Two Fittings - Two Different Results

[Matty2D]

So long story short I am coming from a game improvement iron (Callaway x20) and trying to upgrade into the players distance category as I have improved my game to currently a 12 handicap. My swing speed for the current 7 iron (33 loft) is about 76 mph, carrying 142 with 5900 spin.

 

Anyway I went to get fitted at Golftec and I am a shorter guy at 5'7 with a WTF measurement of 33.5. He recommended going -1/2 off the shafts. At the fitting, we tested several different heads (T200, P790, Apex AI 200, JPX925 Forged, Sirxon ZXi5) but he was using just the stock TT 95 R300 shaft and never changed them during the fitting.

 

I got fitted at 2nd Swing and this fitter said I just needed standard length and he was tinkering around more with the shaft then the Golftech fitter. However after hitting just the P790, he had me hit the JPX 925 Forged and was set on that one before moving between shafts. He did say that I need somewhere in the middle, like a regular+ shaft as my swing speeds jumped to the 79 range with the different shafts.

 

My question is, how common is this to have different results? I assume just an hour wasn't enough time for them to test everything so it kind of felt like a waste in a sense. Should I kind of "fit" myself and blend the two recommendations? When I was hitting the new clubs I was gaining about 15-20 yards in carry and sometimes more but the spin was reduced significantly in the mid 4000's. Thanks in advance!

[ColdOkieGolf]

Shaft length is a process of static fit (your measurements) and how they perform for the individual. According to static fit charts, you should be 1/2" shorter, or roughly 36.5" for a 7 iron. However, that is really just a baseline. You might have a better strike location and contact with stock length.  Did you hit the ball better during the first fitting or the second fitting?

Edited June 1 by ColdOkieGolf

[Matty2D]

Honestly I think I was hitting it the same. My baseline club stats initially were pretty spot on both times. 

[RickyBubbs]

You need to consider descent angle and apex, not just spin. The old ideas of spin = 1000*iron number are dead unless you are playing traditional blades, which you're not. What are you trying to improve over your current irons? You can get to scratch with GI irons, so to have someone (or yourself) fit you, you need to be specific about what you are trying to accomplish. 

[Stuart_G]

23 hours ago, Matty2D said:

My question is, how common is this to have different results?

 

Very common.  

1) The state of the fitting industry isn't really very good and most people who call themselves a fitter are just glorified sales people without a whole lot of proper training in fitting.   That means that different fitters might use less than ideal methodology to get to the final results or put different priorities on different aspects of the results.

 

22 hours ago, Matty2D said:

Honestly I think I was hitting it the same. My baseline club stats initially were pretty spot on both times. 

 

2) Even with good fitters, some people are just less sensitive to different aspects of the club specs.  They can hit a wider range of shafts or heads and get very similar results.    If you're one of those people, that's actually a good thing. 🙂

 

23 hours ago, Matty2D said:

Anyway I went to get fitted at Golftec and I am a shorter guy at 5'7 with a WTF measurement of 33.5. He recommended going -1/2 off the shafts. 

23 hours ago, Matty2D said:

I got fitted at 2nd Swing and this fitter said I just needed standard length 

 

One very important aspect of fitting playing length for irons that most people don't' realize is that:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to properly fit iron playing length with a mid-iron.   

 

Proper fitting of iron playing length is about two things.  1) Making sure the shortest clubs in the bag (wedges) don't get too short for your size, posture and mechanics.  and 2) making sure the longest irons don't get too long to control well based on your athletic ability.   Neither one of those things can be determined by hitting a 6i or7i that most fitters use.

 

That's why most fitters (even the better ones) rely almost completely on static charts - and there is not just one standard for those charts.   So some variation is not unusual.     Unless you're specifically having problems with the wedges getting too short, I would recommend erring on the side of shorter - as  that usually means increased accuracy in the scoring clubs.

 

14 hours ago, RickyBubbs said:

You need to consider descent angle and apex, not just spin. The old ideas of spin = 1000*iron number are dead unless you are playing traditional blades, which you're not. 

 

The old idea was never a good idea.   I came from people putting too much value in the published tour averages.   If that's the new idea, it's not really any better - largely because there is no ideal or optimal numbers for irons.   On top of that, for an indoor fitting off of mats, neither the spin numbers nor the apex is all that useful for fitting due to the way that the mats can alter the values.   Only actual on course performance is going to give an accurate indication of what kind of distance or how much stopping power an individual will end up with.

 

Fitting for irons should first and foremost be about getting a consistent delivery, consistent face impact, dispersion, accuracy, and shot shape control (or management depending on the skill level).   In some cases, that can be balanced against club head speed if the person being fit is willing to sacrifice a bit of control for distance.   

 

Launch and spin (and apex) is really more inherently a factor of the individuals mechanics and ability than it is fitting choices.  The head and loft selection can be used to find a balance between distance and distance control (stopping power) but there are no ideal targets and there will always be some trade offs between the two.  The player needs to be involved in determining what the best balance might be for them and their game and the courses they play.

 

Edited June 2 by Stuart_G

[Matty2D]

Thank you so much for the information @Stuart_G!

 

I guess I was slightly disappointed and was expecting something different. I think I am probably going to fit myself and go with the shorter clubs. I might go and test some shafts on my own at 2nd swing just to be certain before I commit to new clubs. Thanks aagain!

[Stuart_G]

15 hours ago, Matty2D said:

Thank you so much for the information @Stuart_G!

 

I guess I was slightly disappointed and was expecting something different.

 

No problem.

 

Sorry for the disappointment but that (unfortunately) is also common.  The industry and marketing like to push fitting as this miraculous and glorious thing.   Yes, it is important and can make a difference IF you find a good fitter, but probably not as much of a difference as people going in hope for.   Especially with the better players.

 

The improvements you might see from a good fitting are more a reflection of how bad a fit your current clubs are than how good the fitter might be.  And a 12 handicap, just through casually demo'ing the clubs they might purchase,  is typically not going to buy or end up in really bad fitting equipment,   especially in irons.  It may not be "perfect" (if there even is such a thing) but they will inherently end up in something that's at least half way decent fit.    It's really the higher handicap players that are more likely to end up in poor fitting equipment when left to their own devices.

 

The one exception to that is probably when it comes to playing length (and maybe shaft weight) of the longer clubs - driver, fairways and hybrids.  Just because of the limited options for those in the stock off the shelf offerings.

 

Edited June 3 by Stuart_G

[gumpy]

Just like with golf coaches really hit and miss. 

 

I had one fitter who tried to fix me being too handsy with the heavier shafts which then slowed me down too much…-_-, the simpler answer was learn to be less handsy…. Which I did and my game improved…

 

Don’t get me wrong, a good fit will help you but it’s a real hit and miss process from I’ve seen. In saying that I particularly like going to the manufacturer run ones to try out new gear. 

[grinder1320]

On 6/3/2025 at 4:12 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

No problem.

 

Sorry for the disappointment but that (unfortunately) is also common.  The industry and marketing like to push fitting as this miraculous and glorious thing.   Yes, it is important and can make a difference IF you find a good fitter, but probably not as much of a difference as people going in hope for.   Especially with the better players.

 

The improvements you might see from a good fitting are more a reflection of how bad a fit your current clubs are than how good the fitter might be.  And a 12 handicap, just through casually demo'ing the clubs they might purchase,  is typically not going to buy or end up in really bad fitting equipment,   especially in irons.  It may not be "perfect" (if there even is such a thing) but they will inherently end up in something that's at least half way decent fit.    It's really the higher handicap players that are more likely to end up in poor fitting equipment when left to their own devices.

 

The one exception to that is probably when it comes to playing length (and maybe shaft weight) of the longer clubs - driver, fairways and hybrids.  Just because of the limited options for those in the stock off the shelf offerings.

 

That is it! Great post!!

[Urb]

Also as a 12 cap your swing quality fluctuates.  So you could potentially see the same fitter on different days and get outcomes.

 

Focus on finding a shaft weight and flex/profile that gets you pretty close to middle strikes and seems to jive with your action.  Id recommend staying with a bigger/forgiving head cause golf is hard and we need all the help we can get.

 

Then I'd really try to stick with that setup until:

 

You get a consistent, one-way miss.  A future fitting can help reign it in.

 

You pick up enough speed to where the clubs feel like kids clubs or the shafts are way too loose. 

[gvogel]

On 6/1/2025 at 8:41 AM, Matty2D said:

So long story short I am coming from a game improvement iron (Callaway x20) and trying to upgrade into the players distance category as I have improved my game to currently a 12 handicap. My swing speed for the current 7 iron (33 loft) is about 76 mph, carrying 142 with 5900 spin.

 

Anyway I went to get fitted at Golftec and I am a shorter guy at 5'7 with a WTF measurement of 33.5. He recommended going -1/2 off the shafts. At the fitting, we tested several different heads (T200, P790, Apex AI 200, JPX925 Forged, Sirxon ZXi5) but he was using just the stock TT 95 R300 shaft and never changed them during the fitting.

 

I got fitted at 2nd Swing and this fitter said I just needed standard length and he was tinkering around more with the shaft then the Golftech fitter. However after hitting just the P790, he had me hit the JPX 925 Forged and was set on that one before moving between shafts. He did say that I need somewhere in the middle, like a regular+ shaft as my swing speeds jumped to the 79 range with the different shafts.

 

My question is, how common is this to have different results? I assume just an hour wasn't enough time for them to test everything so it kind of felt like a waste in a sense. Should I kind of "fit" myself and blend the two recommendations? When I was hitting the new clubs I was gaining about 15-20 yards in carry and sometimes more but the spin was reduced significantly in the mid 4000's. Thanks in advance!

Matty, welcome to the wonderful world of club ho'ing.  In the end the best person to fit you is you.  You do that by trying different clubs whenever possible, and figuring out what seems to work best for you.  I think that you were on the right track at 2nd swing, but go there another time and try some more.  

[SeanAnderson]

On 6/2/2025 at 4:49 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

Very common.  

1) The state of the fitting industry isn't really very good and most people who call themselves a fitter are just glorified sales people without a whole lot of proper training in fitting.   That means that different fitters might use less than ideal methodology to get to the final results or put different priorities on different aspects of the results.

 

 

2) Even with good fitters, some people are just less sensitive to different aspects of the club specs.  They can hit a wider range of shafts or heads and get very similar results.    If you're one of those people, that's actually a good thing. 🙂

 

 

One very important aspect of fitting playing length for irons that most people don't' realize is that:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to properly fit iron playing length with a mid-iron.   

 

Proper fitting of iron playing length is about two things.  1) Making sure the shortest clubs in the bag (wedges) don't get too short for your size, posture and mechanics.  and 2) making sure the longest irons don't get too long to control well based on your athletic ability.   Neither one of those things can be determined by hitting a 6i or7i that most fitters use.

 

That's why most fitters (even the better ones) rely almost completely on static charts - and there is not just one standard for those charts.   So some variation is not unusual.     Unless you're specifically having problems with the wedges getting too short, I would recommend erring on the side of shorter - as  that usually means increased accuracy in the scoring clubs.

 

 

The old idea was never a good idea.   I came from people putting too much value in the published tour averages.   If that's the new idea, it's not really any better - largely because there is no ideal or optimal numbers for irons.   On top of that, for an indoor fitting off of mats, neither the spin numbers nor the apex is all that useful for fitting due to the way that the mats can alter the values.   Only actual on course performance is going to give an accurate indication of what kind of distance or how much stopping power an individual will end up with.

 

Fitting for irons should first and foremost be about getting a consistent delivery, consistent face impact, dispersion, accuracy, and shot shape control (or management depending on the skill level).   In some cases, that can be balanced against club head speed if the person being fit is willing to sacrifice a bit of control for distance.   

 

Launch and spin (and apex) is really more inherently a factor of the individuals mechanics and ability than it is fitting choices.  The head and loft selection can be used to find a balance between distance and distance control (stopping power) but there are no ideal targets and there will always be some trade offs between the two.  The player needs to be involved in determining what the best balance might be for them and their game and the courses they play.

 

not to mention that fitting flex to swing speed is such and outdated and elementary way of fitting any place that isn't fitting flex based on release point is in my book not a real fitting

[Stuart_G]

12 minutes ago, SeanAnderson said:

any place that isn't fitting flex based on release point is in my book not a real fitting

 

Sorry, I'm personally not into any new unproven method or speculative method any more than I am with the old outdated ones.   The only proper and proven way to to fit for shaft fitness is by comparing ball flight results.   Period.   There are no magic formulas or metrics based on any details of the mechanics, the process is just to subjective for any objective approach to be useful or reliable.   

 

More specifically it should be based on any actual effects on: dispersion, consistency of the face impact location, accuracy, shot shape control and with some balanced consideration going to the subjective evaluation of the feel by the player.   And flex should usually only be evaluated after shaft weight has been fit first.

Edited July 9 by Stuart_G

[SeanAnderson]

1 minute ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Sorry, I'm personally not into any new unproven method any more than I am with the old outdated ones.   The only proper and proven way to to fit for shaft fitness is by comparing ball flight results.   Period.   There are no magic formulas or metrics based on any details of the mechanics, the process is just to subjective for any objective approach to be useful.   More specifically it should be based on any actual effects on: dispersion, consistency of the face impact location, accuracy, shot shape control and with some balanced consideration going to the subjective evaluation of the feel by the player.   And flex should usually only be evaluated after shaft weight has been fit first.

the mizuno fit chip has been around for 20 years measuring CPM at the release of the club is not only not new but in theory the only way to get the proper flex ball flight should be fitted on profile not flex 

[Stuart_G]

23 minutes ago, SeanAnderson said:

the mizuno fit chip has been around for 20 years

 

The swing speed charts have been around longer than that.   Longevity of a method has nothing to do with how good or valid it might be.

 

And FWIW,  even Mizuno, with their optimizer measuring swing metrics to help with a fit, fully admits that the optimizer itself is ONLY a starting point in the fitting process.  It does not avoid the need to conduct trial and error testing.  It just helps speed up the process a little for a good percentage of players based on what statistically has been found to be more popular with certain swing characteristics.

 

 

23 minutes ago, SeanAnderson said:

measuring CPM at the release of the club is not only not new but in theory the only way to get the proper flex 

 

First of all, Mizuno's method is not telling you what the proper flex is - it's telling you what it might be.

 

Sorry but that's just not true or even possible.  Largely because there is no one universally accepted theory that defines what the "proper flex" really is or what it means to have the "proper flex".  There is just no objective way (based on swing metrics) to know or evaluate when you have something that hasn't been defined.

 

When it comes to the underlying physics of how a shaft works - there is no ideal or "proper" amount of flex or loading/unloading of the shaft.  Dynamically it actually doesn't matter how much the shaft bends or loads or unloads.   That means that no robot swing machine - no matter how much the mechanics matches a real swing or not - would care or see any significant difference in the results for shafts with different stiffness.   It's only with humans the question becomes important.  And that's because of the difference it makes is in what the player feels from the club and shaft during the swing and how that change in feel effects the swing and delivery.  And that's not something that is in any way predictable - again it's just too subjective.  At least not yet.

 

 

Edited July 9 by Stuart_G

[SeanAnderson]

It it is in the unloading of the shaft that we create the spin on the ball its why Sergio Garcia needs a triple X and Fred Couples needs a Sr flex sure you can likely figure that out without knowing the exact release point but in turn it leads to less errors and mistakes on the fitters end.  

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

It it is in the unloading of the shaft that we create the spin on the ball 

 

Sorry, that's also not true and has no real basis in the physics of the shaft or the swing.   Spin is generated simply because we hit the ball with a lofted club head.  How much the shaft loaded or unloaded before that point doesn't play any direct part.   The shaft is just a simple mechanism that transmits energy from our hands (and body) to the club head.   How much the shaft loads or not doesn't change how much of that energy is transferred to the head (assuming identical swing).

 

Maybe you're thinking about the unloading of the shaft adding kick velocity?  If so, that was scientifically debunked a long time ago.

 

The effect of stiffness just comes down to how we alter our swing to accommodate the change in feel from the shaft. 

 

Now some players rely on the loading and unloading feel to help them time their swing.  If the loading feel is off, then the swing will be off.   But that's purely a learned relationship.  Two people with the exact same mechanics can have very different preferences (or needs) for stiffness just because they may have learned how to swing with different shaft stiffness's.

 

2 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

why Sergio Garcia needs a triple X and Fred Couples needs a Sr flex

 

"triple X" not a flex.  Maybe you meant TX  (which stands for Tour Extra Stiff)?

 

But last I checked Sergio was playing a Ventus Black 6 X-stiff.

and Couples was playing a Tensei AV Pro Blue 75 X-stiff.

 

Edited July 9 by Stuart_G

[ShortGolfer]

My fitter could see that I needed extra short clubs from the steepness of my swing and short stature.  A huge part of my golf swing was swinging an ax at tree stump, not a thrown baseball.  I haven't swung at thrown ball since the 1970s.  My irons are 2inches short and 2*upright.
A good fitter can watch you swing.  My fitter bent a six iron to verify the proper lie angle.  The six iron is now my longest distance approach club for hitting and holding greens.  It took two years to get there but the fitting proved accurate!

 

I saw an immediate improvement with my 7iron, hitting and holding postage stamp greens as soon as I received the club.

Edited July 9 by ShortGolfer

[SeanAnderson]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

The swing speed charts have been around longer than that.   Longevity of a method has nothing to do with how good or valid it might be.

 

 

Sorry but that's not true.  Largely because there is no one universally accepted theory that defines what the "proper flex" really is or what it means to have the "proper flex".   So there is just no objective way to know or evaluate when you have it or not.

 

When it comes to the underlying physics of how a shaft works - there is no ideal amount of flex or loading/unloading of the shaft.  Dynamically it actually doesn't matter how much the shaft bends or loads or unloads.   That means that no robot swing machine - no matter how much the mechanics matches a real swing or not - would care or see any significant difference in the results for shafts with different stiffness.   It's only with humans the question becomes important.  And that's because of the difference it makes is in what the player feels from the club and shaft during the swing and how that change in feel effects the swing and delivery.  And that's not something that is in any way predictable - again it's just too subjective.  At least not yet.

 

And FWIW,  even Mizuno, with their optimizer measuring swing metrics to help with a fit, fully admits that the optimizer itself is ONLY a starting point in the fitting process.  It does not avoid the need to conduct trial and error testing.  It just helps speed up the process a little for a good percentage of players based on what statistically has been found to be more popular with certain swing characteristics.

 

6 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Sorry, that's also not true and has no real basis in the physics of the shaft or the swing.   Spin is generated simply because we hit the ball with a lofted club head.  How much the shaft loaded or unloaded before that point doesn't play any direct part.   The shaft is just a simple mechanism that transmits energy from our hands (and body) to the club head.   How much the shaft loads or not doesn't change how much of that energy is transferred to the head (assuming identical swing).

 

Maybe you're thinking about the unloading of the shaft adding kick velocity?  If so, that was scientifically debunked a long time ago.

 

The effect of stiffness just comes down to how we alter our swing to accommodate the change in feel from the shaft. 

 

Now some players rely on the loading and unloading feel to help them time their swing.  If the loading feel is off, then the swing will be off.   But that's purely a learned relationship.  Two people with the exact same mechanics can have very different preferences (or needs) for stiffness just because they may have learned how to swing with different shaft stiffness's.

 

 

"triple X" not a flex.  Maybe you meant TX  (which stands for Tour Extra Stiff)?

 

But last I checked Sergio was playing a Ventus Black 6 X-stiff.

and Couples was playing a Tensei AV Pro Blue 75 X-stiff.

 

there are plenty of manufactures that make a triple X just because they are not mainstream doesn't mean they don't exist. flex codes are based on the digifelx CPM numbers not base off of what is written on the shaft As for Sergio he plays a 1 inch tip and the driver at C8 both influencing the CPM number of the shaft to play to a stiffer feel. As for Fred he plays rifle blank 5.5 CPMed to R2 specs I would know because I had a hand in building them.

[Stuart_G]

 

 

2 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

 

Flex codes are based on the digifelx CPM numbers not base off of what is written on the shaft 

 

Only builders and fitters who don't know any better look at flex based on butt frequency.   Actually only those that don't really know or understand what they are doing think of flex at all - other than an arbitary reference point for the start of the fitting process  (you have to start some place).    There is no one single standard for defining flex, it's completely useless and pointless when comparing shafts of different makes and models in terms of how they will feel or perform.  And it has nothing to do with telling you how the shaft will feel.    The only useful purpose it has is to match one build to another exact duplicate build using the same shaft - or matching irons of the same model in a set.

Not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's not from anyone with any actual scientific understanding of what's going on with the shaft.   But that's not really all that uncommon.  It's amazing how much mis-information is out there and very little in terms of opportunities for most to get properly educated about it.

 

But there is some actual useful information out there to learn. This is probably a good starting point.

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/73753/wishon-shaft-frequency-can-be-misleading/

 

2 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

As for Fred he plays rifle blank 5.5 CPMed to R2 specs I would know because I had a hand in building them.

 

He's playing steelfiber i110 x-flex in his irons now and a steelfiber i95 X flex in his hybrid.

 

And even if you want to look at it in terms of  pigeon holing flexes - rifle 5.5. is a firm, not even close to a sr flex. 

 

Edited July 9 by Stuart_G

[SeanAnderson]

5.5 is a weight not a flex blanks are tipped based on a flex thats why they are stepless. He also won the masters with tom watsons wife's driver because that flex played well to his release point old fitting systems have him playing xstiff in irons and woods but it is proven that he is successful with a softer flex 

[avrag]

12 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

More specifically it should be based on any actual effects on: dispersion, consistency of the face impact location, accuracy, shot shape control and with some balanced consideration going to the subjective evaluation of the feel by the player.   And flex should usually only be evaluated after shaft weight has been fit first.

As somebody who is no club fitter, but a customer, I can only say this: 
I had 3 driver fittings in my life. The one which made me happy for a long time was the one, which threw all preconceptions over board and was based primarily on consistency of face impact location and dispersion (both distance and direction) and which also took into account that I always see a tiny fall-away fade, when I visualise a shot from behind the ball. 

[Stuart_G]

22 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

5.5 is a weight not a flex 

 

Where do you get these ideas?   Whatever the source, you should re-evaluate the accuracy of it or your interpretation of it.

 

No, rifle 5.5 is definitely a flex.   A flex system that originated as the Brunswick Frequency Coefficient Matching (FCM) method and later taken over by FM Precision and then Royal Precision - the producers of the Rifle shaft.  It stood out as a different method in an industry where most others were using the more well known letter designations (LARSX).    Whether it's better or not is arguable, but at least it was more clearly defined.

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/flex3.php

 

Now there might be different weights associated with different flexes for certain shaft models.  KBS does that with most of their shafts.  But the FCM flex designation by itself does not mean or imply anything about the weight.   

 

Parallel tip shaft can be tipped different amounts to alter the stiffness, taper tip shafts don't have as much flexibility but can be designed to have "better" weight progressions through the set. Whether the shaft is stepped or not above the tip section is irrelevant.

 

 

22 hours ago, SeanAnderson said:

because that flex played well to his release point 

 

You realize that means absolutely nothing in terms of exactly why a shaft might work or not?

 

I'm not sure there is much point in continuing this.   You've got you're own ideas that your comfortable with and have no interest in questioning them or going deeper into the nature of how the mind, body, and equipment work together and effect each other.  And there's nothing wrong with that.   Golf can mess with your mind in so many ways, sometimes it's better not dig too deep.

Edited July 10 by Stuart_G

[erock9174]

Back to the OP.  Unless you bias the fitting process by saying you want only this certain iron. You could see 10 fitters and see 10 different outcomes in terms of the head they choose for you.
 

Even taking it further. You could see 10 different fitters and say you only want to try 1 head you could end up with 10 different results.  Whether it be Different shafts, different lies, different lengths, different grip choice, different grip size,  loft adjustments you name it. 
 

if there was a universal truth or ultimate combo why then do fitters go get fit. They of anyone should know their ultimate combo.