Lie and Droop

[SkyMonkey7]

I bought some 2nd hand G Series irons, and therefore couldn't be fitted for them.

My calculated PING dot is Green (2.25 upright), and they look fairly 'toe up' at rest behind the ball, especially on the longer irons.

But using the Sharpie line on a ball test, the printed line is more or less perpendicular to the groves.

 

Does the Ping dot club head lie angle account for predicted shaft droop during a full swing?

[AmateurAmateur]

No. 

[ChipNRun]

Shaft droop, or toe down, will vary from golfer to golfer. That's why you want to get a dynamic lie measurement - not static.

[Jc0]

Where your hands start and where they are at impact are two different things. You can't judge how the clubs perform at impact based on where they are at address.

[SkyMonkey7]

7 hours ago, Jc0 said:

Where your hands start and where they are at impact are two different things. You can't judge how the clubs perform at impact based on where they are at address.

At address the toe does look 'up', i.e. 'Static' lie.

But I am checking the 'Dynamic' lie using a Sharpie line drawn on a range ball, and seeing how the printed line from impacting the ball with a full swing lines up to the grooves.

The dynamic lie indicated by the line on the club face seems to say droop has more or less compensated for the raised toe.

Edited September 23 by SkyMonkey7

[Stuart_G]

55 minutes ago, SkyMonkey7 said:

The dynamic lie indicated by the line on the club face seems to say droop has more or less compensated for the raised toe.

 

No it doesn't say that at all.  The point @Jc0 was making is that there is a lot more that is different between setup and impact than just the shaft droop.    The vast majority of the "compensation" comes from a different body and hand position - so "compensation" is really the wrong word to use.   The setup/address position should never be used to judge the lie angle in the first place.

 

 

59 minutes ago, SkyMonkey7 said:

But I am checking the 'Dynamic' lie using a Sharpie line drawn on a range ball

 

It's better to use a dry erase marker instead of a sharpie - they are not permanent like the sharpies and much easier to clean up (both the ball and the face).

 

Edited September 23 by Stuart_G

[SkyMonkey7]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

No it doesn't say that at all.  The point @Jc0 was making is that there is a lot more that is different between setup and impact than just the shaft droop.    The vast majority of the "compensation" comes from a different body and hand position - so "compensation" is really the wrong word to use.   The setup/address position should never be used to judge the lie angle in the first place.

So, what is the best way to check myself (without a fitting) if the lie is generally correct for my irons.

I have seen the 'line on a ball' method described often on the WRX forum.

[Stuart_G]

5 hours ago, SkyMonkey7 said:

So, what is the best way to check myself (without a fitting) if the lie is generally correct for my irons.

I have seen the 'line on a ball' method described often on the WRX forum.

 

That is the best/easiest way.

 

If you need more details, you can find them here:

 

[Awainer1]

On 9/23/2023 at 8:42 AM, SkyMonkey7 said:

So, what is the best way to check myself (without a fitting) if the lie is generally correct for my irons.

I have seen the 'line on a ball' method described often on the WRX forum.

How did you calculate that you fit in green dot in the first place?  Wrist to floor?  

[Awainer1]

My experience is that dynamic club fitting doesn't work.  I know I will get yelled at and booed of the forum but its my experience.  The best way to get fitted is to measure your wrist to floor as a guideline and build your set off a slope using the same effective lie angle throughout.  

 

I know that I am 2 upright of most standard, 3 of mizuno.  I spend a lot of time making sure my clubs are correct using a loft lie gauge and measuring the grooves.  I arrived at my specs mostly through trial and error.  Sorry but a sharpie on a ball is not very precise and can change depending on swing adjustments.   I know I'm killing sacred cows here.

 

Ping specs and other oems assume for some reason that the long irons should play "effectively" flatter.  That didn't work AT ALL for me.   I'm not a paid club fitter I just obsess about my clubs and these are the conclusions I've arrived at through a lot of trial and error.

 

My suggestion would be to pick specs that you think work for you (looks like similar to me 2 upright),  try to dial in all your clubs to those specs, see if it works for you and if your not hitting it well try something else.  And asking your pro or a fitter to bend your clubs to 2 upright isn't good enough its taken me literally years with a gauge to figure out how to correctly measure my irons.  I know most won't do it cause its a lot more work but I'm just giving you another perspective.  Maybe the sharpie method is good enough for some but not all and for me isnt precise enough for what I'm looking for.  

 

 

Here's my specs.

 

club length lie 

w        35      66.5

w         35.5  66

w         35.5   66

9         36    65.5

8        36.5    65

7         37      64.5

6         37.5    64

5         38      63.5

4          38.5   63

3         39        63.5

5w       42.5    59

3w        43     58.5

driver   45      56.5

Edited September 24 by Awainer1

[Awainer1]

  

 

With something like this.  Are we assuming that every dynamic fitting the hitter is making contact with a dead square face?  It also assumes that you are hitting off perfect conditions meaning perfectly a perfectly flat tee box. It even assumes that the player has a perfect swing and spine angle and can consistently deliver the club at the same angle from the ground.   One more thing if my irons were really 3 degrees off from where i would want them to be for example too flat, do you think I would get a sharpie line on the ball at +3?  No I would either compensate for the lie angle with my hand position.  Or I would try to stand upright and I would shovel the toe into the ground probably hurting my wrist lol.  

Edited September 24 by Awainer1

[5hort5tuff]

To say dynamic club fitting doesnt work...static is the way to go is just incorrect. The whole process you described above was to get statics specs and dynamically fit them to yourself.  Your process is dynamic. 

 

I think dynamic club fitting is a really good start to finding your perfect specs. I've been for a few times and have tinkered the rest of the way to determine what lengths and lies work best for me. Then weights/SW were perfected over time. 

 

 

[grochol17]

4 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

My experience is that dynamic club fitting doesn't work.  I know I will get yelled at and booed of the forum but its my experience.  The best way to get fitted is to measure your wrist to floor as a guideline and build your set off a slope using the same effective lie angle throughout.  

 

I know that I am 2 upright of most standard, 3 of mizuno.  I spend a lot of time making sure my clubs are correct using a loft lie gauge and measuring the grooves.  I arrived at my specs mostly through trial and error.  Sorry but a sharpie on a ball is not very precise and can change depending on swing adjustments.   I know I'm killing sacred cows here.

 

Ping specs and other oems assume for some reason that the long irons should play "effectively" flatter.  That didn't work AT ALL for me.   I'm not a paid club fitter I just obsess about my clubs and these are the conclusions I've arrived at through a lot of trial and error.

 

My suggestion would be to pick specs that you think work for you (looks like similar to me 2 upright),  try to dial in all your clubs to those specs, see if it works for you and if your not hitting it well try something else.  And asking your pro or a fitter to bend your clubs to 2 upright isn't good enough its taken me literally years with a gauge to figure out how to correctly measure my irons.  I know most won't do it cause its a lot more work but I'm just giving you another perspective.  Maybe the sharpie method is good enough for some but not all and for me isnt precise enough for what I'm looking for.  

 

 

Here's my specs.

 

club length lie 

w        35      66.5

w         35.5  66

w         35.5   66

9         36    65.5

8        36.5    65

7         37      64.5

6         37.5    64

5         38      63.5

4          38.5   63

3         39        63.5

5w       42.5    59

3w        43     58.5

driver   45      56.5

 

You say you used trial and error to find what works best for you, but how exactly did you decide what was right?  That is, what was the thing or things you were looking for to tell you that you have the correct lie angle on your clubs?

[J13]

On 9/22/2023 at 4:02 PM, SkyMonkey7 said:

I bought some 2nd hand G Series irons, and therefore couldn't be fitted for them.

My calculated PING dot is Green (2.25 upright), and they look fairly 'toe up' at rest behind the ball, especially on the longer irons.

But using the Sharpie line on a ball test, the printed line is more or less perpendicular to the groves.

 

Does the Ping dot club head lie angle account for predicted shaft droop during a full swing?

The Ping dot system was great for it's time but it's a dinosaur now.  

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

With something like this.  Are we assuming that every dynamic fitting the hitter is making contact with a dead square face?

4 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

It even assumes that the player has a perfect swing and spine angle and can consistently deliver the club at the same angle from the ground.

 

No it doesn't make any such assumption.   In fact you've got it completely backwards.

 

Dynamic fitting fits the lie angle to the person's normal swing - whatever that might be in terms of face-to-path or face angle or posture or spin position or any other aspect of the swing.

 

The only lie angle fitting method that does make those types of assumption are the static tables based on height and or wrist to floor.

 

In fact, that's the biggest difference between the static and dynamic fitting.  Static fitting makes assumptions about your posture and stance and swing.  Dynamic fitting fits the club to your actual posture and your actual swing.

 

If it works for you, that's fine.  It just means it's ok to make those assumptions - for you and your swing.   Or if those assumptions aren't exactly correct, it means that it's helping correct for some other problem with the swing.   It doesn't mean that those assumptions will stay true and will work for anyone else.

 

 

4 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

 It also assumes that you are hitting off perfect conditions meaning perfectly a perfectly flat tee box.

 

So does the static fitting method.   But more importantly, it makes no sense that you would think this even matters.   Everyone knows golf is played on an open course with a wide range of lies - both above and below your feet, uphill, downhill.   No one should expect the lie angle of the club to be perfect for every possible type of ground sloop because it's impossible.   Every fitting method for lie angle (dynamic or static) makes this assumption because the best we can do is make sure it's as neutral as possible when the ground is flat which then allows for the actual change in ball flight to be somewhat predictable when the ground isn't flat and isn't biased against any one particular type of ground lie condition.

 

 

[Awainer1]

17 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

You say you used trial and error to find what works best for you, but how exactly did you decide what was right?  That is, what was the thing or things you were looking for to tell you that you have the correct lie angle on your clubs?

Most clubs are too flat for me since I don’t fit into “standard”. When u look down at an iron that is standard it just looks unhittable to me like I would have to lower my hands and flip it to make contact. So I tried 3 upright and 4 upright and the results were really bad. Terrible hooks. 2 upright just sits right. It doesn’t feel like I have to adjust my stance or hands I can just swing the club and know if I make a good strike it’ll go straight. Then it was just a matter of getting all my clubs exactly where I want them so I can make the same swing and see good results.  It’s all about angles and measurements and that’s the fun of it for me. 

Edited September 24 by Awainer1

[Awainer1]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

In fact, that's the biggest difference between the static and dynamic fitting.  Static fitting makes assumptions about your posture and stance and swing.  Dynamic fitting fits the club to your actual posture and your actual swing.

 

This makes an assumption that the player can repeat that posture and swing.  Were talking about humans here not robots. 

[Curiouser]

41 minutes ago, Awainer1 said:

This makes an assumption that the player can repeat that posture and swing.  Were talking about humans here not robots. 

No offense, but so does adjusting lie angle to 1/2 a degree of precision as shown in your personal club stats. I have no quarrel with you believing in your method, however I don't think you can generally apply it to all people.

[Awainer1]

4 minutes ago, Curiouser said:

No offense, but so does adjusting lie angle to 1/2 a degree of precision as shown in your personal club stats. I have no quarrel with you believing in your method, however I don't think you can generally apply it to all people.

Agree to disagree.  The club industry has tried to come up with a way to have customers walk in the door, pay hundreds of dollars for a fitting, walk out and be told "here's your custom fit clubs."  How many of those players do you think then go out and shoot the round of their lives?  I'd bet most come back a year later pissed off with their game and ready to drop a fresh couple g's on a new set thinking this time it'll be good.  Maybe it's because I caddied for a long time at fancy clubs and watched so many golfers do just this with no success.  I will say there is the random player who can break par with pretty much any set of clubs they're given.  Wish that was me but I'm not that gifted I guess. 

[Stuart_G]

11 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

This makes an assumption that the player can repeat that posture and swing.  Were talking about humans here not robots. 

 

So does every single test or fitting method - dynamic or static.   Including yours.   It's impossible to come up with any testing method that doesn't.

 

No the only perceived problem you have with that method is that you think it should be used blindly w/o any regard for how the change in visual might effect the player and the swing.   But that perception is wrong.    The good fitters know that certain club changes might effect the player in various subjective ways - and will take that into consideration during the fitting - by talking and interacting with the person being fit.   That's true for any fitting methods and club specs - head shape, top line thickness, amount of offset in irons, amount of face angle in the woods,  and many more (including lie angle).

 

 

10 hours ago, Awainer1 said:

Agree to disagree.  The club industry has tried to come up with a way to have customers walk in the door, pay hundreds of dollars for a fitting, walk out and be told "here's your custom fit clubs."  How many of those players do you think then go out and shoot the round of their lives?

 

Your problem isn't really with the underlying methods, it's your expectations.   You're getting too caught up in the marketing and missing the reality of what one should expect from a good fitting.  Good fitting equipment is not about making you a better player - only practice and instruction can do that.  It's really only about making sure the equipment isn't making things worse relative to ones ability - giving you the best chance to play to your potential.     And that's assuming it was a good fitting in the first place - which happens a lot less than people think.  "Caveat Emptor" applies to every aspect of the golf industry (including fitting) just as much as it applies to any other industry.   If you throw out money blindly at anything, expect to get burned from time to time.

 

Now if you want to take matters into your own hand as an alternative - that's great.   You're not alone.  But your method was just as dynamic as any other.   It was 100% trial and error by actually paying attention to real results when actually hitting the ball  - which is pretty much the core basis for every good fitting methodology.  

 

 

Edited September 25 by Stuart_G

[Awainer1]

9 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

So does every single test or fitting method - dynamic or static.   Including yours.   It's impossible to come up with any testing method that doesn't.

 

No the only perceived problem you have with that method is that you think it should be used blindly w/o any regard for how the change in visual might effect the player and the swing.   But that perception is wrong.    The good fitters know that certain club changes might effect the player in various subjective ways - and will take that into consideration during the fitting - by talking and interacting with the person being fit.   That's true for any fitting methods and club specs - head shape, top line thickness, amount of offset in irons, amount of face angle in the woods,  and many more (including lie angle).

 

 

 

Your problem isn't really with the underlying methods, it's your expectations.   You're getting too caught up in the marketing and missing the reality of what one should expect from a good fitting.     Good fitting equipment is not about making you a better player - only practice and instruction can do that.   It's really only about making sure the equipment isn't making things worse relative to ones ability - giving you the best chance to play to your potential.     And that's assuming it was a good fitting in the first place - which happens a lot less than people think.  "Caveat Emptor" applies to every aspect of the golf industry (including fitting) just as much as it applies to any other industry.   If you throw out money blindly at anything, expect to get burned from time to time.

 

Now if you want to take matters into your own hand as an alternative - that's great.   You're not alone.  But your method was just as dynamic as any other.   It was 100% trial and error - which is pretty much the core basis for every good fitting methodology.  

 

 

 

My belief is that if your clubs are not fit correctly there's very little point in working on your swing.  I look at my clubs like tools.  If I were a mechanic and had the wrong tools there would really be no point in going to work. 

[Stuart_G]

8 minutes ago, Awainer1 said:

 

My belief is that if your clubs are not fit correctly there's very little point in working on your swing.  I look at my clubs like tools.  If I were a mechanic and had the wrong tools there would really be no point in going to work. 

 

In general, I don't disagree.  Although I don't' look at it as such an absolute.   Poorly fitting clubs certainly can make it harder to improve mechanics and in some cases can even lead to bad habits being created.   Although they don't' make it impossible to improve and it's far from any universal "truth."   Again, it comes down to how sensitive each individual might be to each types of equipment changes.    Some can be very picky about certain club specs,  others can swing anything without any negative effects.

 

Edited September 25 by Stuart_G