Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4375 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi guys, did a search..not seeing what i'm looking for.

I know there is a ton of talk about length fitting and lie fitting. When both need done what do you guys recommend? I need to be about 1/2" shorter and looks like 2* flat. I have a loft/lie machine. I guess I just mean when both are needed is there a benefit of just bending and keeping the length or should both be done together for optimal results. I realize shortening them will affect lie angle some.

Thanks!


Posted
If your comfortable with the length, then bend! I was fitted for 2* flat, but wasn't comfortable with length so I took half inch off instead! Now I'm comfortable with the length and my swing is a bit more consistent I'm gonna get the lie retested this spring just to see if it needs a tweak! It's a personal thing really, but in general shorter clubs are easier to hit, as I found when I had a driver made at 44.5, When shortening a club, what you might lose in distance will be recompensed in accuracy. So on that basis I would both!

Gaz Lee


Posted

Changing the length of the club will also affect the swing weight.  If your irons are at your preferred swing weight, I would not change the length.


Posted

Shortening the club will make it slightly stiffer, also 2* flat is like 1/2 shorter, doing both is quite a bit. I would flatten it and choke down a little bit. But before doing anything, go get fitted.  Don't guess about this.  2*flat on a full 7 iron shot can often be 8-10 yards off line or more. a shorter club can keep the ball on line but will fit your swing more comfortable. so go get fit! You may have your longer irons 2* flat and your mid to short irons 1* or not at all.

There is lots of variables based on your swing, swing speed, height, arm, leg and torso length. If they are old clubs, yeah maybe have them cut or bent, if the clubs are banged up and eventually shortened you'll need grips too. 60-$90.00.just for grips, bending and shortening could be another 50-$100

but if you are considering new or newer clubs order them once you have been fit .The manufacturer doesn't charge you any more or any less for custom specs, Last years models can also be ordered custom in earlier part of the season. Also if you order clubs remember its a cost per club cost, a set of 8 irons might be $800 or 100 per club new, in other words if you don't hit you 3,4 or even 5 iron, skip it and order 6,7,8,9,PW for $500.

good luck

  • Upvote 1

Posted
What do you do for woods? I'm fitted as standard length and 2 flat for irons, but you can't really bend a driver

Posted

What do you do for woods? I'm fitted as standard length and 2 flat for irons, but you can't really bend a driver


Since a club thats to upright tends to go left. I would think a driver with a open face bias could help


Posted
It doesn't really apply to drivers! A too flat iron would hit the ground toe first, causing the shot to go right, vice versa with a too up right iron, a driver doesn't really contact the ground, with this in mind, is it a good idea to get fairway woods built at a correct length to give the correct lie??

Gaz Lee


Posted

It doesn't really apply to drivers! A too flat iron would hit the ground toe first, causing the shot to go right, vice versa with a too up right iron, a driver doesn't really contact the ground, with this in mind, is it a good idea to get fairway woods built at a correct length to give the correct lie??


yes toe/heel contacting first will cause wayward shots it the face angle moving that causes the left/right ball flight


Posted
I shortened my driver 1/2" and added head weight to bring my swingweight back up. Gonna do the same for 3 wood and hybrid. Going to flatten my irons first and if I still have trouble with center contact I may trim them too if I dont like the feel of choking down. Im Ready for spring!

Note: This thread is 4375 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.