Club Rebuild Advice

[betarhoalphadelta]

Ok... So I'm a big guy and tend to have trouble with any club I find too "light". My irons are single-length, built 37.5", which is 1" over standard for those irons (I'm 6'5" w/ 39.5-40" WTF). As I throw them into a swing weight calculator, even with a MCC+4 midsize grip, they come out around D5-D6 with Modus 120S and 275g heads. My wedges are all 36.75" with the same shafts but with the heads cherry-picked to be the lightest in the production run to try to keep weight and feel somewhat similar to the irons.

 

I like the set, but the downside to single-length is that even though my 20* 4h gets appropriate launch conditions and flight, it just doesn't have the clubhead speed at 37.5" and I'm giving up some room between that and driver, as the in-between club is a 5w that I don't have a lot of confidence in. Something about an iron just makes me feel more confident than a wood. Not sure why, but there it is. 

 

I have a 3 utility iron (19.5* loft) that I bought from Sub70 pre-owned, currently at 39.5" and with a Recoil 680 F4 shaft. Unlike my irons with 115g shafts, this is 82g. The club feels WAY too light for me. It's outside the bag and has been for months. 

 

I've looked at online swing weight calculators, and if I were to take it in, get it built with the Modus 120S at 40" with that same MCC+4 midsize grip that I prefer, the head weight will equalize to the exact same swing weight as my irons. It should give me a nice fit in the distance gap between the 4h and driver if I can get it to feel right. 

 

What say you? A good option? 

[Nessism]

Try it.  Experimenting is part of the fun for many of us.  

[Stuart_G]

9 hours ago, Nessism said:

Try it.  Experimenting is part of the fun for many of us.  

 

True  - but then there's the point that it's also a requirement to get any kind of reliable answers. 🙂

 

 

11 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

What say you? A good option? 

 

The logic is sound - although with these kind of things it's never easy to predict how well it will work.     Just don't get too fixated on swing weight values.    Get some lead tape and play around and make any final adjustments based on feel instead.

 

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

Here's what I did when testing my driver, but I feel it should work with most clubs.

I took a notepad with me and marked 3 columns for Left, Middle & Right. I'd warm up and then take 3-5 Swings with standard weight and noted the results. I'd put a mark in the column and use an arrow for direction. I'd use the arrow to indicate both the severity of the deviation and the noted launch.

 

If I drove the ball to the left on a slight draw and low launch I'd mark ↖L
If I drove a severe Hook that was a high ballooning launch it's ↰H

 

I'd take out my weight kit and start adding weights to counteract the noted effect and note the results in the same way. What I was looking for was a trend toward center with the appropriate trajectory. With lower weights I found I'd be all over the paper. I tested from minimum to maximum weight (even with NO weights in the driver).

 

You can come up with whatever notation works best to indicate success vs failure, but whatever amount of swings you choose for the first should be the amount for all weight configurations.

DO NOT DEVIATE! None of this "That wasn't a good swing" stuff and taking 3 extra swings to pollute the results. 😄 😄 😄

Edited February 15, 2024 by Mikey_HACKilroy

[Stuart_G]

I'd suggest just use foot powder spray and take a picture of the grouping of the 3 shots.   Then all you need to remember (or write down) is the start weight and increment.

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

33 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

I'd suggest just use foot powder spray and take a picture of the grouping of the 3 shots.   Then all you need to remember (or write down) is the start weight and increment.

That's a good addition. The ball flight characteristics plus the grouping itself would be all that one would need.

Of course, this is assuming the driver setting is already dialed in. I didn't really consider the lie angle because I had already zeroed in on the best loft/lie setting on the driver.

[Stuart_G]

12 minutes ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

That's a good addition. The ball flight characteristics plus the grouping itself would be all that one would need.

 

3 shots might be enough to give a general idea of how tight your face impact pattern might be - but I personally don't think it's enough to judge the miss tendencies (e.g. how much is going to be toe vs heel vs high vs low).  Maybe it might be enough for release tendencies if you have an LM and can see face + path data.   But the face impact miss location can have a BIG influence on shot shape - which would make the reliability of that aspect of the results a bit suspect.   Meaning a hook today could potentially turn into a slice tomorrow.

 

12 minutes ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

Of course, this is assuming the driver setting is already dialed in. I didn't really consider the lie angle because I had already zeroed in on the best loft/lie setting on the driver.

 

It shouldn't be assuming that.   IMO Loft is the last thing that should be "dialed in."   Weight (shaft and head), playing length, and shaft profile should always come before loft.   Now, one's sensitivity to face angle changes should be evaluated early on in the process - although not necessarily "dialed in" completely.  Even that should normally wait until after the playing length and weight aspects of the club are finalized - although that can change for those that have a very high sensitivity to face angle changes.

Edited February 15, 2024 by Stuart_G

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 hours ago, Nessism said:

Try it.  Experimenting is part of the fun for many of us.  

 

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

True  - but then there's the point that it's also a requirement to get any kind of reliable answers. 🙂

 

 

Yeah, and I asked for the advice b/c I am not going to be doing a club build myself; it'll be done at a local shop. If I were, it would be a lot cheaper to experiment. 

 

So if the overwhelming response was "that's a terrible idea!" it would save me some time and money lol...

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

3 shots might be enough to give a general idea of how tight your face impact pattern might be - but I personally don't think it's enough to judge the miss tendencies (e.g. how much is going to be toe vs heel vs high vs low).  Maybe it might be enough for release tendencies if you have an LM and can see face + path data.   But the face impact miss location can have a BIG influence on shot shape - which would make the reliability of that aspect of the results a bit suspect.   Meaning a hook today could potentially turn into a slice tomorrow.

 

 

It shouldn't be assuming that.   IMO Loft is the last thing that should be "dialed in."   Weight (shaft and head), playing length, and shaft profile should always come before loft.   Now, one's sensitivity to face angle changes should be evaluated early on in the process - although not necessarily "dialed in" completely.  Even that should normally wait until after the playing length and weight aspects of the club are finalized - although that can change for those that have a very high sensitivity to face angle changes.

 

In all honesty, I didn't do that to dial in much more than how weight impacted my swing. I was searching for that control and timing mechanism that best worked for my swing process. After conducting this experiment, I ran a few checks to see. All of my thinking was resting on weight.

I was struggling at the point I did this. I then went to the fitting and saw the fitter increased weight in my irons to improve my results. It worked.

My driver was stock weight; so I bought a weight kit and conducted this experiment. So when I noted that other things should be excluded, I should have noted that my suggestion is merely from a weight perspective and testing results through experimentation.

Though, I realize maybe this won't work well for everybody; but it worked well for me. I test based on what I see when I do things like this, and I try to keep the data-points to a simple plot that I can use without going off on tangents like I so often do. But I don't disagree with anything you're saying at all; I just think we're thinking on two different planes.

 

[Stuart_G]

9 minutes ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

 

In all honesty, I didn't do that to dial in much more than how weight impacted my swing. I was searching for that control and timing mechanism that best worked for my swing process. After conducting this experiment, I ran a few checks to see. All of my thinking was resting on weight.

I was struggling at the point I did this. I then went to the fitting and saw the fitter increased weight in my irons to improve my results. It worked.

My driver was stock weight; so I bought a weight kit and conducted this experiment. So when I noted that other things should be excluded, I should have noted that my suggestion is merely from a weight perspective and testing results through experimentation.

Though, I realize maybe this won't work well for everybody; but it worked well for me. I test based on what I see when I do things like this, and I try to keep the data-points to a simple plot that I can use without going off on tangents like I so often do. But I don't disagree with anything you're saying at all; I just think we're thinking on two different planes.

 

 

Perfectly fine and that approach is going to work great with most people.   Although I'm guessing you already spent some time finding the right shaft stiffness profile and maybe even playing length.  So it sounds like this was more of a secondary fitting or tweak.  As opposed to a more complete fitting from scratch - which is what I was really referring to.   Some people just get a little too obsessed trying to find the "perfect" launch and spin numbers.   That's where a subsequent attempt to dial in loft might take place after all of what you did.  

 

For most am's - dialing in playing length and weight (shaft weight and head weight / swing weight) is where the vast majority of improvements are going to be found - and can be sufficient in itself.  Especially when it comes to consistency and dispersion and just a general sense of confidence in the club.

 

Edited February 15, 2024 by Stuart_G

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

6 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Perfectly fine and that approach is going to work great with most people.   Although I'm guessing you already spent some time finding the right shaft stiffness profile and maybe even playing length.  So it sounds like this was more of a secondary fitting or tweak.  As opposed to a more complete fitting from scratch - which is what I was really referring to.   Some people just get a little too obsessed trying to find the "perfect" launch and spin numbers.   That's where a subsequent attempt to dial in loft might take place after all of what you did.  

 

For most am's - dialing in playing length and weight (shaft weight and head weight / swing weight) is where the vast majority of improvements are going to be found - and can be sufficient in itself.  Especially when it comes to consistency and dispersion and just a general sense of confidence in the club.

 

Oh absolutely. It really was just one step in a lengthy process for weight adjustment as an influence on my swing. The playing length and shaft profile selection was a separate process, although I made additional changes after this experiment there as well.

I started back into golf early last year, so I decided this had to be an evolving process as I knew things would continue to change as I got more proficient in each area amongst all the ups and downs. I don't think one fitting would have been adequate, and I love to experiment.... so it works. 😄