Fitting or Clubs? What to do First

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1387552836' post='8327689']

If your feeling on dynamic fitting is founded in the belief that one day we swing better than the next day so what if we're not swinging well when we get fit. . . . yes for sure we all have good days and bad days with our swings. But the swing parameters that l listed which have to be analyzed as part of a proper fitting DO NOT CHANGE SO MUCH ON A BAD SWING DAY THAT IT WILL MESS UP THE FITTING.

[/quote]

I'm a "blame myself rather than the clubs" kind of guy, and as you might expect change clubs infrequently. So when I do change I'm anxious to get it right. I'm also about a 15 cap, and I know every well that my swing can produce wonderful results one day and horrible results the next. In fact last time I bought irons I was so concerned about being fit for Monday's swing and not have the specs work on Tuesday that I actually got fitted twice.

I went to a Ping Day at a nearby course for a dynamic fit, and the Ping rep wrote down lie, loft, length, flex and shaft recommendations for me. A week later I went to my favorite course and had the club fitter there recommend specs for me without sharing the data I got from Ping. I was impressed and comforted that both sets of specs were exactly the same. (Different, by the way, than Ping's static chart suggested.) Your comment above makes sense of this - sense of how my inconsistent swing can lead to consistent club recommendations.

I'm curious if your statement is based on your having seen similar stories to mine, where a golfer of modest skill has come to you more than once and ended up with the same recommendation.

[martinbns]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1387665499' post='8332939']
[quote name='martinbns' timestamp='1387665058' post='8332911']
Here's my thought on this. It's not practical for most of us to be fit by a guy like Tom.

[/quote]

Seriously, there are at least 100 to 200 clubmaker/clubfitters in this country that can fit as well as I can - some of them better than me since they have actually been fitting professionally on a daily basis for decades.

These guys aren't everywhere, that's for sure. But they do exist and if you happen to live in reasonable proximity to one, wow, are golfers missing out on really knowing what specs are THE SPECS for them by not going to see one of these guys.

So if anyone is curious to know if one of these super fitters is in their area, shoot me a PM with your city/zip and I would be glad to check and see if one is in your area. But I am gone from my office until Dec 30 - so if you PM me to ask, just be patient and I will get back to you.

TOM
[/quote]

I live in a smallish city in Maritime Canada, Moncton New Brunswick...any here?

[bluedot]

It seems to me that your logic assumes that for EVERY player with a particular set of static measurements, there is ONE address position and swing, and that the function of fitting is to get the player to make THAT golf swing from THAT address position. Any variation from that position and that swing would have to be a flaw, at least to some degree, for your logic to be correct.

But it isn't correct. There a swing planes that are flatter vs. more upright and neither is flawed. There are players that bend more from the waist and hips and players that address the ball from a more upright position, and neither is flawed. Superior golf, scratch golf, professional golf; all can be played with a variety of swings. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

It is an extreme example, but maybe it will work. Do you suppose that the clubs Moe Norman used had the specs that a static fitting would have suggested? I know you aren't prepared to argue that his swing, which was about as individual and idiosyncratic as possible, was flawed in some way. Are you arguing that he would have hit the golf ball BETTER with clubs from a static fit?

[quote name='square' timestamp='1387764045' post='8337251']
The long adjustment time is for a static fit set, because to play those specs well the player may need to eliminate faulty swing habits, removing the compensatory moves in his his swing.
Dynamic fit, I agree, should have no adjustment period. Dynamic fit specifications are born from the players faulty swing.
If a players goal is to hit more playable shots with a bad swing, then dynamic fit likely makes sense.
If the player's goal is to make fundamentally sound golf swings, then absolutely static fit is superior to dynamic fit.

[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1387763443' post='8337207']
I won't debate this anymore with you; your mind is made up, and so is mine.

But I'll say this in closing: I've heard many say that fitting isn't necessary. I've heard many say that static fitting is enough. But I have NEVER heard ANYBODY claim that static fitting is superior to dynamic fitting. Never...

Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but there is no possible logical justification for your belief, if in fact you really believe this. It simply makes no sense that measurements on a chart could trump being custom fit as you actually swing the club. It doesn't work that way for clothes, it doesn't work that way for other sporting equipment like road bikes, and it doesn't work that way for golf clubs. It also runs 100% counter to everything I've seen in golf.

As to the adjustment period, I might agree about some aspects of equipment change such as going from GI irons to blades, or steel to graphite shafts, or S to R flexes. But if you are talking about lie angle and shaft length, the improvements are most often immediate as the player stops having to make compensations in his or her swing.



[quote name='square' timestamp='1387762469' post='8337133']
For a scratch player new to a static fit iron set it may take 6 months to a year, or longer, to make the swing adjustments necessary to produce consistently good shots.
For an 80's or 90's shooter I imagine it would take two years or longer of committed play and practice.
Static fit specifications work best with fundamentally sound swings. For a player who is content to make compensatory moves during the swing, then a dynamic fit set may be of some help.
A beginning player absolutely should use a static fit set, as those specifications will promote making fundamentally sound swings.

[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1387755578' post='8336691']
[quote name='square' timestamp='1387754634' post='8336639']
Next time try playing the webfit (static fit) recommended specs. You might like the shots you strike with a set like that.

[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1387720352' post='8334873']
I've always played Pings and I have the good fortune to have access to some really, really good club fitters. Not once have the dynamic fitting results matched the Webfit results. Not once...


[/quote]
[/quote]

If I wasn't clear about it, the dynamic fitting results for ball flight have ALWAYS been better for me than the ball flight results with the specs the static results have suggested. That is an advantage of Ping clubs; you can get the static recommendation and then compare it during the dynamic fitting. I have ended up with 1* more upright and .5" longer irons than the static fit suggests each time.

Hope that's clear.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

[TomWishon]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1387686342' post='8334153']
Nothing personal, but I don't have much respect for the "golf equipment industry", which is constantly pushing the latest and greatest technology.And consumers aren't much better, many of whom are constantly looking to somehow hit better shots and shoot lower scores by buying new gear. It's all a cheap scene with a bad flavor about it. A desperate search for instant gratification..
The game deserves better. Specifically, competent instructors teaching a few basic fundamentals. And consumers willing to put in the practice time to learn how to properly swing a golf club.

[/quote]

Square, you will find me in total agreement with your comment about criticism for a golf industry that is marketing the latest and greatest technology. If you ever took the time to scan a number of my posts over the past year or so, you would see that I do get hammered at times by WRX'ers for my criticism of the golf equipment industry's business model and marketing hype.

The reason I have worked so hard in clubfitting research and writing to share what I find about golf equipment performance is because I get upset in the way that the basic business model of selling clubs off the rack on the basis of hype does not allow the majority of golfers to get the very best clubs with which to be able to play to the best of their ability and benefit the most from lessons.

The big companies all are trapped into having to generate HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in club sales every year. The ONLY way you can to that is to sell your clubs in volume off the rack through any retail store or pro shop or online store - which means selling STANDARD OFF THE RACK - because that is the only possible way a company can sell the units necessary to make hundreds of millions in annual sales.

Ever since I started to get deeply involved in fitting research many years ago, I found that this standard off the rack business model is completely flawed and it exists much more for the benefit of the golf companies than for the golfers. The very best set of golf clubs that any golfer will ever buy will be a set that is fully fit and custom built, one club at a time, for one golfer at a time, by a competent, experienced custom clubmaker/clubfitter. Period. There is NO disputing that.

Some WRX'ers hammer me for extolling the benefits of proper, accurate fitting saying that I only push fitting for self interests. fact is, I have had several opportunities to design and work for big companies. I've said no to them all because I do not want to work for companies with a std off the rack business model. Fitting is right. Fitting is best for the golfers. But fitting has to be done by someone with real knowledge and experience and that means you have to dig deep to find such a person.

At any rate, I appreciate your skepticism in the industry - it's well founded and well deserved. But within all the hype, there is absolutely no question that proper fitting done by a good fitter is far better for golfers than the present business model of selling clubs. And that is not hype.

TOM

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1387779510' post='8338089']

I'm curious if your statement is based on your having seen similar stories to mine, where a golfer of modest skill has come to you more than once and ended up with the same recommendation.
[/quote]

My statement is based on two main areas in my work. First, from many years of analyzing the golf swing from a biomechanical standpoint to learn what moves in the golf swing affect and are affected by changes in club specs, and how much. When you look at the swing from a purely technical standpoint of cause and effect with the various club specs, you see soon how much of a swing error difference makes how much of a shot difference.

Second both in my human fitting experience and heavily in communicating with many clubmakers over the years about their fitting experiences, this is also a very strong area that proves what I said. So it isn't just an opinion, it's based on looking at these things from as much of a professional and technically correct standpoint as my knowledge and experience allows.

TOM

[square]

Tom,

Regarding your product line, you did not ask for my opinion, but I will offer it anyway
For the driver market, for many players you appear to advocate 44", 43.5" or even 43" finished lengths. I agree this length range is ideal for just about every player, from beginner to Touring professional. But, I believe the 460CC heads are too large for this shaft length range. 330CC to 430CC head size looks reasonably balanced for the 43" to 44" shafted drivers.
I have read your previous statements that "less than 460CC does not sell", and I am sure you know that from first hand experience trying to sell smaller headed drivers. But times do change, and now that the major OEM's, such as Callaway and TM are promoting 430CC size heads, I expect the consuming public is willing to go somewhat smaller. Also, in your recent attempts at smaller headed drivers I doubt you strongly promoted the concept.
Going forward i suggest you consider really designing and producing the 390CC to 425CC size, because this would be in harmony with the "fitting story of shorter driver lengths" that you promote so often. Do it right by using adjustable weight screws, because as you know the shorter shaft lengths require a variety of head weights.
For example, the Wishon driver line could look something like this :

TW 325 @ 230 grams is ideal head size and weight for 43" driver.
TW 375 @ 220 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 43.5" driver.
TW 425 @ 210 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 44" driver.

Something like the above offering I expect will make it easier for your club maker customers to sell your fitting philosophy ,and your brand, to their customers. Make the head shapes traditional, the color black, clean tops etc... so that the look is basic and serious.. Nothing trendy. No gimmicks. This way you have heads that can stay in your line for years, standing the test of time. Because you will have the heads that make shorter shafted drivers a playable reality, you and your customers can then focus on selling your fit story.


[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1387811580' post='8338957']
[quote name='square' timestamp='1387686342' post='8334153']
Nothing personal, but I don't have much respect for the "golf equipment industry", which is constantly pushing the latest and greatest technology.And consumers aren't much better, many of whom are constantly looking to somehow hit better shots and shoot lower scores by buying new gear. It's all a cheap scene with a bad flavor about it. A desperate search for instant gratification..
The game deserves better. Specifically, competent instructors teaching a few basic fundamentals. And consumers willing to put in the practice time to learn how to properly swing a golf club.

[/quote]

Square, you will find me in total agreement with your comment about criticism for a golf industry that is marketing the latest and greatest technology. If you ever took the time to scan a number of my posts over the past year or so, you would see that I do get hammered at times by WRX'ers for my criticism of the golf equipment industry's business model and marketing hype.

The reason I have worked so hard in clubfitting research and writing to share what I find about golf equipment performance is because I get upset in the way that the basic business model of selling clubs off the rack on the basis of hype does not allow the majority of golfers to get the very best clubs with which to be able to play to the best of their ability and benefit the most from lessons.

The big companies all are trapped into having to generate HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in club sales every year. The ONLY way you can to that is to sell your clubs in volume off the rack through any retail store or pro shop or online store - which means selling STANDARD OFF THE RACK - because that is the only possible way a company can sell the units necessary to make hundreds of millions in annual sales.

Ever since I started to get deeply involved in fitting research many years ago, I found that this standard off the rack business model is completely flawed and it exists much more for the benefit of the golf companies than for the golfers. The very best set of golf clubs that any golfer will ever buy will be a set that is fully fit and custom built, one club at a time, for one golfer at a time, by a competent, experienced custom clubmaker/clubfitter. Period. There is NO disputing that.

Some WRX'ers hammer me for extolling the benefits of proper, accurate fitting saying that I only push fitting for self interests. fact is, I have had several opportunities to design and work for big companies. I've said no to them all because I do not want to work for companies with a std off the rack business model. Fitting is right. Fitting is best for the golfers. But fitting has to be done by someone with real knowledge and experience and that means you have to dig deep to find such a person.

At any rate, I appreciate your skepticism in the industry - it's well founded and well deserved. But within all the hype, there is absolutely no question that proper fitting done by a good fitter is far better for golfers than the present business model of selling clubs. And that is not hype.

TOM
[/quote]

[halfsumo]

Interesting thread. As far as static vs dynamic. I have never been formally fitted in person. I am average height and arm length so off the rack is aimed at someone my size for sure. PING static fit measurements tell me to get irons that are a bit more upright than their standard. The wear pattern on my old set irons on the bottom of the heel told me that I should probably be on the flatter side. I used to have trouble hooking the ball, especially in the short irons and I had the lies on my newest set bent flat by 2 degrees and I don't have as much of an issue. I actually determined my lie angle needs based on a trick that Tom posted a while back where you draw a vertical line with a sharpie on a ball and cover the clubface with tape and then see what angle the line leaves after impact. Of course, that is a pretty basic test and there are way more variables to take into account, but that little adjustment changed my game for the bettter. I take lessons and practice a ton and my swing isn't too bad, but this lie adjustment made an immediate impact and I'm really enjoying the game after hooking my 9-iron and PW in agony for the last 15 years! I would say it knocked 2-3 strokes off of my handicap. I am a 5 handicap, so got this far with non-fitted clubs and I'm looking forward to getting properly fit for my next set. I just wish I had been doing it all along.

[Grumpy bumpy]

Hello square. How are you related to the golf industry? Do you make living associated with the golf industry, or are you a consumer?

[chrisf60526]

Thought I'd chime in here as I recently went through two fittings; one premium (i paid for) and one free (done at PGA superstore). I am about an 18hdcp lefty playing with clubs i purchased of the internet about 4 years ago to see if I'd like the game.

I have never been a 'its the equipment guy' but recently on a trip to Dubai, I played with a set of TM rental clubs and hit them better than I have ever hit my irons. I decided after getting my swing and set up checked by the pro i occasionally take lessons from that it was time to invest in a set of irons that i could grow into and use for many years.

Fitting 1: Premium fitting on Trackman. Gained 2 club lengths with fitted clubs and my dispersion pattern was shockingly tight. Was suggested for Ping G25 with custom shatfs but standard lie and length - black dot.

Fitting 2: Free at PGA superstore on Flightscope. Hit stock Ping shaft about the same distance and dispersion as Pings above with custom shaft. Standard length and lie - black dot. (BTW, fitter told me that 30% of people they fit cant even get ball airborne)

Long story short...get fitted. A fitting is not that expensive (and free at some places) and one can use the data to make an educated purchase. My game is not where I can benefit from custom shafts at this point but to pick up 2 clubs and a much tighter dispersion after being fitted has me excited to play this spring.

CF

[solarbear88]

I am not sure if it makes sense to fit people, struggling golfers, based on a swing learned on long upright clubs.

[solarbear88]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1387813733' post='8339161']

For example, the Wishon driver line could look something like this :

TW 325 @ 230 grams is ideal head size and weight for 43" driver.
TW 375 @ 220 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 43.5" driver.
TW 425 @ 210 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 44" driver.

Something like the above offering I expect will make it easier for your club maker customers to sell your fitting philosophy ,and your brand, to their customers. Make the head shapes traditional, the color black, clean tops etc... so that the look is basic and serious.. Nothing trendy. No gimmicks. This way you have heads that can stay in your line for years, standing the test of time. Because you will have the heads that make shorter shafted drivers a playable reality, you and your customers can then focus on selling your fit story.



[/quote]

This actually makes a lot of sense.

[Toddo64]

This is an issue I am battling right now. I am playing some older clubs in my bag as you can see from my profile. I've been debating on getting them properly fitted since my playing time is becoming more limited or just by completely new and gettng them fitted properly...Any suggestions appreciated!

[Grumpy bumpy]

[quote name='Toddo64' timestamp='1387831499' post='8340551']
This is an issue I am battling right now. I am playing some older clubs in my bag as you can see from my profile. I've been debating on getting them properly fitted since my playing time is becoming more limited or just by completely new and gettng them fitted properly...Any suggestions appreciated!
[/quote]
Hi. You have read comments from both sides of the fence. I always ask, what are your expectations of your self by coming to get new clubs?
The other question you have to ask your self, is do I believe spending the time and the money for a quality fitting will help me?
I have been referred to as a snake oil salesman once. I am also referenced on the other side of that coin.
So, all I ask, is that you have these answers, to the questions of yourself. If you ask the questions, then you know the answer as to whether or not to get fitted.
Also, how do you know the Taylor Made Burner golf club is the right head for your swing characteristic?
The quality fitters know how to find out this answer and the value in testing for it, provided you don't think we are snake oil salesman.
Good luck.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1387813733' post='8339161']
Tom,

Regarding your product line, you did not ask for my opinion, but I will offer it anyway

I have read your previous statements that "less than 460CC does not sell", and I am sure you know that from first hand experience trying to sell smaller headed drivers. But times do change, and now that the major OEM's, such as Callaway and TM are promoting 430CC size heads, I expect the consuming public is willing to go somewhat smaller. Also, in your recent attempts at smaller headed drivers I doubt you strongly promoted the concept.
For example, the Wishon driver line could look something like this :

TW 325 @ 230 grams is ideal head size and weight for 43" driver.
TW 375 @ 220 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 43.5" driver.
TW 425 @ 210 grams is ideal head size and weight for a 44" driver.

Something like the above offering I expect will make it easier for your club maker customers to sell your fitting philosophy ,and your brand, to their customers. Make the head shapes traditional, the color black, clean tops etc... so that the look is basic and serious.. Nothing trendy. No gimmicks. This way you have heads that can stay in your line for years, standing the test of time. Because you will have the heads that make shorter shafted drivers a playable reality, you and your customers can then focus on selling your fit story.

[/quote]

Without question I do realize that some golfers do have strong feelings about the visual perceived size of the driver head they play. I respect that is a desire among some golfers. But at present it is not nearly enough of a movement among enough golfers to prompt us or any company to really make a SUBSTANTIAL change in the size of our driver heads.

Please understand that the CC volume number of a head is NOT a very good way to express how large a head really looks when you put down behind the ball. CC volume is a product of the head height X toe heel length X face to back breadth of the head. And as such there are MANY combinations of all three dimensions that will result in the same CC volume number. These heads you say that are 430cc simply do not look hardly any smaller at all than my company's 450cc volume that our model 919THI driver possesses because I do balance the head height X toe heel length X face to back breadth extremely well in my designs so the head will not look that large.

Other companies may not do that as well so their 450 cc actually looks larger to the eyes than does my 450cc volume. So at the end of the day, when a golfer vocalizes the desire to have a smaller size driver head, bet the farm that in 98% of the cases a drop to just 430cc is NOT going to satisfy him as much as if the size drop were such that the volume ended up at 375cc.

And I certainly am always willing to listen but in the end, I have to make my final decisions on my design work based on what I think the greatest number of golfers will want to have - and right now that is not a 375cc or substantially smaller size head. In addition, and in total honesty, we have not had one single golfer or clubmaker ever ask us to match head size with club length. While I can certainly appreciate that some golfers might desire a head to be a little smaller with a shorter length, that is strictly an aesthetic thing and as it stands, an opinion that is by far in the minority because the vast majority just don't even think there is anything odd or distasteful with using a 450cc volume head on a shorter length. And for sure there is nothing performance wise related to this.

Actually, if you haven't looked at one of my driver designs down on the ground at the end of a shaft, you should, really, because I do think that I have always had the ability to create my driver design head shapes in a very balanced combination of length, height, breadth dimensions to make sure the heads simply don't look all that large and certainly not as large to the eyes as do many of the OEM driver heads.

TOM

[TomWishon]

[quote name='c. howard' timestamp='1387603867' post='8330833']

Tom, you are seriously becoming my favorite wrxer to read. If you are down in Arizona can we get a beer and talk about clubs? Really agree with you on what you are saying

[/quote]

Given that Durango isn't a great golf destination this time of the year, I'd certainly take you up on that offer if I can find myself down south in your warmer climate!! But come May through Sept, the conversation would be better had up here in the cool mtns of Durango!!

TOM