View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
Ok.So it sounds like we are talking to about a similar thing. Not necessarily fitting the club to compensations they are currently making but possibly to the swing they should be making. Am I missunderstanding?Originally Posted by rangemonkey
Best done dynamically with face tape. This allows the players swing shape and skill level to be taken in to account. Plane comes in to this, steep swingers will benefit from shorter clubs and flatter swing can usually cope with longer but the tape will reveal all.
Starting point should be determined by measuring the players wrist to floor measurement and worked from there. Remember a players height has little to do with length it is where their wrists are in relation to the floor.
I would always stick with the suggested length that a static WTF measure comes up with for new golfers.
Same can also apply to Lie angles. Ping colour code system is very good for static lies for newer golfers
Last edited by rangemonkey; 01-10-2010 at 04:06 AM.
Ok.So it sounds like we are talking to about a similar thing. Not necessarily fitting the club to compensations they are currently making but possibly to the swing they should be making. Am I missunderstanding?
John Graham
Director of Instruction-Webster Golf Club
AimPoint Certified
Follow me on twitter-http://twitter.com/johngrahamgolf
Become a fan on facebook-http://www.facebook.com/pages/Webste...l/101541171754
View my Channel-http://www.youtube.com/johngrahamgolf
Skype Handle-johngrahamgolf
www.johngrahamgolf.com
Yes in i guess so. However i would alway suggest that the length and lie are looked at first to help enhance the instruction.
I see a lot of swing issues that can be directly linked to the player trying to adapte to poor fitting equipment. Player coming over the top to try and start the ball far enough left to compensate for flat lies and vice versa. Hanging back on their right sides trying to add loft to lower lofted drivers than they need etc.
Same goes for face angle issues with woods and good players. You'd be surprised how a open faced driver can help cure slicing for a good player. Had a freind on the European tour that had real problems with his driving due to a certain OEM constantly building him drivers with closed face angles. Got him to ask for an open one and suddenly he started to hit fairways.
At this moment I think that the length of shafts should be fit more statically than dynamically. The club manufacturers designed the clubs to be a certain length in order to help keep the yardage gaps an appropriate and consistent difference. If you think about it for a second, let's say that you feel that your irons are too short in length by about 1/2". Well if you lengthen them by 1/2" then all you are doing is making your 6-iron the same length as your 5-iron. I think that *maybe* golfers should go with +/- 1/4" tops because iron shafts are usually designed to go in 1/2" increments. But I think that applies to somebody with a shorter wingspan than their normal size, etc. I noticed this after years of using longer shafts I bought some old MacGregor blades that are standard length and more or less found that the reason why I went with longer shafts is that I didn't have an appropriate enough waist bend at address. That and I really don't like what club manufacturers have done with clubs, making them longer and more upright. It's really a band-aid way to curb a slice and hit the ball further with poorer swing mechanics.
3JACK
I agree with 3JACK as far as fitting statically, but only in the case of a student who truly wishes to improve. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the common swing fault of early extension. From a TPI standpoint, it refers to the student losing their posture, allowing their hips to move toward the ball during the swing. More than 60% of amateurs exhibit this fault to some degree. From a fitting perspective, this causes the dynamic lie angle to appear too flat, and often leads to clubs that are too long and upright. This fault is why manufacturers have gone to longer and more upright clubs, as 3JACK mentioned.
However, since the only place to fix this is the gym, many golfers will never lose this fault. So for maximum enjoyment, they probably should be fit into longer and more upright clubs. But if the student is willing to actively work on this fault, the fitter should attempt to fit the student into something shorter and flatter. The problem with this is that until they improve their physique, they will HATE their new clubs.
This is why it is so important to be fit by a golf professional, not a product rep or a salesperson. While they may do a good job of fitting to your current swing, they won't be able to provide that kind of insight.
I disagree that the only place to fix early extension is in the gym. That can certainly help if you have more flexibility in your lower body, particularly with your hamstrings, calfs and knee joints. But, there are ways to greatly reduce early extension w/o stepping foot in the gym. Getting the weight placed more in the center of the arches of your feet instead of up on your toes is a good start.
3JACK
I do agree that posture characteristics can greatly affect early extension. Placing too much weight on the heels or standing too close to the ball are major causes. However, posture characteristics are moot if the player doesn't have enough mobility in the hips (primarily external rotation) and ankle joints. Without mobility there, even a player with perfect posture and weight distribution will likely still early extend. I've found in my player testing that there is nearly a direct correlation between a failed overhead deep squat test and some degree of early extension. It is by no means the only reason though, you're right.
Interestingly, clubs that are too long can also CAUSE a player to early extend to compensate. Which begs the question, which came first, the early extension or the lengthy clubs? This is why for a player interested in improving in this are, a static length fitting is the way to go.
The early extension came first, without question. Standard 5-iron length today is about 38-38.25" depending on the mfg. In the 70's and even 80's, the standard 5-iron length was 37.5-37.75" long. We didn't have 'clubfitting' back then and when that arrived the clubfitter just looked at your toe hits and said you needed more upright clubs and longer shafts. It didn't fix anything and in many cases, it just made the situation worse. I know all about it as at 6'4" tall I started struggling with my swing back in college ('95) and my coach took me to a clubfitter who said I needed clubs 5* upright. Then I got some different clubs and went to another pro who also did clubfitting and he said I needed shafts +1" and 2* upright. He didn't like how I was crouched over at address. Instead of forcing me to get the proper amount of waist bend at address, I put a band-aid on it and got longer clubs. I actually have pretty long arms for my height, so in reality I need anything BUT longer clubs and upright lies if I'm swinging correctly.
I'm not sure static fitting only is the way to go because if you do develop a pretty good swing that is repeatable then you need to start figuring out where you are hitting the ball on the clubface.
3JACK
Funny you should say that, I have the same issue: 6'2" with long arms. My first custom fit set when I started college was +1" and 3* upright. Now that I understand the body-swing connection a bit better and have worked on my technique and fitness, I have clubs that are std. length and 1* flat.
Also I misspoke earlier when I said that static fitting is the only way to go. What I meant was that I agree with you in that clubs should be adjusted minimally for length. There are definitely differences in people's wrist-to-floor length that will require some compensation. But if you change in much more than 1/4", you're not doing them any favors in the long run. Thanks for clarifying that for me!
