RickyBobby_PR

That’s not a fitting. It’s a starting point for where to start with length, then thru swinging a club the fitter makes adjustments. Most fitters don’t use any measurements and let ball flight and swing determine what to adjust. I like to use @Golfspy_CG2 as a good example why static measurements aren’t that great. He’s 6’7” and during a titleist fitting was fit to titleists standard length and the fitter considered going 1/4” short. If you asked anyone what length he should be in you would get anywhere from 1-2” longer. Long story short you got two bad fittings. If you actually want to get fit find a reputable fitter that has you hit balls and uses things like the sharpie lie angle test

Without handicaps any type mod match play or for the most part stroke play will be hard to effectively divide up teams and the better players not getting help. Modified stableford is usually a good one but you can’t figure out to figure out how many points one needs to be even.

But why did they think that. That’s the key in knowing if the first was bad fit or not. But also the results from each. If in the first fitting you got the results you wanted it wasn’t a bad fit. Some will complain that the on course performance doesn’t match what happened in the fitting, that typically not all the time comes from golfer not swinging the way they do in the course, whether that’s not comfortable hitting in front of people, not comfortable hitting inside or they swing harder than they do in the course. Lots of things to consider before saying anything is good or bad or one is better. but as cnosil points out with his solution you could just go with that

Yes you have some data, but as I talked about in my recent replies which were to address a specific comment about using ballnomic, they numbers aren’t accurate enough to put in the tool to get a ball recommendation and could result in a bad choice of ball. Using the irons as an example 2° difference in launch and 2000 or more extra spin could be bad for you on the course where the numbers on the monitor look good. And the testing on the course based on what you see is important but because the numbers have the significant difference you could be eliminating balls that will work for balls that won’t based on these skewed numbers

First there is no standard lie and 2° is only relevant to the club being hit, another club it could be 1° up as an example. So when talking about lie between two different clubs you need to compare the actual lie angles. So the first fitter, why did he put you in 1” shorter and 2° up? This had to be done to address something in contact point or your swing to help make better contact. why did the new fitter feel that was wrong and have you in a club 1” longer (which btw there is also no standard for in the industry to include how clubs are actually measured). There has to be something he saw in your swing or again with contact that made him go with a different setup. what clubs were you fit into by the each fitter? Keep in mind each fitter has their own philosophy for how to optimize ball flight. I know fitters who won’t change lie angle and use length to improve contact and others who default to lie angle. So it’s possible both are correct in what they fit you to

Its an approach imo for those who aren’t trying to play theIr best and ensure that the one thing that is used on every shot is the best for them. It’s what can be referred to as mediocre mentality. This is where most amateurs go wrong. They play different balls, not only different manufactures but different designs. They don’t pick a ball and stick with it then fit the top end of the bag to it. Once you have that dialed in then testing other balls is a nice change of pace to see what else is out there. It’s how I test balls. I have my bag setup that’s fits from green to tee. Testing will then tell me if something new on the market is better than what I have. But if it causes me to have to change a club to make It work better then it’s not worth switching balls. some tour level balls perform equally across the board for me spefically tp5 and 5x compared to the prov1 and 1x. I can swap those balls with no issues with any club. Other balls work great with irons and not wedges or driver and some great off the tee but not great with irons and wedges. but all anything that gets tested is done on the course in regular playing conditions. I can visually see what’s going on as well as where the ball ends up off the tee compared to my gamer as well has how they react with shots into the green and around the green While I haven’t seen what he does or what he uses, I wouldn’t be surprised if due to the availability of clubs he has a driver setup for each different ball design. Also going to guess that his skill level allows him to adjust pretty quickly to different balls and clubs like most good golfers which isn’t something that’s common among mid and high handicaps edit: Another thing to point out is trackman indoors reads low as well and rct balls will give more accurate results, so even the driver numbers are going to be inaccurate from this session. Not to mention as I pointed out in a previous post the last calibration of the device is unknown. Too many negative variables for it to be an accurate fitting and to have those numbers plugged into any tool for ball or club recommendation

While the driver numbers will be more accurate the best way to approach things is for the driver to the ball and not the ball to the driver. So while he could get a ball that fits his driver it clubs be a disaster for the rest of his game.

They will be lower and could be significantly lower, the type of mat plays a role too in the difference between mar vs grass. The numbers could provide a bad recommendation because spin is going to be lower off mats for iron and wedges and launch is going to be higher. Both won’t be just a little, there will be 2-3° higher launch and could be up to 2000 or more lower spin off mats.

Any of the major brands. A little more expensive ones are j lindeberg and galvin green. i use under Armour and 2undr underwear

Moisture wicking clothing.

Don’t want to always sound negative I’m this thread but that would be a yes and no. What appears to work in that environment may not on the course and what doesn’t work in the test may work on the course. Again it’s great to do that test in a controlled environment to compare numbers because you are getting the same lie over and over, but imo that’s all it does.

Keep in mind that spin rates off a mat are going to be less than it will be from grass. This is why for me testing balls on a range or at a store isnt my preferred choice. Its good for comparing numbers side by side but true performance is best tested on grass

Strokes gained shows closer to the hole even in the rough is better then be further back in the fairway. DJ has said in some YouTube interviews he’s looking for 3 yards from new driver. just saying

Forgot to mention with the thought of slowing down the transition think of getting the left hip back or at least not firing the right one as early. I’ve seen Monte recommend keeping the right foot planted.

I have some similar tendencies in my swing that end up with similar compensations you are making. I don’t get the hips rotated or I max out rotation early and end up firing the hip and getting steep similar to you. Our compensations are typical of the better player whereas higher handicaps will have the tendency to get ott. Like you when everything is working it’s great and when it’s not then we are in for a long day of trying to figure out where the ball is going off the tee.

You’re welcome

It’s not the best angle to view a swing so it skews somethings. The club looks to get behind you hands between p2 and p3 and your hips look to be somewhat restricted and not much depth. The result is you are firing the right hip at the ball and getting stuck. Now it becomes a timing issue and the likely hood of a 2 way miss, depending on how good you are at on the given day of squaring the club face or to compensate for a right miss closing the face a little while slowing down then transition might help, getting the club in front of the hands and a little steeper going up with getting the hips working correctly will help

Don’t know. All I know is their ball designs are expired patents and nothing they are designing

I’ll save you some money and possibly time. You would need to go to a club champion, TruSpec, type place to do a true shaft lefty fitting as most retail shops and fitters only carry stock length and maybe a few shorter ones https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/960350-diy-driver-tune-up-diy-fitting/

Vice buys expired patents so they only do new stuff when they but a patent.

I have s200 or s400 depending on what wedges I decide to use

It’s a great philosophy. The two biggest things to me it accomplishes are 1) it’s gets a person used to trying to score and go low 2) gets the person comfortable shooting low scores on a regular basis that will carry over the further back one goes on the tees. How many people have posted here or on other forums about having a good day until they starting thinking at some point if i shoot this on the next 1,2,3 holes I’ll shoot X score for a pb or to break a certain number.

Each person may have their goals for what they want out of a fitting, some may be realistic and some may be misguided. The purpose of a fitting is to give the golfer a tool that works with them and not against them. It optimizes the performance of the ball flight for the persons swing and to reduce the negative effects of their typical miss while at the same time allowin them to get the most of their good swings. There’s no guarantee a fitter club will lower scores. As I’ve said over and over the golfer still has to execute the shot in front of them each time until the ball is in the hole. Lower scores come from improving the skills needed to improve at hitting the ball better, improving short game, putting, etc. Having a fitted club will make that easier because the golfer isn’t fighting the club to achieve a desired result. Lessons are a better option to lower scores but that’s also not a gurantee. This is far different than anyone saying fitting is going to make them better golfers. And the smart people that reply to those threads off a lot of the same advice being given in this one, about having a club that works for you, that performance increase isn’t guaranteed and that whether it’s worth it is only for that golfer to decide, but to do the fitting, see what the results are and determine if an upgrade is worth it. As I mentioned above this is a case for a fitting. The op doeand have to change his swing, will have something that will give him a chance to play more consistent and possibly better because he will have a tool that fits his swing instead of a tool he has to manipulate to get to work. Mid to high handicaps are better candidates for fitting compared to low handicaps because they can’t adjust as quickly to equipment that doesn’t work for them like a lower handicap can. I’ve had this conversation with a few fitters and have read articles and see other fitters talk about it on other forums I don’t think we have different percentage of golfers will see a scoring improvement from a fitting. You don’t think many will and as my posts have stated there’s no guarantee it does so my percentage is low as well.

Some clubs work for some people and not for others. I don’t think any club is overrated because of the above.

Point me to anyone of the “smart people” here who has said or mead anyone to believe that fittings will lead to lower scores. I haven’t seen this people so I’m curious who they are