A Common Fitting Mistake

[iacas]

Guy goes in to get a fitting.

Warms up, hits his 6-iron. They get some numbers (I'm quasi-making these up😞

• 171 carry, 176 total.
• 5780 RPM spin.
• Launch of 20.1°.
• Dispersion is about 35 yards.
• Ball speed is 119.2… whatever.

Fitter builds him a club or some clubs, all 6-irons. Fitter is able to get to these numbers:

• 185 carry, 188 total.
• 5350 RPM spin.
• Launch of 19.3°.
• Dispersion is about 37 yards.
• Ball speed is 123.4.

What does the Guy often see? "Oh my I carry it 14 yards farther!"

What should the Guy do? Realize that he's hitting his old 5I and compare the numbers to that club.

What's important in fitting is not the number on the sole, it's how well you can perform* at the yardages you need. * This means the dispersion/accuracy, the landing angle, the height, total spin, etc. In other words, don't compare your 6I to a new 6I, compare the club you hit the distance of your fitting test clubs against those test clubs. If they only fit with 6Is, consider hitting your 5I and your 6I (and maybe even your 4I) as a basis for comparison. See if you're more accurate or get better numbers while maintaining the same carry yardage. Ignore the number on the sole.

You want to compare the clubs that are the most similar, not the clubs that have the same number on the sole.

[snapfade]

Sorry, I just read this. So what you are saying, as far as I understand, is with a fitting, accuracy/ dispersion is the goal, not necessarily the distance? Seems logical to me. For me, I am more concerned with accuracy and forgiveness than with distance. It seems like the mentality is longer is better, and it should be accuracy is better. I'd take 250 to a good lie in the fairway over 290 in the bushes. We get bombarded every new club cycle with how long something is. I am glad that you have emphasized the importance of performance, and there should be a #accuracytrumpsdistance movement. Thanks for the info.  

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, snapfade said:

It seems like the mentality is longer is better, and it should be accuracy is better.

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. The specs on his ‘new club’ are probably in line with his old 5i. So he needs to compare the numbers with the new club to the numbers from his old club to see how he’s performing rather than just thinking the new club has gained him 14yds.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. The specs on his ‘new club’ are probably in line with his old 5i. So he needs to compare the numbers with the new club to the numbers from his old club to see how he’s performing rather than just thinking the new club has gained him 14yds.

Yeah, more this.

[snapfade]

27 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. The specs on his ‘new club’ are probably in line with his old 5i. So he needs to compare the numbers with the new club to the numbers from his old club to see how he’s performing rather than just thinking the new club has gained him 14yds.

I've never payed attention to ball speed, launch angle, RPM spin, only how far and how straight. After reading numerous posts about the topic and this one as well, the only thing I feel like is important to me is how accurate I am, and the dispersion, which seems like would be operator dependent. If I get fitted with new irons and my 6 flies as far as my old 5, I don't care. I want the dispersion to be narrower. Am I off base here?  And what changed his dispersion by 2 yards? 

Edited March 6, 2020 by snapfade

[Shindig]

This was a hesitation I had with my current irons when I got them a few years ago.  I ended up comparing equal lofts and was satisfied they were a step up.

[TN94z]

10 hours ago, snapfade said:

I've never payed attention to ball speed, launch angle, RPM spin, only how far and how straight. After reading numerous posts about the topic and this one as well, the only thing I feel like is important to me is how accurate I am, and the dispersion, which seems like would be operator dependent. If I get fitted with new irons and my 6 flies as far as my old 5, I don't care. I want the dispersion to be narrower. Am I off base here?  And what changed his dispersion by 2 yards? 

Right, so what is being said is that the new 6i that flies as far as your old 5i, should be compared to your old 5i dispersion, accuracy, etc... and not your old 6i just because the number on the bottom of the clubs are the same.  It is more about comparing the yardages you hit than just club numbers because the newer 6i are more like the old 5i from the start. Apples to apples in yardage basically.

Edited March 6, 2020 by TN94z

[billchao]

10 hours ago, snapfade said:

I've never payed attention to ball speed, launch angle, RPM spin

To be perfectly honest, you don’t really have to. That’s what the fitter is there for. You don’t need to know these details to play golf.

10 hours ago, snapfade said:

If I get fitted with new irons and my 6 flies as far as my old 5, I don't care.

People should, especially if their old set was gapped properly, their new set might not be. It’s important to note however that most iron sets these days are progressively designed, so an increase in yardage in the mid irons might not necessarily have the same impact in the short irons.

11 hours ago, snapfade said:

And what changed his dispersion by 2 yards? 

They’re quasi made up numbers.

The point is to evaluate the new 6i to the old club the player uses for 185 yards, probably their 5i. It’s possible the numbers are better across the board. You don’t want to just look at the new 6i and say, “it’s better because I hit it longer than my 6i,” nor simply, “it’s not better because it’s less accurate than my 6i.”

[Bonvivant]

I can't wait til I finally pull the trigger on a fitting and my 7 iron goes from 135 to 155 because the new irons 7 will likely be the same loft as my 5 iron.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, billchao said:

To be perfectly honest, you don’t really have to. That’s what the fitter is there for. You don’t need to know these details to play golf.

People should, especially if their old set was gapped properly, their new set might not be. It’s important to note however that most iron sets these days are progressively designed, so an increase in yardage in the mid irons might not necessarily have the same impact in the short irons.

They’re quasi made up numbers.

The point is to evaluate the new 6i to the old club the player uses for 185 yards, probably their 5i. It’s possible the numbers are better across the board. You don’t want to just look at the new 6i and say, “it’s better because I hit it longer than my 6i,” nor simply, “it’s not better because it’s less accurate than my 6i.”

All of that.

[klineka]

11 hours ago, snapfade said:

I'd take 250 to a good lie in the fairway over 290 in the bushes.

290 in the rough is much better than 250 in the fairway. Strokes gained stats clearly demonstrate that. Sure 250 in the fairway is better than 290 O.B., nobody would disagree with that.

11 hours ago, snapfade said:

and there should be a #accuracytrumpsdistance movement.

No there absolutely should not.

Off topic below -

Spoiler

It's complete misinformation to suggest that there should be an accuracy trumps distance movement.

I compared the top 10 most accurate drivers and the top 10 longest drivers on the PGA tour for the 2019 season and here are some of the facts:

• The average final position on the money list for the top 10 most accurate drivers was 79th
• The average final position on the money list for the top 10 furthest drivers was 67th
• The top 10 accurate drivers had one player finish inside the top 20 on the money list (Chez Reavie at 18th) and 0 inside the top 15.
• The top 10 furthest drivers had 4 players finish inside the top 20 on the money list, all of which were inside the top 15 (Koepka, McIlroy, DJ, Finau)

Here is a graph that Superspeed golf posted showing how important distance is to money on the PGA tour in 2018

 

Here is a graph that I made that groups driving accuracy % into 5 buckets like the driving distance chart and shows the relationship between driving accuracy and average money made in 2019. The top number is the average $ amount for the driving accuracy % segment and the second number is the number of golfers within that segment of driving accuracy.

Distance trumps accuracy. That's a fact.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by klineka

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, snapfade said:

Sorry, I just read this. So what you are saying, as far as I understand, is with a fitting, accuracy/ dispersion is the goal, not necessarily the distance? Seems logical to me. For me, I am more concerned with accuracy and forgiveness than with distance. It seems like the mentality is longer is better, and it should be accuracy is better. I'd take 250 to a good lie in the fairway over 290 in the bushes. We get bombarded every new club cycle with how long something is. I am glad that you have emphasized the importance of performance, and there should be a #accuracytrumpsdistance movement. Thanks for the info.  

I know there are some other good responses to your post, but I think there are also slightly different priorities when fitting a driver v. fitting irons.  As mentioned, for irons you should be comparing dispersion at similar distances.  That's true whether you're comparing different sets of new irons, or comparing new irons to your old clubs.  That could mean comparing your current 5-iron to a new Ping 6-iron and a new Callaway 7-iron (I just picked those names, I have no idea of the relative distances)

For driver, to me the dispersion is a little lesser priority, and total distance is a larger priority.  I still want to keep the ball in play, so dispersion matters to an extent, but for drivers "longer is better" really does apply.  Also, the idea of a binary solution (250=fairway, 290=bushes) is inaccurate.  What is more likely is 250 with 65% fairways and 5% bushes as compared with 290 and 50% fairways and 8% bushes, or something similar.  I'd take the 290.

[billchao]

28 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I can't wait til I finally pull the trigger on a fitting and my 7 iron goes from 135 to 155 because the new irons 7 will likely be the same loft as my 5 iron.

There is so much more to iron design than simply the loft of the head. For example, I hit my new 6i slightly farther than my old one, but with higher launch and trajectory. It has the same length and shaft and it’s only 1° stronger. I haven’t gotten out to test the dispersion yet but during my fitting it was more accurate, as well. It’s a complete improvement over my previous irons.

Even if your “new” 7i goes just as far as your old 5i because they have the same loft, you may find that the 7i launches higher and lands softer.

I’ve done this comparison and posted it before. Using clubs with the same static loft, my vintage blades are still a club shorter than my modern ones and they’re significantly less forgiving.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

290 in the rough is much better than 250 in the fairway. Strokes gained stats clearly demonstrate that.

If you're talking about the PGA Tour, the stats demonstrate the opposite.

It can be better for many (maybe even most) amateurs, because the greens are softer and the rough less severe.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

No there absolutely should not.

Yeah, there should be. This topic is about irons.

[Bonvivant]

31 minutes ago, billchao said:

There is so much more to iron design than simply the loft of the head. For example, I hit my new 6i slightly farther than my old one, but with higher launch and trajectory. It has the same length and shaft and it’s only 1° stronger. I haven’t gotten out to test the dispersion yet but during my fitting it was more accurate, as well. It’s a complete improvement over my previous irons.

Even if your “new” 7i goes just as far as your old 5i because they have the same loft, you may find that the 7i launches higher and lands softer.

I’ve done this comparison and posted it before. Using clubs with the same static loft, my vintage blades are still a club shorter than my modern ones and they’re significantly less forgiving.

I'm not doubting dispersion improvement and am aware of the change in ball flight with new tech, just on how much stronger irons have become over the years. I know that isn't across the board but in general. 

[rehmwa]

You guys are a bunch of scientists.  I'm still at the 'fitting' being a reduction in the percentage of shanks.....

[billchao]

45 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I'm not doubting dispersion improvement and am aware of the change in ball flight with new tech, just on how much stronger irons have become over the years. I know that isn't across the board but in general. 

If you’re aware of the change in trajectory with today’s club designs then you should understand why the lofts have decreased over the years.

2 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I can't wait til I finally pull the trigger on a fitting and my 7 iron goes from 135 to 155 because the new irons 7 will likely be the same loft as my 5 iron.

The way you stated it here in this post made it seem like you thought the number on the club was the only difference, when it’s likely the trajectory on these clubs would differ as well.

[snapfade]

What it all boils down to is I'm going to be spending some money. Thanks for the responses, technology has created this issue, and I'm old school in golf mentality so thanks again to those of you that attempted to get me to understand a new area of the game for me. I'll be sending you all a bill.