Fitting Philosophy Question

[highergr0und]

Older clubs / Weaker lofts

Alright for the club makers and fitting gurus out there...

I've gleaned a lot of info from this site regarding fitting and waded through the stuff on the strengthening of loft for distance, but I've never really seen anything on the fitting of length to specific lofts...

For example, I just got a set of Ping Eye 2s and the 8 iron is 36.25" and 40* of loft. In a current set of I-15s, the 9 iron is 41* and 35.75", so the Eye 2 8 is essentially a +0.5 inch 9 iron from the new sets. This can even be applied to current sets like the MP 68 where the 8 iron is 39*/36.25, so it's not really an old vs new issue.

Basically, what considerations to loft to experienced fitters or players take in regards to length? On the fitting charts, would you be less tempted to add length to a club with a weaker loft? Is there a limit where adding length pretty much becomes worthless at a given loft? Or would you recommend a certain length based off of the number on the sole and attribute distance changes just to loft?

I know I may get some "whatever works for you" responses and will ultimately figure out what works for me, which is typically just a little flat and a half inch long (which these "standard" clubs are essentially at if I use today's specs)... but I'm just curious how others look at the situation.

[KevCarter]

The only time loft and length is important is fitting for your gaps. If you have an older set of irons with traditional lofts, you are going to need more clubs on the long end of your bag. If you have strong "modern" lofts, you are going to need more wedges.

When you start fooling too much with length and lofts, you change the characteristics of the way the club was designed and its balance.

More length = heavier swing weight.
Stronger loft = more offset.


IMO, there is no reason to mess with the specs of full traditional set to make them match modern distances... The more I look at the Ryan Moore thread, the more I like the idea of loft on the club rather than a club number.

Kevin

[jaskanski]

I tend to agree with Kev. There's a certain amount of tinkering to be done to make the set comfortable to use, but other than that, too much tinkering can lead to more headaches. Classic case in point is the age old yardage gap dilemma. It should be noted that as you get to the longer end of the bag, the distance control becomes more difficult. For example, a putter can control the distance to within a few inches, the wedge within a few feet, mid irons with a couple of yards etc. When people prattle on about yardage gaps and how to define the loft on each club, they forget to realise that they probably don't hit the ball like a robot - there is a yardage tolerance for human frailties. Once you start altering for the sake of a pinpoint yardage (that you probably can make 25% of the time) it defeats the object of a balanced set. In summary - don't go looking for a problem that isn't there. Learn to hit the clubs you have first and how each one reacts, rather than altering clubs to fit a swing that is inevitably the variable factor.

[Awalkspoiled]

Three factors play into this - you want predictable gaps between clubs, you want adequate accuracy and comfortable posture with your shorter clubs and good contact and compression with your longer clubs.

Starting with the last of these, most players of normal stature have increasing trouble hitting any iron longer than 39" and/or lower loft than 23*. Likewise, irons shorter than 34.5-35" begin to create cramped angles at address, so that gives you your range. For most guys, 35-38 is really the effective range, so you spread your set out within that. The numbers on the clubs are kinda irrelevant. I'll try to set clublength first, starting with the shortest club. Then I'll work up through the set, usually on 1/2" gaps, adjusting lie angle to achieve good impact given the clublength we've selected. For extreme cases, such as very tall players, I may compress the length gaps at the long end - If I have to use a 36.5" SW, the 4i-5i and maybe the 6i are probably going to be the same 39" length, because otherwise they're just too unwieldy. I'll adjust headweight/lie angle to make them work.

For players with very slow swings I'll adjust the loft gaps to 5 or even 6°, since otherwise there isn't enough gap in carry yardage. Most players would be better off anyway with 5° gaps and fewer clubs - a 12 club set on 5° gaps from 10-60 would be perfectly adequate (look at what Ryan Moore's playing)

[parpar41]

[quote name='Awalkspoiled' date='23 January 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1264255397' post='2198790']
Three factors play into this - you want predictable gaps between clubs, you want adequate accuracy and comfortable posture with your shorter clubs and good contact and compression with your longer clubs.

Starting with the last of these, most players of normal stature have increasing trouble hitting any iron longer than 39" and/or lower loft than 23*. Likewise, irons shorter than 34.5-35" begin to create cramped angles at address, so that gives you your range. For most guys, 35-38 is really the effective range, so you spread your set out within that. The numbers on the clubs are kinda irrelevant. I'll try to set clublength first, starting with the shortest club. Then I'll work up through the set, usually on 1/2" gaps, adjusting lie angle to achieve good impact given the clublength we've selected. For extreme cases, such as very tall players, I may compress the length gaps at the long end - If I have to use a 36.5" SW, the 4i-5i and maybe the 6i are probably going to be the same 39" length, because otherwise they're just too unwieldy. I'll adjust headweight/lie angle to make them work.

For players with very slow swings I'll adjust the loft gaps to 5 or even 6°, since otherwise there isn't enough gap in carry yardage. Most players would be better off anyway with 5° gaps and fewer clubs - a 12 club set on 5° gaps from 10-60 would be perfectly adequate (look at what Ryan Moore's playing)
[/quote]

A very informative and interesting post.

Your premise makes sense to me: if an iron shaft is too short, it is not comfortable; if an iron shaft is too long, it is not really playable; that creates a range of shaft lengths to match up with the range of playable iron lofts: in my experience, that range of iron lofts is between say, 25 degrees and 56 degrees. I say that because I am not a fan of the 60 degree wedge and I don't think average golfers have enuf swing speed to hit more than a 5 iron consistently. ( the popularity of hybrids kinda supports that view).

AWalkSpoiled : I would like to hear your views on the optimum length of graphite driver shafts for the average golfer ( less than 100 mph swing speed) . Do you support the Wishon School that anything longer than 44 inches will lead to catastrophy or the OEM school that says 46" inches (or more) creates more club head speed and therefore more distance??

What do you think?

[Awalkspoiled]

"Do you support the Wishon School that anything longer than 44 inches will lead to catastrophy or the OEM school that says 46" inches (or more) creates more club head speed and therefore more distance??"

LOL - Both, I guess, and neither. My view is that the more a player swings around his/her body, the more it's a pulling motion, the smoother it is, to some extent the flatter the swingplane and to some extent the slower the swingspeed, the longer the driver they can play successfully. The steeper the plane, the quicker the tempo, the more "hit" there is in the swing, the shorter the driver the player will be sufficiently consistent with. Shorter driving clubs often generate more spin and more height, so they'll often want lower-spin, lower-launch shafts and heads. Few players are really consistent with anything over 46.5, and few really gain by playing anything under 44". Any tendency to slide or excessive crouch in the downswing will make a long club completely unplayable (TW is wild with driver, imo, for this reason, and he plays a shorter driver than many. He's deadly with anything 42" or under of course)

There's no question at all that the longest drives will come from longer clubs - you don't see anyone in a longdrive contest trying to use a 44.5" driver. The question really is what offers the best balance of control and distance. One other factor which not many people consider - if you play an excessively long driver it may be hard to adjust your plane and tempo for the rest of your set. People are always saying "If only i had my whole game at one time, but if I'm hitting good irons I can't hit driver, and vice-versa..."

Well, that's a good observation if the player knows what to do about it - either be more careful to get the plane right, or make more use of hybrids and FWs off the tee, or play a shorter driver....

I use an R9 460 as a a test/demo platform. Not my favorite driver head but the ability to swap shafts is just so handy. I'll carry a range of lengths to a fitting, all the way from a Longwood setup which plays at 47.5, to a 45.5 HD6, to the stock 45.25 Motore, to a 44.5 TP7x, and usually a couple of others as well. The TP7x is the most consistent, the HD6 is the most consistently long, but the $7 Aldila Longwood hits the very longest drives, but without much consistency.

[parpar41]

A walk spoiled: thanks for the info.

P.S. : Who is this "TW" you say is wild with his driver??

Some golfer from the distant past perhaps??

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='highergr0und' date='22 January 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1264219575' post='2198356']
Alright for the club makers and fitting gurus out there...

I've gleaned a lot of info from this site regarding fitting and waded through the stuff on the strengthening of loft for distance, but I've never really seen anything on the fitting of length to specific lofts...

For example, I just got a set of Ping Eye 2s and the 8 iron is 36.25" and 40* of loft. In a current set of I-15s, the 9 iron is 41* and 35.75", so the Eye 2 8 is essentially a +0.5 inch 9 iron from the new sets. This can even be applied to current sets like the MP 68 where the 8 iron is 39*/36.25, so it's not really an old vs new issue.

Basically, what considerations to loft to experienced fitters or players take in regards to length? On the fitting charts, would you be less tempted to add length to a club with a weaker loft? Is there a limit where adding length pretty much becomes worthless at a given loft? Or would you recommend a certain length based off of the number on the sole and attribute distance changes just to loft?

I know I may get some "whatever works for you" responses and will ultimately figure out what works for me, which is typically just a little flat and a half inch long (which these "standard" clubs are essentially at if I use today's specs)... but I'm just curious how others look at the situation.
[/quote]

FWIW, I build my own clubs. I build/use a pretty normal set with the following small changes.

1) I don't like clubs shorter than 35.5" so my LW, SW, and Gap Wedge are all 35.5". Note that I don't carry a PW but my gap wedge is bent to 50* (which would have been a PW 25 years ago). 9i is 36" with 1/2" progressions from that point.

2) I start encountering 'distance compression' around my 5i (where I no longer get the 10 or so yards of carry difference between clubs). So my 5i is +0.5" and my 4i is +1" (actually both are hybrids).

dave

[TLT_Dan]

Length is directly related to lie. This needs to be set correctly before considering loft.

You want to be in a strong athletic address position for every club.
Lets say your wedges are too short, causing you to crouch or bend over more you have moved from your best position.
This new address position will cause you to need a new swing.
Consistency in ball flight can only come when both length and lie have been addressed.

At this point, if the lofts are set in a consisten pattern of say 4 degrees you will have consistent yardage gaps.

You have to be carefull adjusting lofts as every degree affects the bounce, and you don't want a negative bounce ( a digger).
Strengthening your clubs will do this on a 1 : 1 ratio

[parpar41]

I was hoping TLT Dan might post on this thread.

He says "length is directly related to lie".

There is a lot hanging on that statement.

If I remember his previous posts from previous years more or less correctly, he takes issue with the standard half inch progressions in shaft length.

[b]He uses the Pythagorean theorem[/b] (we learned about the hypotenuse of a triangle in grade school) [b]as a fitting tool[/b].

It involves a constant position of the hands at address as the top of the hypotenuse.

The bottom of the hypotenuse is hosel of the iron head sitting properly on the ground; not too upright ; not too flat. It follows, if I recall correctly, that the proper length of the shaft is the distance between the hands at address and the hosel : the hypotenuse.

I am not trained in fitting, but his idea -- assuming I understand it more or less correctly -- makes real sense to me. I suppose the OEM could have programmed the lie angles to correspond exactly to half inch increments in length to get to the exact same address position, but I strongly doubt it.

I think TLT Dan and that Pythagoras guy are on to something good when it comes to determining the optimum shaft length.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='parpar41' date='24 January 2010 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1264338259' post='2200618']
I was hoping TLT Dan might post on this thread.

He says "length is directly related to lie".

There is a lot hanging on that statement.

If I remember his previous posts from previous years more or less correctly, he takes issue with the standard half inch progressions in shaft length.

[b]He uses the Pythagorean theorem[/b] (we learned about the hypotenuse of a triangle in grade school) [b]as a fitting tool[/b].

It involves a constant position of the hands at address as the top of the hypotenuse.

The bottom of the hypotenuse is hosel of the iron head sitting properly on the ground; not too upright ; not too flat. It follows, if I recall correctly, that the proper length of the shaft is the distance between the hands at address and the hosel : the hypotenuse.

I am not trained in fitting, but his idea -- assuming I understand it more or less correctly -- makes real sense to me. I suppose the OEM could have programmed the lie angles to correspond exactly to half inch increments in length to get to the exact same address position, but I strongly doubt it.

I think TLT Dan and that Pythagoras guy are on to something good when it comes to determining the optimum shaft length.
[/quote]

To me every length (I mean EVERY length) has a single correct lie angle for a given golfer. So there are an infinite number of correct lengths (even if we restrict ourselves to shafts between 34" and 46") for any golfer. But once you have chosen a length, then there is only one proper lie.

If TLT_Dan sees it differently I would like to understand his view.

dave

[Geohans]

If I understand correctly, bringing the lie angle 2 degrees more upright will effectively give you a half inch of added length, it terms of how the sides of the triangle function. Right?

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Geohans' date='24 January 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1264342205' post='2200692']
If I understand correctly, bringing the lie angle 2 degrees more upright will effectively give you a half inch of added length, it terms of how the sides of the triangle function. Right?
[/quote]

Assume that you have a 38" 5i with an effective lie at impact of 60 degrees. Further assume that the is of the club is totally flat at impact (perfect lie).

Now change nothing but the lie of the club 2* upright. Surprise/surprise the lie is now 2 degrees too upright. If you change nothing except

1) The length of the club (3/4 inch shorter)
2) The position of the ball (closer to your feet)

You will once again have a totally flat sole at impact.

dave

[parpar41]

Dave Lee NC :

in post #11, you said:

[i]To me every length (I mean EVERY length) has a single correct lie angle for a given golfer. So there are an infinite number of correct lengths (even if we restrict ourselves to shafts between 34" and 46") for any golfer. But once you have chosen a length, then there is only one proper lie.

If TLT_Dan sees it differently I would like to understand his view.[/i]

Based on my limited understanding, I think you and TLT Dan agree: there is only one proper length for a given lie angle.

I think I know where the two of you differ: You adjust lie angle whereas Dan takes lie angle as built. You determine the desired length of shaft first and then you bend the lie to get it flat; TLT Dan takes the lie of the hosel as built by the manufacturer and then determines the correct length.

In other words, Dan's system -- if I understand it correctly -- keeps lie angle and hand position at address as two constants and then adjusts for length. On the other hand, you do not keep the lie angle constant; you adjust it to fit the desired length.

I expect there are some OEM club heads that are built were the lie angle cannot really be adjusted without causing damage to the head. On the other hand, I gather some forged heads can be adjusted for lie angle.

Makes for an interesting discussion in any event.

[TLT_Dan]

You guys certainly have the just of TLT, but adjustments are made to both length and lie for each club.

The 1/2 inch increment can work but requires fairly extensive bends to reach the math model.
Often the manufacturers bend specifications are exceeded, putting the clubhead at risk.

This is why I adjust both. Tall players play longer sets and small players play shorter sets, all within attainable lie angles.