How Real is "Toe Droop?"

[JD3]

Seems like fitters always want me to use clubs that are any where from 1 to 2 degrees upright. Even though I am average height. Yet I just cannot stand the look of clubs that upright at address, feel like I am going to hook them all day. Even though admittedly I don't seem to in testing. Should I just bite the bullet and use clubs that look off at address to me? 😕

Edited May 9 by JD3

[RobS]

Toe droop is real but not the only factor in dynamic lie.  Most players will have their hands higher at impact than at address.  Ultimately, I believe that if you play what produces quality, consistent shots, that "off" look will soon change to looking ok.

Edited May 9 by RobS

[JD3]

9 minutes ago, RobS said:

Toe droop is real but not the only factor in dynamic lie.  Most players will have their hands higher at impact than at address.  Ultimately, I believe that if you play what produces quality, consistent shots, that "off" look will soon change to looking ok.

Do you think shaft/stiffness makes any difference in the amount the toe bends down at impact?

[RobS]

2 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Do you think shaft/stiffness makes any difference in the amount the toe bends down at impact?

It does.  The amount of toe down deflection in the shaft can vary depending on stiffness and profile. 

[Stuart_G]

41 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Seems like fitters always want me to use clubs that are any where from 1 to 2 degrees upright. Even though I am average height. Yet I just cannot stand the look of clubs that upright at address, feel like I am going to hook them all day. Even though admittedly I don't seem to in testing. Should I just bite the bullet and use clubs that look off at address to me? 😕

 

First of all, what lie angle might be a good fit has to do with a LOT more than just your height.  Arm length, swing plane, posture at impact, etc....   So don't go blaming shaft droop quite yet.  The stock lie angles are designed with a little bit of shaft droop in mind. 

 

What's your swing speed and what shafts (model/weight/flex) are you being fit into?  that might give us an indication if shaft droop might be an issue.    And BTW - it's more about the stiffness profile (tip stiffness) than it is just the flex of the shaft.

 

Also, if the fitters are using lie boards - it's not uncommon to come up more upright than really needed.  Re-evaluate with this method:

 

Edited May 9 by Stuart_G

[03trdblack]

As a side note, irons with a sharper, more square toe will look more upright than a much rounder toe design so you can factor that into your choice as well.  Obviously the lie angle would be the same but it's a visual trick kind of like a clubhead that's painted white looks larger than if it was painted black.

[JD3]

3 minutes ago, 03trdblack said:

As a side note, irons with a sharper, more square toe will look more upright than a much rounder toe design so you can factor that into your choice as well.  Obviously the lie angle would be the same but it's a visual trick kind of like a clubhead that's painted white looks larger than if it was painted black.

Very true, dark heads like my wedges don't look off to me at address. Yet when I examine them more closely the toe looks way up in the air!

[JD3]

13 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

First of all, what lie angle might be a good fit has to do with a LOT more than just your height.  Arm length, swing plane, posture at impact, etc....   So don't go blaming shaft droop quite yet.  The stock lie angles are designed with a little bit of shaft droop in mind. 

 

What's your swing speed and what shafts (model/weight/flex) are you being fit into?  that might give us an indication if shaft droop might be an issue.    And BTW - it's more about the stiffness profile (tip stiffness) than it is just the flex of the shaft.

 

Also, if the fitters are using lie boards - it's not uncommon to come up more upright than really needed.  Re-evaluate with this method:

 

Various shafts using trackman, 90 ss with 7 iron. I'd also assume that shaft length relative to standard has some effect 

Edited May 9 by JD3

[Cwebb]

1 hour ago, JD3 said:

Seems like fitters always want me to use clubs that are any where from 1 to 2 degrees upright. Even though I am average height. Yet I just cannot stand the look of clubs that upright at address, feel like I am going to hook them all day. Even though admittedly I don't seem to in testing. Should I just bite the bullet and use clubs that look off at address to me? 😕

 

Some players will adjust to different lie angles and hit them fine.

 

Do some outdoor testing with clubs that fit your eye.  If the they work well and you like them, don't be afraid to test further.

 

There are good swing instructors who believe in the benefits of non upright (flatter) lie angles.

[Stuart_G]

36 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Various shafts using trackman, 90 ss with 7 iron. I'd also assume that shaft length relative to standard has some effect 

 

If you're getting consistent lie angle "evaluations" with all different types of shafts - it's much less likely that the shaft droop is the issue.  More likely some aspect of your swing (assuming the evaluations are accurate).

[JD3]

3 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

If you're getting consistent lie angle "evaluations" with all different types of shafts - it's much less likely that the shaft droop is the issue.  More likely some aspect of your swing (assuming the evaluations are accurate).

Does +4 looking (i.e. 2 up from what standard looking toe position looks to me) sound OK to you in general? Or would that be very unique?

Edited May 9 by JD3

[Stuart_G]

15 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Does +4 looking (i.e. 2 up from what standard looking toe position looks to me) sound OK to you in general? Or would that be very unique?

 

"Looking" isn't what's important (for that question) - the actual lie angle is what matters.   Lots of atypical setup positions possible that could exaggerate how they look at address but really has nothing to do with what is happening at impact.

 

But you still haven't said how they measured it?

 

You might check with your instructor - if you have one - to see if it makes sense based on your mechanics and posture at impact (not at setup).

 

 

Edited May 9 by Stuart_G

[HGLucky13]

My first fitting I was 5* upright compared to stock (Ping irons). It was all my swing dynamics. After a few years of lessons. I am now using 1* upright irons. Seems to me this is a thing that could change as your swing evolves and should be checked regularly. I intend to check/adjust at least once a year, or if I am seeing something that doesn't seem right. First time took me 30 minutes with a pro on a trackman and it was a couple dollars each club to bend. I check it with a sharpie mark on the range balls once in a while to verify. In fact I am going to check them this evening when I go.

[JD3]

5 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

"Looking" isn't what's important (for that question) - the actual lie angle is what matters.   Lots of atypical setup positions possible that could exaggerate how they look at address but really has nothing to do with what is happening at impact.

 

But you still haven't said how they measured it?

 

You might check with your instructor - if you have one - to see if it makes sense based on your mechanics and posture at impact (not at setup).

 

 

if not trackman, than something like it, that gave all the impact data like angle of attack and approach, vertical and horizontal face angles, SS, ball speed, spin, etc. They said my toe was 2 down, I have a shallow angle of attack, and somewhat pronounced in to out angle of approach

[Stuart_G]

16 minutes ago, JD3 said:

if not trackman, than something like it, that gave all the impact data like angle of attack and approach, vertical and horizontal face angles, SS, ball speed, spin, etc. They said my toe was 2 down, I have a shallow angle of attack, and somewhat pronounced in to out angle of approach

 

I haven't seen much actual data on the accuracy of LM lie angles  -  so since it's so simple and easy, I'd recommend double checking with the line test I shared the link with earlier.

 

Note - saying how it looks at address doesn't matter for that earlier question - is not the same as saying it doesn't matter.  For some people the visual at address can be very important to performance.  But you need to judge that based on actual performance - not just a feeling. 😉   if it does have a noticeable effect on the ball flight results - then it can actually be more important than getting the lie angle perfect based on the measurements at impact.  And then it's ok to make some compromises.

 

Edited May 9 by Stuart_G

[CSagan]

I was on GEARS guy put all the balls on my clubface and shaft and my toe was consistently 5-6 up at impact. I play PING red dot which is -1. I bent them all to 5 flat now. I think the online PING fitting recommended +1/2" 1 degree upright based on my height and wrist to floor (but what about the swing lol).

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

3 hours ago, JD3 said:

Do you think shaft/stiffness makes any difference in the amount the toe bends down at impact?

Yes, IMO flex will influence the toe at impact, but swing speed will impact that as well.

 

For the longest time, I played all irons 2' up.  When CAD came out, most OEM's made their clubs upright a few degrees, so I suddenly was able to play stock off-the-shelve irons.  I think length of arms plays a role, and I am 5'10

[ARL67]

I find toe droop an interesting discussion.  Toe droop results in the shaft being bent down and also open, as the CoG of the head tries to align with the shaft.  Shorter clubs are stiffer than longer clubs, and shorter clubs are swung slower than longer clubs, so we'd think that toe droop is more a factor in our longer irons.  But longer irons have less loft, which results in less affect of lie-angle changes.  Bottom line, do a dynamic fitting via the sharpie method on all your clubs. 

[JD3]

21 hours ago, ARL67 said:

I find toe droop an interesting discussion.  Toe droop results in the shaft being bent down and also open, as the CoG of the head tries to align with the shaft.  Shorter clubs are stiffer than longer clubs, and shorter clubs are swung slower than longer clubs, so we'd think that toe droop is more a factor in our longer irons.  But longer irons have less loft, which results in less affect of lie-angle changes.  Bottom line, do a dynamic fitting via the sharpie method on all your clubs. 

Interesting, back in the day when I just tweaked irons on my own, when I got around to measuring them the wedges were about 2.5 flat and the long irons 1.0 flat. But that was eye test days so not too scientific anyway 

Edited May 10 by JD3

[tippethor]

One thing to consider is that there is different standard per each manufactor. Mizuno std 7 iron is 61,5 lie while titleist std 7 iron id 63 degrees. So don’t worry about how many degree change you need, just bend it until it fits.

 

i have tested with the ball marker test on std titleist irons and came up with no changes needed, but my toe was digging and i could see the left over markings from range mats on the toe side only. So i adjusted them 3 degrees up and now i can feel there is not the same resistanse when properly struck. So do whats best for your game 👍

[Howard_Jones]

9 hours ago, ARL67 said:

I find toe droop an interesting discussion.  Toe droop results in the shaft being bent down and also open, as the CoG of the head tries to align with the shaft.  Shorter clubs are stiffer than longer clubs, and shorter clubs are swung slower than longer clubs, so we'd think that toe droop is more a factor in our longer irons.  But longer irons have less loft, which results in less affect of lie-angle changes.  Bottom line, do a dynamic fitting via the sharpie method on all your clubs. 

COG and shaft bending.
_ RCOG (Rearward center of gravity), and its distance to shaft center, will always cause a bend forward with the same distance, so face angle is always closing a little due to forward shaft bending tip side.

Back to the subject.
- Toe drop is very real, but we are talking small numbers from flex to flex, or between models.
During fitting, we most often only test #1 club, and what ever return value we get. (standard, +1.0* or what ever), we use that combined with the heads OG slope for lie angles. However, we should always test eacdh club when done, (ball marker test), and adjust if needed.

Lie angle at address vs impact
- The largest factor for change between address position and impact position, is the players change of hand position between those two points. Look at the photo below, and pay attention to the black dot (probably some turf) about the middle of the players shaft. We can clearly see, that his HANDS moves a lot from address, and way higher at impact.

We can also see a slight shaft bending DOWN, who causes "to drop" itself, and combined, we have the difference from address to impact. That will clearly be variable player to player. (high, mid or low hands at impact).
THIS shaft bending down, is COG who force itself to align in a strait line down from your hands, just like RCOG force itself forward during release of the club. (the shaft bends both down, and forward at the moment of impact.)




Flex vs toe drop.

- Toe drop itself is NOT large, and even smaller when we compare that to differences to flex.
PING did some testing, and if my memory serves me here, it was about 1.0* from ladies to X flex as difference. 

COBRA might have another opinion if we look at their SINGLE LENGTH set.
- Since all clubs has the same length and head wgt, we would normally build them using the same shaft # (equal flex), but COBRA has used standard shafts (#5-PW), and that makes a very variable flex like the option all the way to the right.

The #5 iron is soft stepped 3x, while the GW becomes hard stepped 1x



To solve that, and what Cobra say, players is still using more power and higher speed on their #5 vs GW, and combined, a need for progressive lie angle like a classic iron set, but opposite, with UP right "long irons", and flat "short irons"


 

Edited May 10 by Howard_Jones

[JD3]

5 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

COG and shaft bending.
_ RCOG (Rearward center of gravity), and its distance to shaft center, will always cause a bend forward with the same distance, so face angle is always closing a little due to forward shaft bending tip side.

Back to the subject.
- Toe drop is very real, but we are talking small numbers from flex to flex, or between models.
During fitting, we most often only test #1 club, and what ever return value we get. (standard, +1.0* or what ever), we use that combined with the heads OG slope for lie angles. However, we should always test eacdh club when done, (ball marker test), and adjust if needed.

Lie angle at address vs impact
- The largest factor for change between address position and impact position, is the players change of hand position between those two points. Look at the photo below, and pay attention to the black dot (probably some turf) about the middle of the players shaft. We can clearly see, that his HANDS moves a lot from address, and way higher at impact.

We can also see a slight shaft bending DOWN, who causes "to drop" itself, and combined, we have the difference from address to impact. That will clearly be variable player to player. (high, mid or low hands at impact).
THIS shaft bending down, is COG who force itself to align in a strait line down from your hands, just like RCOG force itself forward during release of the club. (the shaft bends both down, and forward at the moment of impact.)




Flex vs toe drop.

- Toe drop itself is NOT large, and even smaller when we compare that to differences to flex.
PING did some testing, and if my memory serves me here, it was about 1.0* from ladies to X flex as difference. 

COBRA might have another opinion if we look at their SINGLE LENGTH set.
- Since all clubs has the same length and head wgt, we would normally build them using the same shaft # (equal flex), but COBRA has used standard shafts (#5-PW), and that makes a very variable flex like the option all the way to the right.

The #5 iron is soft stepped 3x, while the GW becomes hard stepped 1x



To solve that, and what Cobra say, players is still using more power and higher speed on their #5 vs GW, and combined, a need for progressive lie angle like a classic iron set, but opposite, with UP right "long irons", and flat "short irons"


 

Incredible, so if someone wants a static position to most closely mimic impact hands they should actually raise their hands. I guess visually I have been too focused on setup hands. But it doesn't take much hand elevation to make a square looking face to go 2-4 degrees up!

Edited May 10 by JD3

[Stuart_G]

14 minutes ago, JD3 said:

so if someone wants a static position to most closely mimic impact hands they should actually raise their hands.

 

That's one way - but IMO, a better question is why would anyone want to have the setup match impact?   

So much else about setup does not match impact - hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, wrists, etc..   what would be the point of matching the hands?  

 

I'm not a pro but I would think such a change would add a high risk to messing up the take-away and back swing.  And I've never heard of any teaching pro advocate anything close to that.   I think it would be much safer just to try and accept that it's ok for the head to look a bit upright at address.  But that's me.   Golf is such a mental game that I won't pretend to know what's best for someone else's mental state and confidence.

 

 

Edited May 10 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

36 minutes ago, JD3 said:

Incredible, so if someone wants a static position to most closely mimic impact hands they should actually raise their hands. I guess visually I have been too focused on setup hands. But it doesn't take much hand elevation to make a square looking face to go 2-4 degrees up!

Toe drop is more than that...

Imagine a good old fashion analog clock with hours and minutes,
A full circle like the clock is, is 360* / The clock's minutes 60 = 1 minute = 6*
(a few degrees is visible for the eye, look at the HEAD position address to impact on the player above.
HANDS is about 6* up (1 minute), Toe drop is 5-6*, so combined, Lie at impact is 11-12* against flat from address.
Its nothing special about this player, he is way within the norm, but he will have to except a lie angle pointing 2* Minutes/12* degred's up in the air at address. 

With irons and wedges, its very hard to get the head look like it is level (neutral lie) seen from address, and have a swing that match to play a like angle that flat. It demands very low hands during impact position, since its mostly how much we move our hands up from address to impact that matters here.

Toe drop on the other hand, is a rather constant factor, it will happen no matter where your hands is at impact, so even "very low"hands at impact, will have to compensate (6*/1 minute lower hands at impact vs address, to compensate for 5-6*/1* minute as toe drop that happens anyway)

 

Edited May 10 by Howard_Jones

[JD3]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's one way - but IMO, a better question is why would anyone want to have the setup match impact?   

So much else about setup does not match impact - hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, wrists, etc..   what would be the point of matching the hands?  

 

I'm not a pro but I would think such a change would add a high risk to messing up the take-away and back swing.  And I've never heard of any teaching pro advocate anything close to that.   I think it would be much safer just to try and accept that it's ok for the head to look a bit upright at address.  But that's me.   Golf is such a mental game that I won't pretend to know what's best for someone else's mental state and confidence.

 

 

no I agree totally, just saying the simplest way to account for all those dynamics is to elevate hands and I should add lose some wrist set, and it becomes apparent it doesn't take much to make upright look neutral/flat.

Here's a mock up of myself I just did at setup and impact with a 3 iron. I drew a blue line using the tee box ahead as a fixed reference. As you can see my hands are obviously higher at impact than at address. Add in some toe drop and the dynamic angle is definitely more neutral/flat.

 

 

Edited May 10 by JD3
different image attached