How a fitter determines best lie angle

[denkea]

Those that espouse to use a dry erase marker outside probably haven't tried that unless they are a picker and  don't take a divot.  

Dry erase on a wedge.  Wedge hits the ball.  Divot wipes the dry erase off.  You need a sharpie i.e if you are not a picker.  

 

Edited October 2, 2024 by denkea

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Yeah, I don’t think the problem was the lie board.  Unless you’re 6’7”.  You had a bad fitter.

It’s easy to tell you don’t read anything given to you that disputes your stance. 
 

and have obviously chosen to ignore Howard’s reply to you.

[GoGoErky]

duplicate

Edited October 2, 2024 by GoGoErky

[Jtgavigan]

Interestingly enough, Chris Trott (Trottie) from Taylormade actually mentioned using a lie board on one of his videos last week. The way he mentioned it was that it wasn't the be all, end all method of determining lie angles, but it is another data point. 

 

When I started building my stuff years ago, I used a lie board and still have it. Now, I use the sharpie (learned that here from Howard) and always look at my divots for anything weird. I would think a fitter would combine Trackman/GC4, divot pattern (heel/toe heavy), ball flight, and potentially the lie board if needed. 

Here was his answer to a comment:

 

 

@trottiegolf

7 days ago

I like it all: boards sharpie on ball for face markings Clippd Data Launch monitor numbers Just giving an affordable option V's some of the high tech stuff I get called out on

Show less

 

 

 

 

[scratchskier]

gonna leave this here for all the homies being bullied for using upright lies. stay strong king.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/martin-trainer

[Guest RobS]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

Tell me how to use a lie board....
- how does it work?

Why?  You already have an opinion on lie boards.  Further, I'm not advocating for anyone to get fit with a lie board or any particular method, none of which I even use.  My primary comment in this thread was not to get fixated on any lie angle testing/readings and start bending without considering what's going on with your golf swing.  If someone says, 'the lie angle test says you need to go 6up', as mentioned by a couple posters in this thread, you might want to hit the breaks and see what's really going on.

[Howard_Jones]

26 minutes ago, RobS said:

Why?  You already have an opinion on lie boards.  Further, I'm not advocating for anyone to get fit with a lie board or any particular method, none of which I even use.  My primary comment in this thread was not to get fixated on any lie angle testing/readings and start bending without considering what's going on with your golf swing.  If someone says, 'the lie angle test says you need to go 6up', as mentioned by a couple posters in this thread, you might want to hit the breaks and see what's really going on.

So you are not able to tell me how a lie board works, but still want to debate it?
- Tell me how it works, that was the question, and dont forget to include ALL error sources.
This is NOT about "opinions", but how things actually works. Science is neutral, its NOT a opinion.
 

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, denkea said:

https://ping.com/en-us/blogs/proving-grounds/does-lie-tape-lie

At least a serious attempt to explain the bull s***, but its still bull s***.

Explain this.
- 1.0 closed to path will cause a tilt on the spin axis of 3.0
so will a lie angle thats 1.0 upright at impact

Tell me, how can we SEE that lie angle was 1.0 closed at impact without a launch monitor? Will you be able to see 1.0 face closure on the sole impact marks?

That's why i made those labels, for all of you who dont have access to a launch monitor with both club and ball data's

I had, so i never used those labels myself, but used my launch monitor to figure out where a draw or fade came from, and that's what its all about in the end.

What ever attempt to set lie angles correct, using a lie board WILL FAIL, End of story, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Edited October 2, 2024 by Howard_Jones

[Guest RobS]

28 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

So you are not able to tell me how a lie board works, but still want to debate it?
- Tell me how it works, that was the question, and dont forget to include ALL error sources.
This is NOT about "opinions", but how things actually works. Science is neutral, its NOT a opinion.
 

I’m clear on how a lie board works and understand how face angle, angle of attack, path, low point and sole geometry impact the markings. Show me where I said anyone should bend a club based exclusively on any lie angle test. I actually said the opposite. Even the vaunted sharpie line test is imperfect. I’m still trying to understand the science of a 10* angle on face tape equaling a 1* lie angle change. 

[ChaosTheory]

To the OP, Henry Griffitts went through a period where they were recommending very upright, very long for many customers.  Not sure why but I think it was an attempt to get more distance.

[AzRoger]

2 hours ago, ChaosTheory said:

To the OP, Henry Griffitts went through a period where they were recommending very upright, very long for many customers.  Not sure why but I think it was an attempt to get more distance.

Yes, it was a Henry Griffitts fitter that suggest I add 3" to my irons. Not so sure it was as much for added distance as it was to get the lie angle where they thought it was needed. That was back in the early 90's and I believe they were the first club manufacturer to do club fittings for the general public as we know it today, trying different types of shafts and clubheads on the range. Ping was only doing static fittings at that time.

Edited October 3, 2024 by AzRoger

[Whatnogarnish]

19 hours ago, speedeuphoria said:

What did the sharpie test show?

not sure if this is relating to what Howard is saying. But my club path has been VERY in-out and I think was causing me some headaches
 

In my sharpie test, I needed to bend the 9&PW more flat, the 5 iron more upright. Fitter went 1 degree flat on all clubs and the data showed lie angle at impact at 0 for all clubs. 
 

edit: I was shutting the face at impact as well. So started with a ball fight as a pull-draw. 

Edited October 3, 2024 by Whatnogarnish

[playit]

Continuing to read this thread... a proper lie angle seems important. It's a wonder any of us can ever score decently.

 

Golf is hard.

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, playit said:

Continuing to read this thread... a proper lie angle seems important. It's a wonder any of us can ever score decently.

 

I'm guessing that isn't sarcasm - sorry if I'm wrong about that.

 

In general (or really in theory), for someone who has about 100 mph driver swing speed,  an error in lie angle results in ~2-3 yard lateral miss for each 1* the lie angle is "off", and a very consistent miss at that.  There can be some that are more sensitive it it but most will fall into or close to that generalization.   But I'll let each reader make their own decision on how important that is relative to all their other sources of accuracy error and consistency issues.    But it's way down on my particular list of what to blame for problematic results when making equipment choices.

 

Edited October 3, 2024 by Stuart_G

[grochol17]

17 hours ago, RobS said:

I’m clear on how a lie board works and understand how face angle, angle of attack, path, low point and sole geometry impact the markings. Show me where I said anyone should bend a club based exclusively on any lie angle test. I actually said the opposite. Even the vaunted sharpie line test is imperfect. I’m still trying to understand the science of a 10* angle on face tape equaling a 1* lie angle change. 

 

It's a projection effect due to the fact that you're taking your measurements on the face, but that is offset from the shaft, which is the thing that you are bending.

[Guest RobS]

28 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

It's a projection effect due to the fact that you're taking your measurements on the face, but that is offset from the shaft, which is the thing that you are bending.

Projection effect is an optical illusion.  My question was rhetorical because 10:1 is arbitrary, not scientific.   At 0* of loft the ratio would be 1:1.  It changes as you add loft and change face angle, the ratio is variable depending on those changes.  That's not to say that it's not a good tool in the right hands.  Sole tape uses an arbitrary number as well.  Most sole tapes indicate a 3* adjustment around 1" off center yet the true lie angle difference is more like 9* .   

[grochol17]

45 minutes ago, RobS said:

Projection effect is an optical illusion.  My question was rhetorical because 10:1 is arbitrary, not scientific.   At 0* of loft the ratio would be 1:1.  It changes as you add loft and change face angle, the ratio is variable depending on those changes.  That's not to say that it's not a good tool in the right hands.  Sole tape uses an arbitrary number as well.  Most sole tapes indicate a 3* adjustment around 1" off center yet the true lie angle difference is more like 9* .   

 

Ok, so let me get this straight... you asked a question knowing full well that, in your mind, the question is unanswerable, meaning that if someone tried to be helpful, you'd get to reject their answer almost no matter what they said.  Got it.  I hope you feel better about putting me in my place.

[Guest RobS]

15 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

Ok, so let me get this straight... you asked a question knowing full well that, in your mind, the question is unanswerable, meaning that if someone tried to be helpful, you'd get to reject their answer almost no matter what they said.  Got it.  I hope you feel better about putting me in my place.

My apologies, I honestly wasn't trying to do that to you or anyone for that matter.  That's never my intention on here.  You missed the full context of the question which was rooted in opinion/art vs science and not targeted at you.  To summarize what was a pretty silly exchange, I believe that all of the mentioned lie angle tests are useful when used and interpreted properly but none are the end all be all.  That's my opinion, which was dismissed on the basis of science.  I was simply pointing out that 10:1 isn't quite pure science.  

[mktrout]

On 10/1/2024 at 6:21 PM, Archimedes65 said:

 

Lie boards have been used to great success by thousands of fitters for 50+ years.  And you can tell if the lie it implies for you is off by simply hitting some actual balls with clubs of varying lie angles off of grass or a mat to confirm what the board’s telling you.  It’s not rocket science.  I’ve been fitted twice using the board and it’s been spot on both times.  I’m sure there’s someone on here that has a different opinion; there always is.  But to say the tool that’s been used to fit millions of people for decades is bad, is a bit of a stretch.

 

OP, if you have someone that can accurately take all your measurements for you, you could at least go to the Ping color chart and see what it would recommend for you as a starting point.

 

pretty widely accepted by all top fitters now that lie boards are wrong and you shouldn't be using them

[mktrout]

On 10/1/2024 at 6:21 PM, Archimedes65 said:

 

Lie boards have been used to great success by thousands of fitters for 50+ years.  And you can tell if the lie it implies for you is off by simply hitting some actual balls with clubs of varying lie angles off of grass or a mat to confirm what the board’s telling you.  It’s not rocket science.  I’ve been fitted twice using the board and it’s been spot on both times.  I’m sure there’s someone on here that has a different opinion; there always is.  But to say the tool that’s been used to fit millions of people for decades is bad, is a bit of a stretch.

 

OP, if you have someone that can accurately take all your measurements for you, you could at least go to the Ping color chart and see what it would recommend for you as a starting point.

 

pretty widely accepted by all top fitters now that lie boards are wrong and you shouldn't be using them

[Stuart_G]

17 hours ago, RobS said:

My question was rhetorical because 10:1 is arbitrary, not scientific.

 

As I understand it, it's not arbitrary by any means.   It was just determined through actual practical testing and validation, not derived from any theoretical application of science.  But don't be fooled into thinking that makes it any less scientific or valid.   Testing and observing has always been the core of the scientific method.    At worst it only means that the phenomena might not be fully understood (yet).

 

And if memory serves, it's actually closer to 9* but generally just rounded up to 10 for the sake of convenience.

 

As to the underlying theories on why - it really is an interesting question.  But I haven't seen any definitive answer given.  But I strongly suspect that how the ball deforms onto the face at impact is one primary factor.

 

Edited October 4, 2024 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

19 hours ago, RobS said:

Projection effect is an optical illusion.  My question was rhetorical because 10:1 is arbitrary, not scientific.   At 0* of loft the ratio would be 1:1.  It changes as you add loft and change face angle, the ratio is variable depending on those changes.  That's not to say that it's not a good tool in the right hands.  Sole tape uses an arbitrary number as well.  Most sole tapes indicate a 3* adjustment around 1" off center yet the true lie angle difference is more like 9* .   

Science is empirical data's, or simply "observation and experience", and it does NOT have to be supported by a theory for how or why, its still science.

Ive explained it many times how it was made, and what limitations my work had, thats why i invited others to participate. It was my last project, made in a time where i had started selling off my tools, so i could never finish it myself.

However, i never saw any changes to the vertical line based on face angle differences.
Both draw, strait and fade shots was tested, since many players prefer one over the other, but i found them to be equal, so face angle or path did not change it, like it moves impact spots on the sole.

This is what i found by reversed engineering, its the same as the lieboard system, moved to the face, where plus becomes minus, but without the error sources lieboards has. Its really NOT the angle we "measure", but the WIDE on the triangle, but we use the ANGLE to find the WIDE.

[Howard_Jones]

14 hours ago, mktrout said:

pretty widely accepted by all top fitters now that lie boards are wrong and you shouldn't be using them

This map is WHY its useless, and this map comes from the inventor him-selves.
- We dont have to read much on it, to see that to judge it right, we needs to know both path and face angle.
- That means all of a sudden, we have to include a launch monitor.
- Next issue is, what path (how many degrees) and what face angle (how many degrees) does this illustrations shows?
They dont tell anything about it, so the user is left as in the  open sea without a useful map or a working compass.

The next issue seems to be, users (buyers) of lieboard's, did not get this sole impact mark map, and if they did, they must have chosen to ignore it, just like Mizuno did when they made a fitting club for this purpose, with a engraved sole who could tell how much up or flat. Since Mizuno ignored how this marks will move depending on face angle and path, how can we expect the local shop to know any better?



For just as long as lie boards has been around, its been a problem maker, not a solver, and i saw that clearly on all my customers who was used to using a lie board for that test. In general, the lie board told them to go 1-2* upright, vs the return datas i used from my Trackman. The explanation for that is the toe drop that happens when we make impact to the ball, and that moves impact marks against the toe.

i looked at the balls spin axis tilt, and did the math for what came from face to path, and what was due to lie angles, so when we know those data's, there was no need what so ever for the lie board, the map had lacking instructions anyway, so it was impossible to get it right using it.

Turf marks is another factor that should NOT be involved when we judge lie angles, we have whats needed for that, and turf marks is a question of sole properties, way more than lie angles. Today we can design a head who dont dig much or anything at all. So if its turf interaction thats the worries, we should look on our clubs sole properties, where both leading edge, and the cambers heel to toe, sole area and bounce is included, or either change to another model, or have the heads grinded, so the soles works better for the player.

We also have the old saying : "ball flight dont lie", but thats a myth. (in connection with lie angles)
- IF we DONT have full control of face to path, and is able to do the math, ball flight can fool us badly about impact parameters. As example, 2 upright at impact can be equalized with a face angle 2 open to path, or the other way 2 flat at impact can be equalized with a face angle 2 closed to path. Both scenarios will deliver a strait ball flight, with wrong lie angles. 

Use the dry erase marker test, if the line is vertical, lie angles is good. 

Edited October 4, 2024 by Howard_Jones

[PRM93]

This thread has been a great read! 

 

I am curious about how errors/compensations/etc in a golfer's swing relate to proper/improper lie angle fittings and will dive down that rabbit hole next. 👀

 

--

 

Related to the OP -- I just read through this Hireko Golf article on Dynamic Lie angle. It seems to resonate with a lot of thoughts shared here - it does not however denounce the use of lie boards hah! 

https://www.hirekogolf.com/modern-guide-to-golf-club-fitting-understanding-dynamic-lie-angle

 

--

 

@Howard_Jones, that "sole impact lie angle chart" you posted intrigued me but it's been compressed beyond legibility! I reverse image-searched & found a clearer copy you posted back in ~2019 -- The closest high-res match was login-restricted on the "HenryGriffitts Fitters" website (lol).

 

 

I also came across an updated version from HG on Facebook circa 2019-

 

Edited October 5, 2024 by RPMzz

[Howard_Jones]

2 hours ago, RPMzz said:

This thread has been a great read! 

 

I am curious about how errors/compensations/etc in a golfer's swing relate to proper/improper lie angle fittings and will dive down that rabbit hole next. 👀

 

--

 

Related to the OP -- I just read through this Hireko Golf article on Dynamic Lie angle. It seems to resonate with a lot of thoughts shared here - it does not however denounce the use of lie boards hah! 

https://www.hirekogolf.com/modern-guide-to-golf-club-fitting-understanding-dynamic-lie-angle

 

--

 

@Howard_Jones, that "sole impact lie angle chart" you posted intrigued me but it's been compressed beyond legibility! I reverse image-searched & found a clearer copy you posted back in ~2019 -- The closest high-res match was login-restricted on the "HenryGriffitts Fitters" website (lol).

 

 

I also came across an updated version from HG on Facebook circa 2019-

 

The scandal is, most have heard about and even used a lie board, but hardly anyone have heard of or seen those charts, so its a tool with clear limitations, and without correct instructions for use, and the instructions for use that e-cist, cant help out either.

You ask what compensations a player must do?
- He must either change his hand position up or down during impact, or compensate with more open or closed face angle, all depending on what direction his lie angles is wrong.

Now try to make a fade or draw on command, and dont forget that lie angle itself, has a potential to move impact away from the center of the face. We are left with issues we should be without, golf is hard enough as it is. 

 

[Archimedes65]

Sometimes I think people in this subforum must live in rabbit holes, as they seem to like nothing more than to send others down them.  Nothing helps a golf swing like overthinking it…

 

If you want to get your lie right, use whatever tool you want, a lie board, the super modern high technologies of a Sharpie, or a super high speed high definition camera mounted to a peregrine falcon flying directly overhead down your swing line.  But then when you think you’ve got it right, go HIT SOME ACTUAL BALLS OFF GRASS and see how you’re striking the ball.  Then do the same with a club 1 degrees flatter and 1 degrees more upright, and HIT SOME ACTUAL BALLS OFF GRASS and see how you’re striking the ball. All that matters is HOW YOU’RE STRIKING THE BALL.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Archimedes65

[Ty_Guy]

I watched a fitting at my range the other day where a player was being fit by a fun "old school" type coach. Think Rocky's coach Micky.

 

He did a single blind test (knew what lie angle club he gave the player; player was unaware), giving the player five iron heads in a row. Lie angles set to -4, -2, 0, 2, and 4. He went purely by sound at impact and quality of strike. 

 

This looked like a wonderfully simple way to figure out the tricky bits of a fitting. He was able to set up the test in a way where the player didn't really have time to react and change their swing when confronted with the next lie angle. Speaking to him afterwards, he said this method has been his favorite for mid and higher handicappers who tend to react a bit too much with a subtle swing change during fittings. When fitting a play with a very consistent swing and plenty of golf experience, he most commonly fits lie angle in what the player is most comfortable with/used to playing. 

[Awainer1]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:11 AM, Archimedes65 said:

Sometimes I think people in this subforum must live in rabbit holes, as they seem to like nothing more than to send others down them.  Nothing helps a golf swing like overthinking it…

 

If you want to get your lie right, use whatever tool you want, a lie board, the super modern high technologies of a Sharpie, or a super high speed high definition camera mounted to a peregrine falcon flying directly overhead down your swing line.  But then when you think you’ve got it right, go HIT SOME ACTUAL BALLS OFF GRASS and see how you’re striking the ball.  Then do the same with a club 1 degrees flatter and 1 degrees more upright, and HIT SOME ACTUAL BALLS OFF GRASS and see how you’re striking the ball. All that matters is HOW YOU’RE STRIKING THE BALL.

 

 

wow someone actually made sense

[Awainer1]

1 hour ago, Ty_Guy said:

I watched a fitting at my range the other day where a player was being fit by a fun "old school" type coach. Think Rocky's coach Micky.

 

He did a single blind test (knew what lie angle club he gave the player; player was unaware), giving the player five iron heads in a row. Lie angles set to -4, -2, 0, 2, and 4. He went purely by sound at impact and quality of strike. 

 

This looked like a wonderfully simple way to figure out the tricky bits of a fitting. He was able to set up the test in a way where the player didn't really have time to react and change their swing when confronted with the next lie angle. Speaking to him afterwards, he said this method has been his favorite for mid and higher handicappers who tend to react a bit too much with a subtle swing change during fittings. When fitting a play with a very consistent swing and plenty of golf experience, he most commonly fits lie angle in what the player is most comfortable with/used to playing. 

this is the way