A Common Fitting Mistake

[Matt Maxey]

Where does it end? It feels like in 10 years we'll be packing driver, 7, 8, 9, 9 different wedges and a putter. It just seems ridiculous to me that the number on the bottom of the club means nothing. If a new "7" replaces my old "5" how many pitching or gap wedges am I gonna have to carry?   

[billchao]

57 minutes ago, Matt Maxey said:

Where does it end? It feels like in 10 years we'll be packing driver, 7, 8, 9, 9 different wedges and a putter. It just seems ridiculous to me that the number on the bottom of the club means nothing.

I think a lot of people have this problem where they focus too much on what’s stamped on the club instead of what the club really is, your X yardage club. The number on the bottom of the club has always meant nothing.

1 hour ago, Matt Maxey said:

If a new "7" replaces my old "5" how many pitching or gap wedges am I gonna have to carry?

You’d carry as many wedges to round out your set up to 14 clubs, no different than what you do now.

[Matt Maxey]

3 minutes ago, billchao said:

I think a lot of people have this problem where they focus too much on what’s stamped on the club instead of what the club really is, your X yardage club. The number on the bottom of the club has always meant nothing.

You’d carry as many wedges to round out your set up to 14 clubs, no different than what you do now.

You are correct it doesn't matter what is stamped on the bottom of the club. What matters is that you can get around the golf course snd have what you need to do it. Thank you, you make a great point.

[Bonvivant]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

I think a lot of people have this problem where they focus too much on what’s stamped on the club instead of what the club really is, your X yardage club. The number on the bottom of the club has always meant nothing.

You’d carry as many wedges to round out your set up to 14 clubs, no different than what you do now.

The only issue I have with this is devaluation of the meaning of what a particular iron means for tradition's sake. I really wish they would just stamp lofts on instead of just putting on a number that is meaningless (only because its been skewed so much). 

[billchao]

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

The only issue I have with this is devaluation of the meaning of what a particular iron means for tradition's sake.

What does that even mean? Numbered irons broke tradition when they were introduced in the 1930’s.

[Vinsk]

9 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

The only issue I have with this is devaluation of the meaning of what a particular iron means for tradition's sake. I really wish they would just stamp lofts on instead of just putting on a number that is meaningless (only because its been skewed so much). 

This is just normal progression of just about all sports. I don’t think the old timers would think going from wooden shafts to steel was a ‘devaluation’ of the golf club. Going from a ‘mashie-niblick’ to a 7i wasn’t a devaluation. It’s just how clubs transformed as technology improved. No?

[Bonvivant]

Just now, Vinsk said:

This is just normal progression of just about all sports. I don’t think the old timers would think going from wooden shafts to steel was a ‘devaluation’ of the golf club. Going from a ‘mashie-niblick’ to a 7i wasn’t a devaluation. It’s just how clubs transformed as technology improved. No?

I agree with most of this. I just think that once you put a number value on something that corresponds to loft that it should stay consistent. I wish the modern sets would be labeled 3-8 instead of 5-PW is all.

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

What does that even mean? Numbered irons broke tradition when they were introduced in the 1930’s.

I agree

[colin007]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Wait, I'm confused...I thought the stats support the advantage of being closer to the hole even if you're in the rough?

[DennisMiller]

About 12 years ago, I had a fitting for a set of Ping irons. The fitter went through the prescribed routine, fitting me for irons 2" extra long and 2* upright with stiff shafts at that time.

While that fitting might have been technically correct, what he never took into account were certain subjective things like my advanced age and the nearly constant heat and humidity where I live in Miami, Florida.

I complained while hitting balls in the booth that the swingweight felt too heavy for me to manage, but he kept making excuses that swingweight didn't matter. He also said Ping could reduce the swingweight by removing weights behind the medallion on the back of the club.

The irons arrived with an E6 swingweight and I refused them.

I currently use irons that are 2" extra long, but they have been back weighted to C4. Why Ping couldn't have done that is beyond me.

My point is, there's a lot more than the technical aspects of a fitting.

 

[billchao]

26 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I just think that once you put a number value on something that corresponds to loft that it should stay consistent.

You’re arguing for something that never existed.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, DennisMiller said:

About 12 years ago, I had a fitting for a set of Ping irons. The fitter went through the prescribed routine, fitting me for irons 2" extra long and 2* upright with stiff shafts at that time.

While that fitting might have been technically correct, what he never took into account were certain subjective things like my advanced age and the nearly constant heat and humidity where I live in Miami, Florida.

I complained while hitting balls in the booth that the swingweight felt too heavy for me to manage, but he kept making excuses that swingweight didn't matter. He also said Ping could reduce the swingweight by removing weights behind the medallion on the back of the club.

The irons arrived with an E6 swingweight and I refused them.

I currently use irons that are 2" extra long, but they have been back weighted to C4. Why Ping couldn't have done that is beyond me.

My point is, there's a lot more than the technical aspects of a fitting.

Just like with teaching pros, some fitters are better than others.  And some will rely on test numbers and ignore feedback from the human being involved.

[Vinsk]

22 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Just like with teaching pros, some fitters are better than others.  And some will rely on test numbers and ignore feedback from the human being involved.

This is important imo. I’m doing a fitting Tuesday morning with my pro. He’s been working with me for about 6 months. He’s a smart guy and very good with the equipment as well. I know it’ll be a good experience. Years back I did a fitting at a major golf outlet. 2 weeks later I won a free fitting at an arm wrestling contest ( well I won the money to cover it) and went to another fitting place. 2 weeks apart and totally different results. A lot of us amateurs contribute this to our ‘inconsistent’ swings. So why the big differences in the fittings?

[snapfade]

15 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I won a free fitting at an arm wrestling contest

That made my day. Lol

[iacas]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

Wait, I'm confused...I thought the stats support the advantage of being closer to the hole even if you're in the rough?

No. Why would you think that? Rough is about a 60-70 yard penalty.

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I agree with most of this. I just think that once you put a number value on something that corresponds to loft that it should stay consistent. I wish the modern sets would be labeled 3-8 instead of 5-PW is all.

There has never been a standard on loft ever. 

I wish club manufactures would let you choose what you want on the bottom of the club 😉 My Edel wedges have custom stamping and I love it. 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No. Why would you think that? Rough is about a 60-70 yard penalty.

PGA tour rough can be a bit nasty. 😛 

I think the biggest issue is that there may not be that big of a fairway % increase going from a driver to something like a 5-wood or hybrid. If you lay back 50 yards hitting a hybrid, and then hit it in the rough, now you are really screwed. 

Anyways. I agree with the OP. It makes total sense to compare clubs at the yardage not the number on the club. I image it as, what if I was getting fitted hitting balls into a 170 yard par 3. The club fitter finds me the clubs that would go that yardage across many models and I compare it to the club I have now. 

 

[DennisMiller]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There has never been a standard on loft ever. 

 

PGA tour rough can be a bit nasty. 😛

 

Agreed on all points, but further to all...

As to lofts... We all know why the gap wedge had to be invented, because club makers wanted to fake technology to make clubs hit the ball farther by doing little but reducing the loft.

As I've gone through the past 20 years, from 50 to 70, I've gone from hitting stiff shafts to senior shafts. I've gone from hitting a 3/4  8 iron 150 yards to needing a fairly full 6 iron. One thing that has helped though is my recent turn to Cobra One Length irons. Because I'm very tall, mine are modified to be 2" longer and back weighted to C4, (I love that, like plastic explosive), and I've regained a good amount of distance with the short irons.

Those irons have lofts to accommodate their lengths with the long irons stronger and the short irons weaker, but the long irons are still much stronger loft increases than the short irons loft decreases.

And PGA rough... A number of years ago, I played the Blue Course at Doral the day after the tournament was over. Fairways there are pretty wide, but anything into the rough was nearly impossible to find, even though it had been trampled down a bit by 6 days of crowds. I felt lucky to survive

And let's not overlook PGA Tour green speeds. I played Eagle Ridge in Gilroy, California when my daughter lived there. The slope of the greens and stimp meter speed, which I guess had to over 12 and they were like nothing I ever saw. I hit 10 fairways, 12 greens, then 3 and 4 putted my way to a 99. 

Fortunately, in both cases, it's been enough years to look back on each round fondly, with a lot less pain than there once was.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, DennisMiller said:

As to lofts... We all know why the gap wedge had to be invented, because club makers wanted to fake technology to make clubs hit the ball farther by doing little but reducing the loft.

Even a long time ago, PW were 48-50°, and the sand wedge was often 56, so there was a gap there already.

The sad thing is that some people need two gap wedges these days.

[Piz]

I prefer the old set make-up.  The last three clubs were the 9 iron, a pitching wedge, and a sand wedge.  Now there is a "G" on my pitching wedge and a "P" on my 9 iron.  I don't see that I derive any benefit from that.  It is what it is, and I'm not complaining so much as wondering why.