jaskanski

I used to know a few of the guys there - not sure if they still work there or not, but a very good bespoke service without forcing you into any particular option. Full trackman assisted analysis and great range of products. Two cracking courses on site too - what more could you ask? Recommended.

I would be making a bee line for Woodhall Spa if you lived in Lincolnshire: https://www.woodhallspagolf.com/custom_fitting

Like I said - it depends on how you load the shaft. The KBS Tour EI curve in red compared to the PX LZ in blue. (KBS Tour V in brown for comparison). It also depends on how Titleist are measuring their shafts - the KBS Tour is famously incrementally stiffer along it's length as the EI curve demonstrates quite nicely with a rather flat linear style curve. If you measure from mid point to the tip, it will be stiffer overall as Titleist suggest. The PX LZ is much stiffer initially in the tip but then dips before flattening out in the middle - it may well be measured at a lower cpm because of this contrast from tip to mid. Again, the same story plays out in the mid to butt measurement as it is stiffer it an increase towards the butt - however again the contrast could be measured as lower in cpm. Think of two stiff sections connected by a more flexible middle (like the Nunchuck). The KBS Tour on the other hand has a more lateral flex increase and flatter EI curve, meaning the difference in measured tip to mid, and mid to butt sections appear to measure stiffer in cpm. Overall butt frequency will measure as stiffer too. But it how the shaft profile plays that makes the difference. Smooth swingers with a smooth transition, but with an early release will see lower flight and spin than someone with a later release with the PX LZ. Harder transitions will be more thankful of the butt and tip stiffness of PX LZ in terms of launch and spin control for the same release. It all depends on the load and release how the shaft reacts. Titleists graphic probably covers how average joe would expect to see it play on paper, but even they qualify it with a caveat to get fitted. You can't take everything on paper as face value if you haven't tried it for yourself. The specs are really too close to call it one way or another on overall performance. This is a classic example of this.

At the risk of chewing on some salty cornflakes - I would say: They are not the same shaft, they are not the same length, they are not the same loft, they are not the same weight distribution, they are not being delivered at the same AoA. It's probably and extreme difference (in your own words) because there is an extreme difference between a driver and a 3W for the factors previously mentioned. You're comparing apples to oranges, so any comparison is not really worth getting your gears ground about.

They are not poles apart in terms of weight and flex, but depending on how you swing and load the shaft the results may be slightly different in launch and spin. The LZ has a stiffer tip section and slightly stiffer butt - the mid sections are very similar. The LZ would give a tad lower launch and spin, but as stated it would depend on how you load and release the shaft. Not sure if I would personally ditch the 3H in favour of the HMB though - the hybrid would probably offer greater forgiveness, probably greater distance and more versatility. The age old advice is try before you buy.

One thing is for certain. In 12 months, it'll be worth half the amount it originally was. So it does pose the question - is it worth the money? Probably not if it doesn't return any value - either in residual cost if you sell or performance to you if decide to keep it. If it performs well, you could save a lot of money with patience and waiting until it's heavily discounted. So is it worth your own time? Equipment only really reveals it's true value when you either wish you had bought it earlier or if you owned it once and wish you still had it.

+1 Back in the day, Tom was like the oracle when it came to club fitting. His findings and principles still hold true today. The proliferation of the LM has certainly assisted in crunching the raw data in ball flight dynamics, but it must be noted that any LM data is historic - in other words, you get to know after you hit a shot. Tom pioneered the fitting of certain club heads and shafts to golfers swing style and tempo. Depending on how you swung your club, how strong the transition was, how early or late you tended to release the club - had a profound effect on which type of head and shaft you should be looking for. It came as no surprise either that the length and weight of a shaft were critical factors. The subsequent LM data only served to prove how right he was - and you could see it in the dynamic results. Devices such as Trackman which could calculate the ubiquitous "smash factor" or how well you struck the ball highlighted one simple fact - hit the centre of the club face to achieve the maximum distance. The chances were for most average golfers, this was easier to achieve with a shorter than the longer "standard" shafts OEMs were selling to make the distance claims look real. This gave fitters a tremendous boost in isolating the type of shaft to suit a player from the myriad of models available. Tom was also instrumental in starting a database of shafts and their characteristics and EI curves. If you ever had a question about the golf club, Tom had an answer for it. The LM validated his thoughts - and then some. On the back of the tech, there is always the theory behind it: CoG, MOI, spin loft, face angle, loft, lie - you name it - Tom was ahead of the curve.

Do people avoid getting fitted? Yes - all the time. Do they have a quantifiable reason not to? No - never. Other than: It's too expensive I don't know where to get fit There's no fitters near where I live I'm too old I'm too young My swing is not repeatable My swing has changed I'm working on my swing first My last set didn't work I don't play enough to justify it I play to a professional standard with OTR clubs or any clubs I choose because I'm special like that

Is your doctor Nick Riviera?

This is a good point. How many "stock or standard" specs are exactly as they claim? It has been well documented about the tolerance levels some clubs are built to at a certain cost. Length, loft, lie, weight - you name it - are all built at some level of tolerance to be mass produced at a reasonable cost to the consumer. Not many, if at all, are what is known as "blueprinted" (do a search) - or assembled to the exact published specs. Some fitters (*ahem - others are available*) can build a set to these tolerance levels on request - or any other specification for that matter - for a cost. At least you know what you're getting. Point 2 - each OEM has their own "standard" specs. This could be in length, lie and swing weight which could be totally different across brands. A lot of people refer to their irons as "+1" and 2 degrees upright" for instance, but this only relates to a known reference starting point - which as we have already established is ultimately variable. Therefore it is better to refer to a specific measured length and specific measured lie angle to compared apples to apples. Just saying...

If you mean from the opening question "were you ever fit into a stock offering or standard specs?" That would depend on what brand and what club. Putter? Heck yes - plenty. Other clubs? Not so much.

Anything is possible. There is a tendency however to fit "into" a stock offering (in whatever guise it comes) rather than fitting the club to yourself. There is a distinct difference. Of course, club OEMs will try to get their stock offerings to roughly match the largest target audience possible - and any person picking it up at first will try to adapt to fit into the stock offering. It may not "fit" with any natural physical measurements, it may not "fit" with any swing tendencies or strengths and it may not "fit" with the goal in mind for playability, course conditions or shot shape. But the human body and mind being the unique and clever thing it is will always try to adapt to meet the subtle changes necessary to meet the expectation. There are some drawbacks however - in adapting to suit, it can lead to set up and swing tendencies that are not ideal to your physical stature and strength, which if left to develop further can turn it negative swing characteristics, bad habits and ultimately frustration when it comes to consistency - the mind wants to fight the body for dominance in the swing and it can lead to over analysis leading to even more frustration and doubt. Fully fitted on the other hand takes this element of doubt out of the equation - leaving the mind to work in harmony with the body to produce the desired result. Natural swing and posture are complimented. If nothing else, it removes the question of "fit". You know the clubs are built to your spec, for your body and swing, so that only margin of error left is your own ability. You can't blame your tools in other words. OTR? yes they can work - but there will always be that nagging doubt that "if" they were tweaked in one way or another they could be better. If you are willing to accept a tolerance level of "close enough" or "this will do" the OTR will likely meet this expectation. If you have them built to spec in the first place, the "what if" factor disappears, allowing you to concentrate on your game rather than your equipment. The last factor (but by no means the least significant) is personal preference. Everyone has them and the chances of finding every one of them in one OTR club are slim - there is always a specific element that attracts us to a particular club or brand, such as look at address, sole width, offset (or lack of it), shaft type, even the humble grip - but trying to get all those elements that we as individuals consciously or subconsciously prefer is....not possible without third party intervention on some level. That is not always possible with "stock"..

Yes - the two screws attached to the head need removing. It might be a case of the screws may have epoxy on them - but if you're heating the head anyway to remove the shaft, you could also apply direct heat to the screws to help them budge. The option to send the SC may be more appealing too...

There are 4 screws at the back that need removing - two attached to the main head for the back weight and two attached to the outer ring. This will leave the main head stripped ready for treatment - the shaft will need to be removed by heating the head gently with a blow torch to break the epoxy bond. Voila - you now have all the component parts ready for refurbishment. Shot blasting works well to remove the old paint from the head and weight. It's worth noting that Scotty Cameron also offer a refurbishment service by return post if you don't feel up to it.

Turn up, keep up and shut up.

Lessons and practice are knowledge. The beauty is, you can apply that knowledge to any set clubs you ever own in the future. As for fitted clubs, ever wonder how they make lessons and practice easier? Example - it's been said numerous times about the correct set up with grip, stance, ball position, alignment - before you even start your backswing - can have a tremendous influence over the outcome of a shot. Get those fundamentals correct in your set up, and you stand a pretty good chance of hitting a good shot. Question: is it easier to set up a club that is built to your physical stature and hands that one that is not? I think we know that answer. So you're in good shape before you even swing. Now let's pose another question: is it easier to swing a club that is balanced for feel and weight and length than one that is too heavy, too light or too short or long? I think we know that answer too. Final question: is it easier to return a club head squarely at impact with a club that has the correct flex and shaft profile, married to the correct face and lie angle than with a club that is too stiff/weak, with to much/little offset with the incorrect lie angle? Hmmm - that's a tough one. I think it might be with the fitted club? Can you see a pattern emerging here? As a fitter, we simple eliminate the variables which have an influence over ball flight and control them into a set of parameters that give a greater chance of success. That's just plain logic based on physics. And it's hard to argue the case otherwise.

This is the lament you will hear from a vast majority of golfers. Unfortunately, they don't realise how wrong they are. Fitting in it's fundamental principle is about making a club suited to your build and swing. The beauty of this principle is that you, the golfer, are not as variable as you think. Once an assessment has been made on your physical measurements and your swing tendencies, a club can be tailored to match these specifics - meaning you are less likely to make errors than if you were to play with clubs that are not matched to these specifics. It's a simple numbers game based on probability - build a club that gives you a greater probability of finding the centre of the club face at impact. Your miss becomes less frequent, your swing becomes more constant because it is easier and more intuitive to do so with a club built specifically for the purpose. Give someone a club that meets the basic requirements of length and weight and the chances of hitting it squarely at impact increase by a reciprocal factor. Fine tune that proposal for lie, bend point, flex, grip size, face angle, sole width, etc, etc - you will realise your true potential.

The "optimal" launch parameters rely on 3 things: speed, launch angle and spin. Of the 3, speed is the most important in dictating how far a ball will travel. The other two combine to give optimal launch characteristics. That means too much launch and spin will have a negative effect on total distance, just as too little launch and not enough spin will also cost you yards. Speed - you can never get enough for total distance. If you experiment with the Flightscope trajectory optimiser here: https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ ....you can begin to see how launch parameters effect distance - and how spin isn't the bad guy all the time.

Just about all of the top OEMs offer a custom fitting system to get the right club or clubs in your hands to get the most out of them. When you think about it, the more OEMs can get their equipment to fit the potential end user, the better it makes them look as a brand. Every brand has their reputation at stake if the BS doesn't match with the performance. First comes market coverage. OEMs will always gravitate towards equipment components that fit a wide spectrum of golfers - it's not much use to offer high-end or niche shafts that only fit a small portion of potential customers. Much better to have a shaft that fits 25% of the market population than one that fits 10% of the market. This is also aimed at cost and market trends. For this very reason, left handed golf clubs for instance are produced is much fewer quantities - simply because the target audience is smaller. Some OEMs won't even offer some options in lefty as there is either no market or profitability in it. Secondly comes "options". This is sometimes free with some purchases but it also comes in the ubiquitous form of "upgrades" which the end user is well advised to try before buying to see if the cost is worth the potential benefit. A $300 shaft "upcharge" is only worth the cost if it outweighs the "standard" or zero charge shaft by a long margin. Lastly is integration. Do the woods offering fit in with hybrids? Do the hybrids compliment the irons? Do the game improvement irons fit in with the distance gapping of the players irons? Are the wedges matching or available? Can all of these be ordered at request? Pretty much all the major OEMs offer this kind of options with their range of clubs. You just need to make an informed choice of which brands suits your eye, your needs and your wallet. Demo days and "tour truck' visits are made for this kind of try before you buy sales pitch. The long story short is "off the rack" is not really going to fit anyone specifically, but is engineered to "fit' an imaginary average golfer who will pay for a product without seeking any adjustment or optimisation for their physique and swing. If you can live with that proposal then fine. If you're looking for something more bespoke that can help improve or enhance your game, then you need to look beyond OTR and get fitted. I really have no idea of why so many people are reluctant to get fitted. The cost isn't really that prohibitive (as discussed some options are free with some purchases), the pro is not going to ask you to strip naked and laugh (honest) and the potential improvements are massive. In fact, can you give one reason why buying OTR is better? I didn't think so.

And this is where the penny drops. Club fitting, just like many other businesses are a simple time and materials proposal. You pay for my time and the components I provide. Sure, I could give you the full works from grip to toe on everything that could make a difference to your game - but by the time we had finished around 2 days would have passed and you would be looking at bill that would be more than double the cost of an OTR set. If you want to try out every conceivable shaft and head combination that is available to see what works - that'll be another 180 days +. In the meantime, my electricity, insurance, rent and tax is still due which is covered under my laughably slim margin. I usually invite millionaires into the fitting studio with open arms, but even they have limits about what to expect when paying for a service. And frankly, I don't have time to spend with time wasters.

Just because you're a newbie to golf doesn't mean you're also bereft of any common sense. And you can't be bothered to do any research to find a good fitter? It seems like you're proving my point. Can I provide any helpful content? I've never met you and I have no idea where you live or where you play and a what level - and you want me to tell you what's good for you? I think you've proved my point again. Have another look in that mirror....

If you look in the mirror, you will probably see the person to avoid when getting advice on fitting. All too often, we have an over-inflated opinion on our ability (sometimes under-estimation which is almost as destructive) and yet we have a certain way of convincing ourselves that we know best when it comes to golf equipment. In part, that is probably true with your eyes as we covet the models that appeal to our instincts, but in terms of getting that piece of equipment to fit our golfing self-reality - oh dear. The internet is partly to blame, as we are more likely to seek the opinion of Google to find out what is wrong with our own bodies rather than seeing a doctor first - the same follows that we are more likely to use the internet for self-diagnosed fittings than going to see a professional. If I knew the reason why, then I'd certainly be a lot richer but I've always tended to steered clear of wannabe psychopaths. Use your common sense and do your homework. Find out about certified fitters with good reputations by asking. Visit professionals for advice. Put the amount of effort into getting fit as you would expect someone to give you the same effort in return to provide a service - it's that simple. If you take the lazy option to visit the local big box store - don't expect miracles based on your effort. If you want to expect more, you need to have a serious conversation with yourself.

+1 on the True Blue or Mitchell. Both excellent machines with their own benefits, but only if you're serious about club making. If you're not, you may want to consider saving a lot on another cheaper alternative (Golfsmith for example). When it comes to bending, don't neglect your tools either. As far as I'm concerned, the Mitchell adjustable is the best by far.

This is a classic example of when you need to stop and think. Sure, a 'good deal' on a set of shafts may be worth considering - but only if they are the correct flex and type you are looking for. Otherwise, they don't make any sense at all. Much better to wait until the correct set you are looking for turn up or even pay a little bit more to get the right set than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Soft stepping effectively "loses' the first iron shaft in your set, so soft stepping enough to create the correct flex will lose you a minimum of three shafts, so it not really worth the effort. It's no surprise that OEMs make shafts in different flexes for reason - so you don't have to make a bodge job in building a "set' to the correct length and flex with a shaft not really designed for that purpose. As a general rule of thumb, only modify a component in a club build as a last resort if all other alternatives have been exhausted. In other words, use the right shaft in the right head. It saves time and money in the long run. Tip weight to your desired swing weight once you have measured each component for assembled swing weight. Anything in the range of 2-8g seems reasonable - anything 10g or above and you will have problems with frequency (and therefore flex) matching. Consider the weight of graphite before buying too - 60g shafts may seem like a good idea, but the aforementioned weighting issues could be made easier with a shaft closer to the 80-90g range (or higher). The benefits of the graphite will still help with your physical well-being - the correct flex and weight will help with your mental well-being when it comes to club building lol.

Two months ago? Just one. Now? Five. Titleist 915D3 driver Titleist 915Fd 3-wood Callaway Warbird 7 wood Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 4-PW Mizuno JPX 900 Forged Gap wedge Cleveland RTX 3 54 & 58 Ping Jas Anser Wti