Should dynamic lie angle always be zero?

[juicegoose]

Recently I swapped irons and was fit per foresight. the fitter said i needed to go 2 upright as per the data. Fast forward and my slight little draw to straight flight has turned into a pull or big overdraw.

Technically my dynamic lie angle is correct. Is my ball flight just a result of my years of compensating for clubs that had the toe digging and me developing a swing to straighten out the flight or is there truth to the fact that to within reason you wanna fit lie angle to ball flight. In my case go back to either 1 up or standard?

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, juicegoose said:

Recently I swapped irons and was fit per foresight. the fitter said i needed to go 2 upright as per the data.

 

1 hour ago, juicegoose said:

 

Fast forward and my slight little draw to straight flight has turned into a pull or big overdraw.

Technically my dynamic lie angle is correct. Is my ball flight just a result of my years of compensating for clubs that had the toe digging and me developing a swing to straighten out the flight or is there truth to the fact that to within reason you wanna fit lie angle to ball flight. In my case go back to either 1 up or standard?

 

Toe digging from lie angle being off 2* wouldn't have had any effect the ball flight unless you hit it fat - and then you'd have a lot more problems with the ball flight than just being off line a little.

 

2* change by itself wont due much more than change the ball flight about ~4-6 yards laterally.  If you're seeing more than that, the visual of the different lie angle is likely causing some other change to your set-up or alignment.  What was Foresight showing for any possible changes to the path or face-to-path numbers?

 

If the lie angle is "technically correct" based on the results of a lie board test, they really may not be correct.  Use the dry erase method to be sure.    If it was from foresight's readings, even those are subject to errors based on the accuracy of the dot placements on the club face and it couldn't hurt to double check considering how easy it is to do.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Krt22]

This is one of the problems with fitting lie angle. 0* is a nice goal, but you have to look at the ball flight before you arbitrarily try to zero it out. The 2* down is a byproduct of your swing (raising the handle too much through impact). I have the same issue and fight an over-draw, if I tried to zero it out by bending upright, I could very easily make the problem worse. If you are not having any ball flight or contact issues with the 2* toe down, I would leave it alone I work on zeroing out the dynamic lie via the swing, not the loft-lie machine

[juicegoose]

Thanks folks. So per the data(now this is trackman data not the foresight) 

8 iron swing(10 shot average)

 club path(.07 deg)

face angle (-1.3deg)

face to path(-1.9deg)

 

In looking at the data almost all of the trackman shots from 5 iron down have a tendency to a closed club face relative to path. with the path going from around 0 for 5 iron and gradually getting more inside as the club gets shorter. Thus increasing the face to path discrepency. 

4 iron and up i have a tendency to get slightly over the top. We all have our demons hahahah. 

 

If you all would like to see the trackman report from a gapping session i did a while back shoot me a pm with your email and i'll send it to ya. 

[juicegoose]

You know i happen to remember i have a previous trackman report from my old set of clubs saved and in looking at the overall data of both I think i kinda figured it out.

 

Looks like with my old clubs my path trended more out to in on all clubs but the face was still closed(relative to target line) but matched up better with my club path. Giving me a straighter flight. It's possible I was aiming( at that time) more right to account for the straight shot that was essentially a slight straight pull. 

 

Fast forward to a year later with new clubs and much much more practice and my path on my clubs is more in to out BUT the face still carries that same closed angle. So the face to path relationship is much larger hence the over draw. 

 

It doesn't look like the face has changed over the year only the path. So maybe what i need to work on is getting that club less closed and matching it up with my path better.

 

 

[Cwebb]

If you want to try to maintain the "0* lie angle", you could experiment with a little more open face at address.  Lots of good players and tour players, address with varying degrees of open behind the ball

[juicegoose]

Thanks cwebb. I think the fitter was correct in fitting me to 0 dynamic lie angle but in looking over the data just now it seems my problem isn't that the club is to upright it's that i've always had a closed club face. I've just corrected my swing to be more in to out over the year and now the face to path ratio is way off. I'm closed to my path whereas last year i was online or slightly open to path(like .3 deg average) but i was swinging out to in. 

[Billfitz]

A couple of degrees of lie angle isn't going to make that much difference. You can change your effective lie angle by more than that by moving your hand position at address closer or further from your body by only a few inches. I can't remember ever getting a new set of irons where I didn't have an adjustment period to figure out how to get the best results from them.