Frank Thomas on Equipment

[revkev]

I'm sure many of us get Frank Thomas' weekly online newsletter. For those who don't or for those who missed it this week (I don't always read it either) he made an interested big statement.

 

In his opinion 90 percent of all golfers fit into stock offerings other than shaft flex and slight lie adjustments. His assessment is that newer equipment and fitting beyond that makes no difference to a player's performance and that the golfer would be better off investing in lessons than equipment. (I fully agree with that last statement)

 

Of course this is contrary to someone like Wishon who has written a book about how misfit drivers cost the average golfer and also all three of the teachers that I have had as an adult. Yes they would agree that lessons are the number one priority but to a man they would say that stock drivers generally have too little loft, that the shafts are too long and too stiff for most people. I know fitters in our area who will provide a strokes gained guarantee for people who have not been fit that then come to them for a fitting.

 

So assuming the person is already taking lessons would you agree or disagree with Thomas and why?

 

I have a very strong opinion but will wait to read some otters before giving it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[cnosil]

I would have a tendency to agree with his assessment. I think stock offerings have gotten pretty good and that there are enough options and different profiles that would enable you to find a shaft/ head that works for you. I would include cutting down the shaft and loft adjustments as part of the fitting even for stock equipment. Could you get a few extra yards or tighter dispersion from a custom shaft? Perhaps. Could you gain that exact same improvement with swing improvements? Sure.

 

The issue I still have is that you still need to get a knowledgeable person to help pick the right stock equipment for you. Unfortunately, this is the bigger problem.

[MDGolfHacker]

Hmm.. Initially I would have disagreed, but the stock offerings in terms of shafts from most vendors has greatly expanded from when I first started playing. Now, there are almost every type of swing covered with stock offerings. Even heads now can be configured, with the adjustability functionality, to mitigate hooks and slices. So I would tend to agree with him. And if your swing changes, it's now so easy to swap out shafts for one that you might grow into.

 

MDGolfHacker

[DPattGolf]

I would also tend to agree with the general statement too. I do think there is a point at which good fitting clubs becomes even more important but I'm not sure where that point is.

[MaxEntropy]

I'm torn on the topic. I know I am past due on updating my equipment, but at the same time feel like it may be a bit of a waste because I have swing issues that I know need to get fixed. My fear is that I get fitted for something, then work through my issues with the help of a coach and the clubs are no longer a proper fit. Perhaps better than my current fit, but not optimal. Are these concerns grounded in reality? Honest question.

[MDGolfHacker]

I'm torn on the topic. I know I am past due on updating my equipment, but at the same time feel like it may be a bit of a waste because I have swing issues that I know need to get fixed. My fear is that I get fitted for something, then work through my issues with the help of a coach and the clubs are no longer a proper fit. Perhaps better than my current fit, but not optimal. Are these concerns grounded in reality? Honest question.

Well if the shaft is fighting your swing, then it may straighten out your drive or Minimize your bad tendencies. Same for iron shafts or the heads you play. Of course it won't miraculously make you play like rory, Ernie, tiger or Phil, but it may make the game just a little bit more enjoyable...

 

MDGolfHacker

[MaxEntropy]

Well if the shaft is fighting your swing, then it may straighten out your drive or Minimize your bad tendencies. Same for iron shafts or the heads you play. Of course it won't miraculously make you play like rory, Ernie, tiger or Phil, but it may make the game just a little bit more enjoyable...

 

MDGolfHacker

 

Excellent point! Most of my struggles are medium and long irons, but I assume the same holds true.

[russtopherb]

I think that OEMs are doing a lot better when it comes to pairing shafts with heads. As tech advances it's starting to make it easier to find something off the rack that works.

 

That being said, it still makes sense to try multiple offerings - just because things are fitting better off the rack it doesn't mean that every single club or line will give you max performance. Some lines and tech will minimize your miss hits far better than some others IMO.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[jb0330]

This is a great topic. I know for myself when I was buying off the rack I had a lot of issues because of the extra spin I create. I didn't understand at the time it was the driver head and shaft that was adding extra spin to help get the ball in the air that I don't need help with. I do need to get lessons to work out the occasional over the top that I can't seem to fix by myself. But when I got fitted for my driver I noticed a significant gain in control, lower ball flight, and dispersion. I am using one of the "stock" shafts that ping offered for the Anser. The OEMs can offer a million shafts but if the consumer doesn't understand what they are buying doesn't matter much. The arrow can't fly without the archer. So I think lessons should carry more weight with amateur than it does.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[StrokerAce]

I think the faster you swing the club then the more important getting fit for it is....

 

This leads me to conclude getting properly fit for a driver is wise and how wedges/putter not so much.  I've seen/heard/experienced how much difference a shaft change in a driver can alter the result of a shot.  Stock "stiff" shaft might have you 40 yards right/left of target but a slight change could make that shot much more accurate and - in a realistic sense - leave you with a manageable second shot vs out of bounds.

 

I've done fittings for everything but wedges and the basic results were what Frank Thomas (I'm assuming this isn't the former White Sox player ) concludes - I'm in that 90 percent group where I'd be fine with OTR stuff.  I'm not extreme in either direction (tall or short)...

Out of all my fittings I think the only one I could point to that made a noticeable difference was the driver....other than that, they were interesting, but I don't think they were necessary - even including the putter.

 

Lastly - I'll state that I agree with the general assessment that an investment in lessons is probably wiser than equipment with the caveat that one acquires the proper equipment (i.e. not purchasing "blades" when they aren't skilled enough to hit them).

[jayjay0808]

I think for the driver and woods that even if you have a slower swing it is just as important to get properly fit. You have to optimize based on the conditions you create at impact.

 

As for irons and wedges I used to think that it wasn't as important no matter the swing speed. Over the last few years I have been proven wrong.

[Zylem]

I'd like to try and weigh in on this topic some too if you all don't mind. A proper fitting can help mask some minor flaws in your game. Similar to the adjustable weights in woods and drivers. IMO I good fitting if try to give you the best chance to present the club head back to the ball square to the line.

 

What's interesting here is the stat that 90 percent fall in to the stock fitting. I believe it should say something like 90% of golfer's could game standard fitted clubs with relatively no scoring difference. Just based off how the average handicap is curved I think this statement makes a little more sense.

 

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Mr_Theoo]

I'm sure a lot could play stock clubs but I'm not sold on the players score not being affected. I think if it was a beginner then maybe because they're still learning but someone who's experienced might see issues because they've figured how they play and score.

[deejaid]

I'm not familiar with Frank Thomas, well the White Sox First Baseman, but anyway, I agree with him mostly.

 

Drivers have been maxed out at .830 COR and 460cc; pick up any new driver offering and the statistics are awfully similar. Irons are pretty similar from one manufacturer to another too.

 

As for fitting, I agree that shaft flex is the most important and then club length the next. A player must be able to load the shaft properly to get any energy into the ball.

 

As for club length, have you ever noticed how a 5' tall woman and a 6'4” man can hold hands comfortably? Well that's because most peoples hands all hang at roughly the same height. Most people fall into a standard length or maybe 1/2” +/-.

 

I'd say custom fitting can maximize performance but it isn't a necessity for the majority of amateur golfers.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[revkev]

I'm surprised some of us didn't know who Frank Thomas the former USGA golf guru is. He used to do all of their equipment testing and was a level officer for them. He currently markets putters.

 

Back @RP58 his blog said if you own modern (undefined) equipment it's maxed out and the only necessary adjusts for most are lie and shaft flex.

 

I agree a bit less than everyone here. I think it's crucial for all players to be fit for grip, shaft length, type and weight (this could still be within stock but I can tell you there are plenty of stock shaft options that would cause me adjust my swing), club head type ( should a swing type bag a 5 hybrid? A 4 iron? A 7 wood? A 2 hybrid? A 4 wood? A 3 wood?).

 

What loft should I have my driver set to for the particular brand that fits me best? How about my adjustable fairway wood?

 

Wedges what loft and type?

 

Oh and then there's putter. I'd be willing to bet anything that 90 percent of all players putt the way we do because we adjusted our style to a particular putter that we had. Get a new putter change your putting style.

 

Oh and swing speed doesn't mean a rip. My swing speed is decidedly average and I need to be fit for the above every bit as much as a guy who swings 110 maybe more. Why? Because “stock” is often meant to look like what the Pros game and not a guy who plays a few times a month, swings 85 but still manages to shoot in the 70's must use.

 

If Thomas is right, he might be, it's only because there are now so many options out there that a player may effectively be fit into “stock” by a good fitter. He's certainly right that the better move before spending money on equipment would be some lessons. A good teacher will recommend any needed equipment changes for certain.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[StrokerAce]

I found the results of this test rather surprising...just goes to show that what you think you know isn't always right.

 

 

 

[GolfSpy MPR]

Great discussion.

It is a topic that is easy to go round and round on (very similar to the earlier "should all contest applicants get fitted" thread). Here are some things I think we'd all acknowledge:

 

1. There are extremes. There are extremes of clubs (SGI vs. blades, junior shafts versus the rebar that Sadlowski uses), and extremes of players (massive height differences, massive differences in strike consistency, massive differences in degree of loading a shaft). At the extremes, I don't think anyone is going to doubt that fitting makes a huge difference. Players at the wrong end of extremes (very short clubs and very tall player, or blades for someone who can't find the sweet spot and can't elevate the ball) will suffer enormous performance disadvantages.

 

2. By definition, a lot of golfers are pretty ordinary. While we all like to think of ourselves as unique, club manufacturers aren't complete morons: there's a range of golfers that are covered by the off-the-rack specs.

 

3. That said, even the most ordinary golfer can have his clubs tweaked to better fit his swing. We might talking a couple hundred revs of spin, or a degree here or there, but those tweaks can make a difference with a large enough sample size.

 

I think establishing some areas of agreement can help a discussion like this go forward.

[GolfSpy MPR]

 

I found the results of this test rather surprising...just goes to show that what you think you know isn't always right.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I really found this one interesting. When Crossfield did the same test and had the same results, a case could be made that his swing (which is very balanced and not extreme) would be the reason that all shafts basically worked the same for him. When Shiels did this test (as a more aggressive swinger), I actually thought the results might be more dramatic.

 

In this case, it really does seem like even something like shaft flex is a matter of dialing in fine results, rather than the difference between playable and unplayable.

[StrokerAce]

Yes, I really found this one interesting. When Crossfield did the same test and had the same results, a case could be made that his swing (which is very balanced and not extreme) would be the reason that all shafts basically worked the same for him. When Shiels did this test (as a more aggressive swinger), I actually thought the results might be more dramatic.

 

In this case, it really does seem like even something like shaft flex is a matter of dialing in fine results, rather than the difference between playable and unplayable.

 

Good point!

 

Always highlights the (frustrating) fact that there is not really any standardization in the industry in regards to labels like stiff/regular/senior/extra stiff.... seems like every manufacturer has their own interpretation.

 

I'd be interested to see a similar test across various manufacturers - maybe 5-6 "extra stiff" shafts to highlight any differences.

[cnosil]

I looked up the blog post today and I think we may have some interpretation differences. Here is the relevant section to this discussion:

 

After many years of making and selling clubs, manufacturers have — through a trial and error process — found that most golfers, categorized by stature and physical fitness fit into specific sets of “standard specs” and as long as the quality control is up to par, these standard specs will be sufficiently adequate for at least 90% of golfers.

 

After reading this, I believe this also falls into the lines of what Adam is looking at with his true fit golf site. Given thinks like body makeup, fitness, height, there are categories of players and there exists a general standard spec that will fit most golfers with some minor variances . I don't think this is equivalent to how some have interpreted the OP as just go buy off the shelf stock club and you will be fine.

 

If you want to read the entire post go here: https://franklygolf.info/2018/04/25/will-new-equipment-affect-your-performance/

[GolfSpy MPR]

Thanks for the link, cnosil.

 

He actually makes several really good points. This one is amusingly accurate: "Today's equipment is 90% better than 90% of the golfers who use it." Yep.

 

But he goes on to talk about the psychological benefit of fitting, and I don't think that is irrelevant. The confidence that comes from the assurance that these clubs are built for me, with specs that have been measured accurately, etc., is vital for eliminating a variable, even mentally. We all know what it's like to feel like we're fighting a particular club in the bag. Just getting that out of the way is valuable.

[Zylem]

I looked up the blog post today and I think we may have some interpretation differences. Here is the relevant section to this discussion:

 

After many years of making and selling clubs, manufacturers have — through a trial and error process — found that most golfers, categorized by stature and physical fitness fit into specific sets of “standard specs” and as long as the quality control is up to par, these standard specs will be sufficiently adequate for at least 90% of golfers.

 

After reading this, I believe this also falls into the lines of what Adam is looking at with his true fit golf site. Given thinks like body makeup, fitness, height, there are categories of players and there exists a general standard spec that will fit most golfers with some minor variances . I don't think this is equivalent to how some have interpreted the OP as just go buy off the shelf stock club and you will be fine.

 

If you want to read the entire post go here: https://franklygolf.info/2018/04/25/will-new-equipment-affect-your-performance/

Very well put.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Reesedw]

I think a better statement would be using the term " optional " as I have issues with the word "Stock" , "Stock" to me indicates a standard set of options. Not including Flex, Steel/ Graphite. I don't think Stock would fit 90%. I do think Most people settle for Stock offerings because we are trained that the guy at the golf shop knows what he is talking about, Or any specialty store whether a golf store or electronics, or any number of other specialty stores.

 

But "optional" yes. Because there are so many "Options" that are Not upgrades just optioins.. Grip size, weight, different shaft brands, lie, loft, ETC. that most of us can get Fit into a off the shelf custom fit club without expensive upgrades. But i do not think most people do that. I really think most people (Myself included) walk into a store (any store) and buy what they have researched as the best fit, take a test drive (Hit a few shots, and stop when they get the results they want) and just buy it whether or not its the best or not.. 

[revkev]

I looked up the blog post today and I think we may have some interpretation differences. Here is the relevant section to this discussion:

 

After many years of making and selling clubs, manufacturers have — through a trial and error process — found that most golfers, categorized by stature and physical fitness fit into specific sets of “standard specs” and as long as the quality control is up to par, these standard specs will be sufficiently adequate for at least 90% of golfers.

 

After reading this, I believe this also falls into the lines of what Adam is looking at with his true fit golf site. Given thinks like body makeup, fitness, height, there are categories of players and there exists a general standard spec that will fit most golfers with some minor variances . I don't think this is equivalent to how some have interpreted the OP as just go buy off the shelf stock club and you will be fine.

 

If you want to read the entire post go here: https://franklygolf.info/2018/04/25/will-new-equipment-affect-your-performance/

The reality is there isn't really an off the rack “stock” anymore. I think that's something we all agree on.

 

I wonder what the average guy sees when confronted by all of the club choices in front of him at a big box store.

 

It's possible that Tour presence has become more important than ever when it comes to club purchase decisions for many players. If their favorite Tour Player uses it then it has to be the best club for them too, right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy