Fittings: I was wrong (far too broad)

[jddaigneault]

1 minute ago, Golfspy_CG2 said:

I once saw a guy report that HE had a personal best of 74 in his companies tournament.

I was impressed with it until he mentioned in an oh by the way thing, it was a scramble.  Two things wrong with that, counting a scramble as a personal best...and thinking 74 is a good scramble score....ha  

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

[myherobobhope]

6 hours ago, jddaigneault said:

I don't think anyone is saying that a fitting cures everything, nor that fittings don't work. I think the key is to know the data, how to use it, get a good fitting, AND work on your game. 

There is no quick fix to getting better at golf. 

Well, that isn't true. Play in scrambles. You will feel like you're incredible as long as you don't pay attention to how little your group uses your ball. 

I think fitting went from being undervalued to overvalued in the past 10 years... 

I think they can be a great tool to make sure your using the right equipment, but I’m not confident that the clubs themselves will change dispersion a huge amount (short of buying the rocket launchers that create more dispersion in length).

my bag might have 8 new clubs in it, but I don’t really think new equipment is super important... I’ve become more fixated on having the tools I need for the shots I want to hit...

fitting is a part of that, and I know which shafts I get along with mostly from fittings... but it was only a part of the process for getting new stuff... 

 

[jddaigneault]

37 minutes ago, myherobobhope said:

I think fitting went from being undervalued to overvalued in the past 10 years... 

I think they can be a great tool to make sure your using the right equipment, but I’m not confident that the clubs themselves will change dispersion a huge amount (short of buying the rocket launchers that create more dispersion in length).

my bag might have 8 new clubs in it, but I don’t really think new equipment is super important... I’ve become more fixated on having the tools I need for the shots I want to hit...

fitting is a part of that, and I know which shafts I get along with mostly from fittings... but it was only a part of the process for getting new stuff... 

 

I think learning your swing, learning about equipment, fittings, lessons, practice, and playing are all necessary steps towards actually getting better at golf. Each plays an important role, but none of them are a magic bullet. 

[Middler]

23 hours ago, cnosil said:

I think you can gather lots of info in three swings and I think any more the player adapts to the combo.   Distance, ball flight,  sequencing are are quick assessments.   I just think Dispersion is something that takes longer to evaluate

+1. Which is what I said in post #1. Club Champions 4 shots per head/shaft combo methodology can definitely work for distance, launch angle, spin, etc. It will not work for dispersion for 90% of us, no way. Ian did not say he could evaluate dispersion in 2 shots…

If you’re working on your game to establish your dispersion tendencies to factor into course management, most people want to see as many as 30 shots. 4 is not representative.

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, Middler said:

Which is what I said in post #1. Club Champions 4 shots per head/shaft combo methodology can definitely work for distance, launch angle, spin, etc. It will not work for dispersion for 90% of us, no way. Ian did not say he could evaluate dispersion in 2 shots…

If you’re working on your game to establish your dispersion tendencies to factor into course management, most people want to see as many as 30 shots. 4 is not representative.

Yep,  I have been agreeing with what you put in your first post. My position has changed as I have learned more about “fittings”. Depending on what you are trying to do there are different approaches that should be followed.  

[Middler]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Yep,  I have been agreeing with what you put in your first post. My position has changed as I have learned more about “fittings”. Depending on what you are trying to do there are different approaches that should be followed.  

I am sure that's true. IME Club Champion has one methodology, at least for a first time customer - maybe it's different if you're an ongoing customer. And the CC method (4 good shots with each head/shaft and on to the next) is probably generally effective for customers looking for more distance and/or optimizing launch angles - and that is what most customers are looking for. No fitter can judge dispersion with 4 shots, much less 2...for 90% of players. Yet there are a few here disputing that as well, though they don't specifically mention dispersion with their rebuttals.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

I think it is feasible for someone with a low handicap that also hits hundreds of balls a week to be able to tell in a few swings if something is working or not. Just by looking at the difference in handicaps by the posters in this thread and everyone else in the community, I can tell you that not everyone can tell within a few swings if something is going to work. Heck it takes some people a few shots just to find their swing. But putting this aside, there is just so much to getting everything right that works for you.

I will admit I am probably one of the least knowledgeable when it comes to shaft selection. It blows my mind reading some of the posts on shafts. I should make an attempt to learn more about kick points, weight, flexes, differences between manufactures and such. But I'm sure that that would lead me to doubt things I shouldn't or experiment with things I shouldn't change because it works.

But that's why I go to someone who knows. Let's hit them look at the data and tell me/ show me what looks best on paper.  Pick the best performing package and get the club there or elsewhere.  To many people try to self evaluate and achieve poor results. 

[THEZIPR23]

I was looking for some skytrack data, but I think I screwed up the data set playing with it. But I was hitting 7 irons the other day and my dispersion was 12 yards (very good for me). 2 shots later it was above 35. 1 shot changed the whole data set significantly yes it was a small sample size but that 1 shot is very indictive of my game, bunch of good shots and then 1 or 2 that are off the planet. The fitter to fix that problem doesn't exist! Trust me I've looked. A good fitter can take those 15 shots and improve upon them, but it still won't help my dispersion number. I may leave the fitting with a dispersion that is the same or close to and still get a good fitting and improve my game. IMO a fitting is a 2 way street, you have to know your game and give that knowledge to the fitter so they can output what will help your game. Does that mean you have to be a low handicapper to benefit? Absolutely not. Adam Young talked about it some on the Sweet Spot that the vast majority of golfers regardless of handicap are consistent in what they do, whatever they do, they do it often. There are some outliers, myself being one, but for most everyone regardless of the handicap can benefit from a fitting in some degree. Are fittings perfect?  Of course not.  Are they going to fix your game? Nope. But they help ensure that the tools I use are correct for the job.