my club tech tweaked my driver to go 1.3 yards longer" or "we bumped my irons an eighth degree flat" it's almost always a putter change. Occasionally you'll see a driver change but 90+% of the time it's a stroke or putter change.

 

Ten yards of driving distance is worth about .2 strokes per hole.

 

Obviously I mean fitting them to make a positive change is hard. Nobody would post "yeah, fitting them is really hard, especially if you want them to stay exactly the same".

 

We are just now starting to observe how important the tiny edges are in golf mechanics, strategy and equipment. Most of the athletes who play the sport (like in most sports) have no idea what does or does not contribute to their winning or losing. While this is something a lot of people recoil from, it is absolutely true. Most NBA players have no idea what net offensive rating or true shooting percentage is but its still almost a 1:1 predictor of what team will win the finals. Baseball players in 1980 had no idea what Moneyball metrics were but they were at work, because they underlie the game.

 

So, yes, fitting a professional such that the professional does not improve is easy. I agree with that. Fitting a professional to pick up a meaningful statistical edge (which 4 yards a round is right on the edge of) really matters.

 

They credit the putter because its obvious. But as Marcus Aurelius said, the secret to all success is in optimization and organization of the non-obvious. Its almost certain that putter didn't win them the tournament, the aggregation of a tiny small advantages did.

[delmer]

 

 

Ten yards of driving distance is worth about .2 strokes per hole.

 

Obviously I mean fitting them to make a positive change is hard. Nobody would post "yeah, fitting them is really hard, especially if you want them to stay exactly the same".

 

We are just now starting to observe how important the tiny edges are in golf mechanics, strategy and equipment. Most of the athletes who play the sport (like in most sports) have no idea what does or does not contribute to their winning or losing. While this is something a lot of people recoil from, it is absolutely true. Most NBA players have no idea what net offensive rating or true shooting percentage is but its still almost a 1:1 predictor of what team will win the finals. Baseball players in 1980 had no idea what Moneyball metrics were but they were at work, because they underlie the game.

 

So, yes, fitting a professional such that the professional does not improve is easy. I agree with that. Fitting a professional to pick up a meaningful statistical edge (which 4 yards a round is right on the edge of) really matters.

 

They credit the putter because its obvious. But as Marcus Aurelius said, the secret to all success is in optimization and organization of the non-obvious. Its almost certain that putter didn't win them the tournament, the aggregation of a tiny small advantages did.

 

In your mind pros are searching for every little inch out of their clubs but it just isn't the case. The reason I said fitting an elite player is easy is because almost all the time they just want their new clubs to feel and perform like their old ones.

 

I'll give you a few examples that show a little of the mindset of golfers and I can give you a ton of them. If players are that worried about .2 yards off the tee why would Stenson still play a 3 wood that is 10 years old? I guarantee I could find him a 3 wood that goes .2 yards further but he's comfortable with it and being comfortable with a club trumps a couple yards.

 

Tiger is a good example of fighting new specs. He finally started hitting a longer driver but if he were so worried about optimizing everything why would he keep playing irons that are based on 40 year old specs? Because he's comfortable with them.

 

Why does it take so long for Spieth to change anything in his bag? He knows the TS2 will give him optimal numbers but he struggles to put it in his bag because he doesn't care about an extra yard or two.

 

I think a lot of people see that someone has a strokes gained average of 1.057294856261542885948272 and they assume every pro cares about optimizing their clubs to gain .2 yards off the tee but it just isn't the case for probably 95% of them.

 

Now if you are talking about Bryson you probably hit the nail on the head but he is an outlier.

[PJDog]

Bottom line is fitting enhances only good repeatable swings...and regardless of all the hype and propaganda does not correct swing flaws and resulting ball flight issues.

[pinestreetgolf]

Ten yards of driving distance is worth about .2 strokes per hole.

 

Obviously I mean fitting them to make a positive change is hard. Nobody would post "yeah, fitting them is really hard, especially if you want them to stay exactly the same".

 

We are just now starting to observe how important the tiny edges are in golf mechanics, strategy and equipment. Most of the athletes who play the sport (like in most sports) have no idea what does or does not contribute to their winning or losing. While this is something a lot of people recoil from, it is absolutely true. Most NBA players have no idea what net offensive rating or true shooting percentage is but its still almost a 1:1 predictor of what team will win the finals. Baseball players in 1980 had no idea what Moneyball metrics were but they were at work, because they underlie the game.

 

So, yes, fitting a professional such that the professional does not improve is easy. I agree with that. Fitting a professional to pick up a meaningful statistical edge (which 4 yards a round is right on the edge of) really matters.

 

They credit the putter because its obvious. But as Marcus Aurelius said, the secret to all success is in optimization and organization of the non-obvious. Its almost certain that putter didn't win them the tournament, the aggregation of a tiny small advantages did.

 

In your mind pros are searching for every little inch out of their clubs but it just isn't the case. The reason I said fitting an elite player is easy is because almost all the time they just want their new clubs to feel and perform like their old ones.

 

I'll give you a few examples that show a little of the mindset of golfers and I can give you a ton of them. If players are that worried about .2 yards off the tee why would Stenson still play a 3 wood that is 10 years old? I guarantee I could find him a 3 wood that goes .2 yards further but he's comfortable with it and being comfortable with a club trumps a couple yards.

 

Tiger is a good example of fighting new specs. He finally started hitting a longer driver but if he were so worried about optimizing everything why would he keep playing irons that are based on 40 year old specs? Because he's comfortable with them.

 

Why does it take so long for Spieth to change anything in his bag? He knows the TS2 will give him optimal numbers but he struggles to put it in his bag because he doesn't care about an extra yard or two.

 

I think a lot of people see that someone has a strokes gained average of 1.057294856261542885948272 and they assume every pro cares about optimizing their clubs to gain .2 yards off the tee but it just isn't the case for probably 95% of them.

 

Now if you are talking about Bryson you probably hit the nail on the head but he is an outlier.

 

Why did they come to you for a fitting if they wanted to maintain the feel of their current clubs?

 

Curious, sorry if that question comes off jerk-ish.

[delmer]

Ten yards of driving distance is worth about .2 strokes per hole.

 

Obviously I mean fitting them to make a positive change is hard. Nobody would post "yeah, fitting them is really hard, especially if you want them to stay exactly the same".

 

We are just now starting to observe how important the tiny edges are in golf mechanics, strategy and equipment. Most of the athletes who play the sport (like in most sports) have no idea what does or does not contribute to their winning or losing. While this is something a lot of people recoil from, it is absolutely true. Most NBA players have no idea what net offensive rating or true shooting percentage is but its still almost a 1:1 predictor of what team will win the finals. Baseball players in 1980 had no idea what Moneyball metrics were but they were at work, because they underlie the game.

 

So, yes, fitting a professional such that the professional does not improve is easy. I agree with that. Fitting a professional to pick up a meaningful statistical edge (which 4 yards a round is right on the edge of) really matters.

 

They credit the putter because its obvious. But as Marcus Aurelius said, the secret to all success is in optimization and organization of the non-obvious. Its almost certain that putter didn't win them the tournament, the aggregation of a tiny small advantages did.

 

In your mind pros are searching for every little inch out of their clubs but it just isn't the case. The reason I said fitting an elite player is easy is because almost all the time they just want their new clubs to feel and perform like their old ones.

 

I'll give you a few examples that show a little of the mindset of golfers and I can give you a ton of them. If players are that worried about .2 yards off the tee why would Stenson still play a 3 wood that is 10 years old? I guarantee I could find him a 3 wood that goes .2 yards further but he's comfortable with it and being comfortable with a club trumps a couple yards.

 

Tiger is a good example of fighting new specs. He finally started hitting a longer driver but if he were so worried about optimizing everything why would he keep playing irons that are based on 40 year old specs? Because he's comfortable with them.

 

Why does it take so long for Spieth to change anything in his bag? He knows the TS2 will give him optimal numbers but he struggles to put it in his bag because he doesn't care about an extra yard or two.

 

I think a lot of people see that someone has a strokes gained average of 1.057294856261542885948272 and they assume every pro cares about optimizing their clubs to gain .2 yards off the tee but it just isn't the case for probably 95% of them.

 

Now if you are talking about Bryson you probably hit the nail on the head but he is an outlier.

 

Why did they come to you for a fitting if they wanted to maintain the feel of their current clubs?

 

Curious, sorry if that question comes off jerk-ish.

 

Some of it was around the groove change but obviously clubs wear out and unless you're as committed as Adam Scott is to sticking with the same set of irons year after year people change clubs.

[bluedot]

First of all, this is a false choice; it isn't an either/or situation in any sense. Good players do both, and bad players should be no different.

 

Secondly, the idea that the swings of higher handicap players are somehow wildly inconsistent is a fiction. Their contact and ball flight and results are wildly inconsistent compared to Tour pros, but their swings DO repeat. For players all the way across the spectrum, their swings "repeat" within a much tighter range that is usually understood. A guy with a reverse pivot does that on EVERY swing, not just sometimes. Same with a guy whose backswing is too flat, or who has an over-the-top move, or whatever. Those are matters for lessons to work out, and require a lot of diligent and intentional practice by the golfer.

 

In most cases, there is very little interaction between clubs that fit a golfer properly and the swing flaws that golfer has and repeats over and over. The correct lie angle is the correct lie angle, as is the length, as is the grip size, as is the shaft flex, and those basic fitting parameters don't change because the golfer fixed his reverse pivot or over-the-top move, or whatever. If anything, improperly fit clubs will inhibit progress from lessons; there is NO downside to having clubs that are fitted within basic parameters. It can be done relatively inexpensively, too, even compared to extensive lessons.

 

Fitting parameters DO change, of course; I'm 66 now, and went to R flex shafts based on fitting results back in 2014. But the lie angle of my irons has been EXACTLY the same since the first fitting I had nearly 25 years ago, despite MANY significant swing changes over the years since. The idea that fitted equipment won't be right anymore once you take lessons is a misunderstanding of the basic fitting process.

 

If a person had running shoes that didn't fit, but decided that they would wait until they became a better runner before getting the correct size shoes, we'd all know that they were nuts. If you tried to play shortstop with a catcher's mitt, but decided to wait until you were better before investing in an infielder's glove, that too would be nuts. Golf is no different.

 

Get lessons AND get properly fitted equipment. Practice a lot. Get more lessons. Practice a lot more.

[delmer]

First of all, this is a false choice; it isn't an either/or situation in any sense. Good players do both, and bad players should be no different.

 

Secondly, the idea that the swings of higher handicap players are somehow wildly inconsistent is a fiction. Their contact and ball flight and results are wildly inconsistent compared to Tour pros, but their swings DO repeat. For players all the way across the spectrum, their swings "repeat" within a much tighter range that is usually understood. A guy with a reverse pivot does that on EVERY swing, not just sometimes. Same with a guy whose backswing is too flat, or who has an over-the-top move, or whatever. Those are matters for lessons to work out, and require a lot of diligent and intentional practice by the golfer.

 

In most cases, there is very little interaction between clubs that fit a golfer properly and the swing flaws that golfer has and repeats over and over. The correct lie angle is the correct lie angle, as is the length, as is the grip size, as is the shaft flex, and those basic fitting parameters don't change because the golfer fixed his reverse pivot or over-the-top move, or whatever. If anything, improperly fit clubs will inhibit progress from lessons; there is NO downside to having clubs that are fitted within basic parameters. It can be done relatively inexpensively, too, even compared to extensive lessons.

 

Fitting parameters DO change, of course; I'm 66 now, and went to R flex shafts based on fitting results back in 2014. But the lie angle of my irons has been EXACTLY the same since the first fitting I had nearly 25 years ago, despite MANY significant swing changes over the years since. The idea that fitted equipment won't be right anymore once you take lessons is a misunderstanding of the basic fitting process.

 

If a person had running shoes that didn't fit, but decided that they would wait until they became a better runner before getting the correct size shoes, we'd all know that they were nuts. If you tried to play shortstop with a catcher's mitt, but decided to wait until you were better before investing in an infielder's glove, that too would be nuts. Golf is no different.

 

Get lessons AND get properly fitted equipment. Practice a lot. Get more lessons. Practice a lot more.

 

I'm not sure that anyone has ever tried to make the argument that high handicappers aren't inconsistent. I was a PGA Professional and my main concentration was on teaching and fitting. My number one objective was to get a higher handicap player to make a more consistent move because the number one reason they are a high handicap is because they couldn't get the club to impact consistently. I also know a heck of a lot of players with ugly swings that are low handicaps because their ugly swing consistently gets the club back to the ball squarely.

 

The more I think about this the more I feel that the level of "fitting" should be defined.

 

If we are talking about a full bag intense fitting first or lessons first I say lesson first because your numbers will most likely change after a series of lesson.

 

If I were going to recommend something I would say book a lesson and at the beginning of the first lesson ask the teacher to take a look at your clubs and tell you if they are fit close enough for you to be able to improve. I would also let him/her know that your intentions are to get a full fitting after a series of lessons and progress is made.

[CaddiesFault]

if you are taking multiple lessons then do it sometime in the middle, when your pro suggests it. That way you can get the best of both sides.

[bluedot]

First of all, this is a false choice; it isn't an either/or situation in any sense. Good players do both, and bad players should be no different.

 

Secondly, the idea that the swings of higher handicap players are somehow wildly inconsistent is a fiction. Their contact and ball flight and results are wildly inconsistent compared to Tour pros, but their swings DO repeat. For players all the way across the spectrum, their swings "repeat" within a much tighter range that is usually understood. A guy with a reverse pivot does that on EVERY swing, not just sometimes. Same with a guy whose backswing is too flat, or who has an over-the-top move, or whatever. Those are matters for lessons to work out, and require a lot of diligent and intentional practice by the golfer.

 

In most cases, there is very little interaction between clubs that fit a golfer properly and the swing flaws that golfer has and repeats over and over. The correct lie angle is the correct lie angle, as is the length, as is the grip size, as is the shaft flex, and those basic fitting parameters don't change because the golfer fixed his reverse pivot or over-the-top move, or whatever. If anything, improperly fit clubs will inhibit progress from lessons; there is NO downside to having clubs that are fitted within basic parameters. It can be done relatively inexpensively, too, even compared to extensive lessons.

 

Fitting parameters DO change, of course; I'm 66 now, and went to R flex shafts based on fitting results back in 2014. But the lie angle of my irons has been EXACTLY the same since the first fitting I had nearly 25 years ago, despite MANY significant swing changes over the years since. The idea that fitted equipment won't be right anymore once you take lessons is a misunderstanding of the basic fitting process.

 

If a person had running shoes that didn't fit, but decided that they would wait until they became a better runner before getting the correct size shoes, we'd all know that they were nuts. If you tried to play shortstop with a catcher's mitt, but decided to wait until you were better before investing in an infielder's glove, that too would be nuts. Golf is no different.

 

Get lessons AND get properly fitted equipment. Practice a lot. Get more lessons. Practice a lot more.

 

I'm not sure that anyone has ever tried to make the argument that high handicappers aren't inconsistent. I was a PGA Professional and my main concentration was on teaching and fitting. My number one objective was to get a higher handicap player to make a more consistent move because the number one reason they are a high handicap is because they couldn't get the club to impact consistently. I also know a heck of a lot of players with ugly swings that are low handicaps because their ugly swing consistently gets the club back to the ball squarely.

 

The more I think about this the more I feel that the level of "fitting" should be defined.

 

If we are talking about a full bag intense fitting first or lessons first I say lesson first because your numbers will most likely change after a series of lesson.

 

If I were going to recommend something I would say book a lesson and at the beginning of the first lesson ask the teacher to take a look at your clubs and tell you if they are fit close enough for you to be able to improve. I would also let him/her know that your intentions are to get a full fitting after a series of lessons and progress is made.

 

Let me try again.

 

The contact and ball flight of higher handicappers are wildly inconsistent, which I said in the first post. But the reasons that their contact and ball flight are wildly inconsistent tend to repeat over and over and over, just like a good swing does for a better player. When you worked with higher handicap players and diagnosed what was causing their inconsistency of contact and ball flight, and then devised a way to work on that, you were working with their consistent flaw. If it was a reverse pivot, then they did it most, if not all, of the time. If it was over the top, then they did it most, if not all, of the time If it was a sway, same thing. Flaws, like good swings, tend to repeat pretty consistently; the same player isn't likely to have ALL of the possible swing flaws occurring in random order.

 

But for the most part, none of that has anything to do with the basic parameters of club fitting. If a player needs clubs that are longer or shorter, or if they need a more or less upright lie angle, for instance, chances are that those things are ADDING to the problems they already have, at least a little bit, and if they can correct the things that you are working on with the them, they'll still be held back by clubs that are the wrong length or the wrong lie. How much ANY player will be held back by ill-fitting clubs depends on the player and how bad the fit is.

 

In other words, if a good player is held back to some degree by improperly fitted clubs, then so is a higher handicap player. That the higher handicap player has got other, far more serious problems in hitting a golf ball solidly and consistently is irrelevant to their equipment issues; viewing lessons and proper equipment as an "either/or" choice is just a fiction.

[delmer]

First of all, this is a false choice; it isn't an either/or situation in any sense. Good players do both, and bad players should be no different.

 

Secondly, the idea that the swings of higher handicap players are somehow wildly inconsistent is a fiction. Their contact and ball flight and results are wildly inconsistent compared to Tour pros, but their swings DO repeat. For players all the way across the spectrum, their swings "repeat" within a much tighter range that is usually understood. A guy with a reverse pivot does that on EVERY swing, not just sometimes. Same with a guy whose backswing is too flat, or who has an over-the-top move, or whatever. Those are matters for lessons to work out, and require a lot of diligent and intentional practice by the golfer.

 

In most cases, there is very little interaction between clubs that fit a golfer properly and the swing flaws that golfer has and repeats over and over. The correct lie angle is the correct lie angle, as is the length, as is the grip size, as is the shaft flex, and those basic fitting parameters don't change because the golfer fixed his reverse pivot or over-the-top move, or whatever. If anything, improperly fit clubs will inhibit progress from lessons; there is NO downside to having clubs that are fitted within basic parameters. It can be done relatively inexpensively, too, even compared to extensive lessons.

 

Fitting parameters DO change, of course; I'm 66 now, and went to R flex shafts based on fitting results back in 2014. But the lie angle of my irons has been EXACTLY the same since the first fitting I had nearly 25 years ago, despite MANY significant swing changes over the years since. The idea that fitted equipment won't be right anymore once you take lessons is a misunderstanding of the basic fitting process.

 

If a person had running shoes that didn't fit, but decided that they would wait until they became a better runner before getting the correct size shoes, we'd all know that they were nuts. If you tried to play shortstop with a catcher's mitt, but decided to wait until you were better before investing in an infielder's glove, that too would be nuts. Golf is no different.

 

Get lessons AND get properly fitted equipment. Practice a lot. Get more lessons. Practice a lot more.

 

I'm not sure that anyone has ever tried to make the argument that high handicappers aren't inconsistent. I was a PGA Professional and my main concentration was on teaching and fitting. My number one objective was to get a higher handicap player to make a more consistent move because the number one reason they are a high handicap is because they couldn't get the club to impact consistently. I also know a heck of a lot of players with ugly swings that are low handicaps because their ugly swing consistently gets the club back to the ball squarely.

 

The more I think about this the more I feel that the level of "fitting" should be defined.

 

If we are talking about a full bag intense fitting first or lessons first I say lesson first because your numbers will most likely change after a series of lesson.

 

If I were going to recommend something I would say book a lesson and at the beginning of the first lesson ask the teacher to take a look at your clubs and tell you if they are fit close enough for you to be able to improve. I would also let him/her know that your intentions are to get a full fitting after a series of lessons and progress is made.

 

Let me try again.

 

The contact and ball flight of higher handicappers are wildly inconsistent, which I said in the first post. But the reasons that their contact and ball flight are wildly inconsistent tend to repeat over and over and over, just like a good swing does for a better player. When you worked with higher handicap players and diagnosed what was causing their inconsistency of contact and ball flight, and then devised a way to work on that, you were working with their consistent flaw. If it was a reverse pivot, then they did it most, if not all, of the time. If it was over the top, then they did it most, if not all, of the time If it was a sway, same thing. Flaws, like good swings, tend to repeat pretty consistently; the same player isn't likely to have ALL of the possible swing flaws occurring in random order.

 

But for the most part, none of that has anything to do with the basic parameters of club fitting. If a player needs clubs that are longer or shorter, or if they need a more or less upright lie angle, for instance, chances are that those things are ADDING to the problems they already have, at least a little bit, and if they can correct the things that you are working on with the them, they'll still be held back by clubs that are the wrong length or the wrong lie. How much ANY player will be held back by ill-fitting clubs depends on the player and how bad the fit is.

 

In other words, if a good player is held back to some degree by improperly fitted clubs, then so is a higher handicap player. That the higher handicap player has got other, far more serious problems in hitting a golf ball solidly and consistently is irrelevant to their equipment issues; viewing lessons and proper equipment as an "either/or" choice is just a fiction.

 

That goes against my experience from years and years of teaching.

 

If I had a high handicapper who mishit it the same way every time I could help them in a very short amount of time but 99% of the time that is not the case.

 

Take an 18 handicapper and put an impact label on his driver or better yet go look at a used set of game improvement irons. You won't see a consistent pattern.

[wkuo3]

Just my personal opinion, I'd have the golf lesson first.

 

Both the lessons and the fitting should be considered if you want to play your best, but, looking from the point of receiving the maximum benefit from either one, might be an individual case by case scenario.

[Mookie91]

I haven't had the best experience with lessons and don't think all teachers are worthwhile. Depending on your skill level, years playing and expectations it may make sense to get fit first.

[SpeedyPro]

1. Get fit for your height and arm length: lie, length of your clubs

2. Get lesson

3. Get fit for your swing speed: loft, shaft frequency, kick point, etc

[pinestreetgolf]

If I had a high handicapper who mishit it the same way every time I could help them in a very short amount of time but 99% of the time that is not the case.

 

Take an 18 handicapper and put an impact label on his driver or better yet go look at a used set of game improvement irons. You won't see a consistent pattern.

 

He isn't saying they mishit it the same way every time, he's saying they make the same move every time.

 

An over the top move can slice the hell out of the ball or pull it into oblivion depending on where the face is to the path. In less than an eighth of a second what the left wrist does while the poor player is coming over the top could send the ball 50 yards right or left. If you stood behind them and watched them hit 100 balls, they'd go everywhere, but if you put the player on slow-motion video the basic problem is the same - the clubhead goes way in on the backswing and way out on the downswing. Typically players make the same mistake every time, but as they come into impact they realize they are way off plane and compensate in crazy ways.

 

What you're saying is that in your experience as a doctor sometimes people get fevers and sometimes people throw up. They both have the flu. Its just expressed in different ways.

 

Most humans who have played a decent amount golf repeat the same motion. They are not reverse pivoting swing 1, but then make a perfect backswing and go over the top swing 2, and then don't do either of those things and hang back swing 3. They always reverse pivot - its just sometimes they get forward and snap it, and sometimes they hang back and block it. Both those misses are possible with a reverse pivot. Its the same underlying cause.

[ezpz]

Depends on what you're willing to spend. A fitting also doesn't have to be you trying to hit every shaft or head imaginable, when you just start out and are willing to get new clubs you might as well get them fit to your own length/speed. At most big box stores it won't increase the cost anyway. If you would go to a specialized fitter like club champion you would probably not benefit as much as it would cost.

 

Many people argue "what if I change my swing" well you can just get the clubs bent. There's some who would argue improving in lessons would dramaticaly increase their swing speed, and it could but it would be hard work. Personaly I never seen someone who would go from an R to an X over time outside of juniors growing into their (late) twenties.

 

If you aren't looking to spend a ton of money on clubs and want to get them 2nd hand that would be fine but if you are going to pay the full price you might as well make sure you get atleast a static fitting so you aren't playing clubs that are over/underlength or heavy/light.

[PJDog]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

[Jacked_Loft]

If you're just starting out, and want to stay in the game:

 

1: Get fit for a solid set of irons according to Static values and with the shaft weights which will work for your personal dynamic strength.

2. Take some Lessons.

3. Add a hybrid and fairway wood.

4. Take more Lessons

5. Driver and set round out.

 

Without first having a least a set of fitted irons which will work for you, you aren't going to have much success in your lessons.

 

To me it's egg, chicken, egg, chicken and egg.

[GSDriver]

As my fitter said (he's worked with numerous PGA and a few LPGA players you'd recognize), "I can fit clubs to a bad swing, but would prefer to fix swing then fit clubs to a decent swing"...makes sense to me.

[pinestreetgolf]

As my fitter said (he's worked with numerous PGA and a few LPGA players you'd recognize), "I can fit clubs to a bad swing, but would prefer to fix swing then fit clubs to a decent swing"...makes sense to me.

 

The problem is that fixing a swing is super difficult and lessons are

No guarantee it will help.

 

If you know you can fix your swing of course do it before you get fitted. But that isn’t how golf works.

[bluedot]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

[pinestreetgolf]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited for them unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

Good post.

 

My dad is 75 or so. He got fitted into super-light graphite shafts that are "A" flex DVS shafts (very high-launching). He isn't very good (started late in life) but I bet he'd be a whole lot worse with my 130 gram Bridgestones.

 

All players have repeating swings. Not all players have repeating swings that result in a high percentage of good impact. A fitting helps turn a repeating swing into good impact a higher percentage of the time.

[PJDog]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited for them unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

Good post.

 

My dad is 75 or so. He got fitted into super-light graphite shafts that are "A" flex DVS shafts (very high-launching). He isn't very good (started late in life) but I bet he'd be a whole lot worse with my 130 gram Bridgestones.

 

All players have repeating swings. Not all players have repeating swings that result in a high percentage of good impact. A fitting helps turn a repeating swing into good impact a higher percentage of the time.

 

Sorry but this is way off base. A 75 yr old who “ isn’t very good” doesn’t need a fitting to go to lightweight more flexible shafts...just logic. “Good impact” ??? There is no such thing. The only impact that is good is one where the clubface and path or properly applied to the target on the correct angles. It’s the only thing the golf ball knows. There is no “good impact “ when those factors are flawed. It’s math. There are no clubs or shafts that make that happen.

 

[PJDog]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

The point was..A good stick doesn’t make the cue ball spin around the table like it’s on a string. A really good billiards player can make that happen with any stick. But there is no stick without technique that will work. Just like a scratch golfer can shoot even par with any clubs. I’ve seen professional golfers puriing any club you hand them. Stiff, regular, X or ladies. You can’t fix a swing with the right equipment despite the advertising the golf industry has brainwashed the public with.

[bluedot]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

The point was..A good stick doesn’t make the cue ball spin around the table like it’s on a string. A really good billiards player can make that happen with any stick. But there is no stick without technique that will work. Just like a scratch golfer can shoot even par with any clubs. I’ve seen professional golfers puriing any club you hand them. Stiff, regular, X or ladies. You can’t fix a swing with the right equipment despite the advertising the golf industry has brainwashed the public with.

 

You are knocking down a straw man, over and over. NOBODY has said that the purpose of fitting is to "fix a swing"; nobody. Not club fitters, not anybody. And NOBODY has said that professional golfers can't hit any club you hand them.

 

The key point, of course, is that professional golfers do NOT use any club you hand them. They are, for the most part, playing carefully fitted equipment to very exact specs. The reason, of course, is that they know to a certainty (especially now in the era of Trackman and adjustable clubs) that properly fitted equipment improves their performance. There is just no way around that.

 

So what you are saying is that I don't need as much help as they do to play my best golf, when in fact I need more; MUCH more! I absolutely can't pure any club you hand me, so why in the world would I try to play with any club that comes my way?

 

You don't believe in fitting; I get that. But saying that clubs with correct lie angles, correct length, correct shaft flex, and correct grip size, not to mention proper gapping don't make any difference to lesser players is a massive logical inconsistency that you just can't get around.

[PJDog]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

The point was..A good stick doesn’t make the cue ball spin around the table like it’s on a string. A really good billiards player can make that happen with any stick. But there is no stick without technique that will work. Just like a scratch golfer can shoot even par with any clubs. I’ve seen professional golfers puriing any club you hand them. Stiff, regular, X or ladies. You can’t fix a swing with the right equipment despite the advertising the golf industry has brainwashed the public with.

 

You are knocking down a straw man, over and over. NOBODY has said that the purpose of fitting is to "fix a swing"; nobody. Not club fitters, not anybody. And NOBODY has said that professional golfers can't hit any club you hand them.

 

The key point, of course, is that professional golfers do NOT use any club you hand them. They are, for the most part, playing carefully fitted equipment to very exact specs. The reason, of course, is that they know to a certainty (especially now in the era of Trackman and adjustable clubs) that properly fitted equipment improves their performance. There is just no way around that.

 

So what you are saying is that I don't need as much help as they do to play my best golf, when in fact I need more; MUCH more! I absolutely can't pure any club you hand me, so why in the world would I try to play with any club that comes my way?

 

You don't believe in fitting; I get that. But saying that clubs with correct lie angles, correct length, correct shaft flex, and correct grip size, not to mention proper gapping don't make any difference to lesser players is a massive logical inconsistency that you just can't get around.

 

You’re missing my point. I agree that the static fitting parameters you’re mentioning are incredibly important and helpful to anyone on any level. And all those things can be done on the Ping website by anyone with a tape measure.

What the golf public has been brainwashed into believing is that if they only had the right equipment they would play better. A new adjustable head with the right shaft. Or, the right kickpoint, or weight, or flex. It’s nonsense.

If you disagree I’d ask you to describe how the “ correct “ shaft or club head can change swing path , the clubface in relation to that path,or angle of attack ?

[bluedot]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited for them unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

Good post.

 

My dad is 75 or so. He got fitted into super-light graphite shafts that are "A" flex DVS shafts (very high-launching). He isn't very good (started late in life) but I bet he'd be a whole lot worse with my 130 gram Bridgestones.

 

All players have repeating swings. Not all players have repeating swings that result in a high percentage of good impact. A fitting helps turn a repeating swing into good impact a higher percentage of the time.

 

Sorry but this is way off base. A 75 yr old who “ isn’t very good” doesn’t need a fitting to go to lightweight more flexible shafts...just logic. “Good impact” ??? There is no such thing. The only impact that is good is one where the clubface and path or properly applied to the target on the correct angles. It’s the only thing the golf ball knows. There is no “good impact “ when those factors are flawed. It’s math. There are no clubs or shafts that make that happen.

 

You are right that most of us can figure out on our own that we could use lighter, more flexible shafts as we age. But there are a LOT of choices for that, and they have different characteristics beyond just "lighter" and "more flexible", which is where fitting comes in. "Lighter" than steel could mean anything from the 60 gram range to around 100 grams; where in that range would the best results come? More to the point, if I know that I need to spend the money to make a change TO PLAY BETTER GOLF, why wouldn't I want to know exactly which lighter graphite shaft would do that?

 

You are also absolutely, 100% correct that only when the clubface and path are properly applied to the ball does the ball go straight, and that is another powerful argument that you've just made for getting fitted to a proper lie angle. I know that you understand that a club that is too upright will usually have have the toe in the air, which effectively closes the club and makes the ball go left because it is significantly harder to square the club even if the path is perfect. Likewise, a club that is too flat will raise the heel and cause the face to be open and the ball to go right. The best estimates are that for each degree that an iron is too upright or too flat, the ball will end up 4 yards off the intended target line. Please don't take my word for this; do the research yourself.

 

Now go back to the pro that you just handed a club that is too flat or too upright, or that has a shaft that is too light or too flexible. In a very few shots, the pro is going to adjust for that, and will hit good shots. Not his best, and not even close to good enough to compete at the pro level, but good by any objective standard. But now had ME a club that is too flat, or too heavy, or with a shaft that too stiff, and I'll hit it poorly (and probably to the right!) much more often because I'm just not that talented. You might be that talented; I'm not. I need all the help I can get.

[bluedot]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

The point was..A good stick doesn’t make the cue ball spin around the table like it’s on a string. A really good billiards player can make that happen with any stick. But there is no stick without technique that will work. Just like a scratch golfer can shoot even par with any clubs. I’ve seen professional golfers puriing any club you hand them. Stiff, regular, X or ladies. You can’t fix a swing with the right equipment despite the advertising the golf industry has brainwashed the public with.

 

You are knocking down a straw man, over and over. NOBODY has said that the purpose of fitting is to "fix a swing"; nobody. Not club fitters, not anybody. And NOBODY has said that professional golfers can't hit any club you hand them.

 

The key point, of course, is that professional golfers do NOT use any club you hand them. They are, for the most part, playing carefully fitted equipment to very exact specs. The reason, of course, is that they know to a certainty (especially now in the era of Trackman and adjustable clubs) that properly fitted equipment improves their performance. There is just no way around that.

 

So what you are saying is that I don't need as much help as they do to play my best golf, when in fact I need more; MUCH more! I absolutely can't pure any club you hand me, so why in the world would I try to play with any club that comes my way?

 

You don't believe in fitting; I get that. But saying that clubs with correct lie angles, correct length, correct shaft flex, and correct grip size, not to mention proper gapping don't make any difference to lesser players is a massive logical inconsistency that you just can't get around.

 

You’re missing my point. I agree that the static fitting parameters you’re mentioning are incredibly important and helpful to anyone on any level. And all those things can be done on the Ping website by anyone with a tape measure.

What the golf public has been brainwashed into believing is that if they only had the right equipment they would play better. A new adjustable head with the right shaft. Or, the right kickpoint, or weight, or flex. It’s nonsense.

If you disagree I’d ask you to describe how the “ correct “ shaft or club head can change swing path , the clubface in relation to that path,or angle of attack ?

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the basic parameters on the Ping site are "incredibly important and helpful to anyone on any level" and then say that it is brainwashing to believe that with the right equipment they will play better. Pick one...

 

I've posted this already, but there is a mountain of data about the effect of irons that are too upright or too flat on face angle and ball flight for a particular golfer. I can make an otherwise perfect swing, with "good impact", and if my club is too flat, all too often the ball is going to go left if I'm not good enough to correct the bad face angle created by the bad lie angle. The same thing is true of a shaft that is too flexible or too stiff for a particular swing unless the player is good enough to adjust.

 

Please don't take my word for any of this; there is plenty of data-driven info out there about the effects of improper equipment. You don't have to like it, and you certainly don't have to make use of it, but it isn't opinion stuff; it's just facts.

[PJDog]

It would be the equivalent of someone trying to become an accomplished billiard player who wanted to be able to compete at 9 ball. Then figuring that he could just buy an expensive new stick.

 

Not really,

 

It would be like a person who wanted to become an accomplished billiard player trying to use a stick that had too big or too little a diameter for their hand size, or in some way was unsuited for them unsuited to them, including the length of the stick. In that case, there would be limitations imposed on the player's performance by the poorly fitted stick regardless of how hard they work at perfecting their stroke. And the COST of the stick has nothing to do with it.

 

And the same thing is true in most sports, really, although I don't think shooting pool, of which I have done WAY too much in my life, is a very good analogy with a more dynamic motion like a golf swing, not to mention interaction with the ground.. Baseball bats can be too light or too heavy, too long or too short, the handle too thick or too thin. Baseball gloves not only come is a wide variety of price ranges, but MUCH more importantly in a variety of sizes and designs specific to positions. Running shoes provide different levels of cushioning or stability or weight. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

I don't think you'll ever see anybody play shortstop in the Tuesday night softball beer league using a catcher's mitt because they aren't very good and don't really need a "fitted" glove. Jeter used an infielder's glove because HE needed help; I'd be a big dope if I thought I could play shortstop, even in the beer league, and need LESS help than Jeter did, so I could just use my kid's catcher's mitt.

 

So why would golf be any different? (Hint: IT ISN'T!!!)

 

Good post.

 

My dad is 75 or so. He got fitted into super-light graphite shafts that are "A" flex DVS shafts (very high-launching). He isn't very good (started late in life) but I bet he'd be a whole lot worse with my 130 gram Bridgestones.

 

All players have repeating swings. Not all players have repeating swings that result in a high percentage of good impact. A fitting helps turn a repeating swing into good impact a higher percentage of the time.

 

Sorry but this is way off base. A 75 yr old who “ isn’t very good” doesn’t need a fitting to go to lightweight more flexible shafts...just logic. “Good impact” ??? There is no such thing. The only impact that is good is one where the clubface and path or properly applied to the target on the correct angles. It’s the only thing the golf ball knows. There is no “good impact “ when those factors are flawed. It’s math. There are no clubs or shafts that make that happen.

 

You are right that most of us can figure out on our own that we could use lighter, more flexible shafts as we age. But there are a LOT of choices for that, and they have different characteristics beyond just "lighter" and "more flexible", which is where fitting comes in. "Lighter" than steel could mean anything from the 60 gram range to around 100 grams; where in that range would the best results come? More to the point, if I know that I need to spend the money to make a change TO PLAY BETTER GOLF, why wouldn't I want to know exactly which lighter graphite shaft would do that?

 

You are also absolutely, 100% correct that only when the clubface and path are properly applied to the ball does the ball go straight, and that is another powerful argument that you've just made for getting fitted to a proper lie angle. I know that you understand that a club that is too upright will usually have have the toe in the air, which effectively closes the club and makes the ball go left because it is significantly harder to square the club even if the path is perfect. Likewise, a club that is too flat will raise the heel and cause the face to be open and the ball to go right. The best estimates are that for each degree that an iron is too upright or too flat, the ball will end up 4 yards off the intended target line. Please don't take my word for this; do the research yourself.

 

Now go back to the pro that you just handed a club that is too flat or too upright, or that has a shaft that is too light or too flexible. In a very few shots, the pro is going to adjust for that, and will hit good shots. Not his best, and not even close to good enough to compete at the pro level, but good by any objective standard. But now had ME a club that is too flat, or too heavy, or with a shaft that too stiff, and I'll hit it poorly (and probably to the right!) much more often because I'm just not that talented. You might be that talented; I'm not. I need all the help I can get.

 

Okay, so you can’t answer my question yet you continue to pontificate.

I’m realizing that you’re making this up as you go along.

I wish all the best in your quest to play better golf ...good luck