Lie Board Test

[fixyurdivot]

Today I completed a small project/assessment that has been on my "to do" list for some time.  Not having access to a loft lie machine or check-fit gage (yet), I've been curious what my new ZX5's actually measure for loft and lie.  They were built by Fairway Jockey (now owned by TrueSpec) based on my TrueSpec fitting data.  I have no reason to doubt their correct but, coming from a career in aerospace "trust but verify" is my mantra. Plus, they don't always go right at the flag... so that makes me suspicious .

So I set up a couple of boards in the shop; one to stand on and one as the strike surface.  Having just purchased a Bridgestone JGR HF2 6i for my first DIY build (re-shaft) project, and not knowing whether it was still at standard lie, it was my first test.  Figured if the set-up was woefully wrong, I'd rather not find out on the Srixon's 

That looks pretty spot on .  But is it because I got lucky and it's 2* upright like my fitting data? 

Rather than re-strike the same tape, I elected to make 3 strikes with each club with new tape for each strike.  I also marked the face midpoint (grooved area) and placed a dot in the center of the oblong shaped strike mark.  Here is a picture of the first set of strikes.

And here is what all 3 sets look like.

The results suggest to me that I'm hitting most irons a bit toe-side; more so the 6-8i. For those of you who have some club fitting experience, what do they say about lie angle?  

I know many think the lie board test is near worthless and I honestly don't have enough experience in club fitting to argue one way or another.  I did see two of the OEM's using lie boards at a recent Demo Day... so at least some still feel it's useful.  All three club fittings I've ever had (first being static for PE2's), the others with LM's, result in a 2* up recommendation.  So, odds are that is correct.  But maybe the club build was off on some irons? 

As I move into my DIY club build projects, how to really know loft and lie is becoming a gnawing issue for me.  Access to shops/club builders that have calibrated gages are non-existent here in MT and in Yuma, AZ (though I may have finally found someone down there).  It would be helpful to have maybe a long and mid iron, that's been checked in a calibrated gage, to serve as a standard. What method do you use?  If I'm needlessly hyper-ventilating over all this, reach out and smack me.

 

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

38 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

The results suggest to me that I'm hitting most irons a bit toe-side; more so the 6-8i. For those of you who have some club fitting experience, what do they say about lie angle?  

Lie boards lie and it’s interesting that anyone would be using them. I haven’t seen one at a fitting or demo day in the last 3-4 years if not longer. Even king who was one of the more prominent users of them didn’t use them, nor do they start with a static fitting.

This is probably more of a swing issue than a lie angle issue. This is where the sharpie marker test is better. If you are hitting on the toe more than likely you have some early extension in the swing.

You could try to go more upright and see if that helps at all. 

40 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

All three club fittings I've ever had (first being static for PE2's), the others with LM's, result in a 2* up recommendation.  So, odds are that is correct.  But maybe the club build was off on some irons? 

2° up from what? There’s no standard for lie angle so the lie has to be in relation to something. 2° up from Mizuno could be 1° from other brands and without looking that.

[fixyurdivot]

1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Lie boards lie and it’s interesting that anyone would be using them. I haven’t seen one at a fitting or demo day in the last 3-4 years if not longer. Even king who was one of the more prominent users of them didn’t use them, nor do they start with a static fitting.

This is probably more of a swing issue than a lie angle issue. This is where the sharpie marker test is better. If you are hitting on the toe more than likely you have some early extension in the swing.

You could try to go more upright and see if that helps at all. 

2° up from what? There’s no standard for lie angle so the lie has to be in relation to something. 2° up from Mizuno could be 1° from other brands and without looking that.

I would presume from flat - that is the factory default is it not? The fitting for the PE2's were measurements (wrist to floor) and a lie board (circa 1987).  The other fittings have been in the last 4 years and with a GCQuad.

So if I was hitting most all of the test strikes with the oblong mark and dot in the center, the lie test would still be suspect?  Certainly adding more replicate tests would solidify whatever patterns emerge, and normalize strike inconsistency, but the three seemed to be telling a story... maybe not? I was trying to do the cheap man version of this.

How do you go about knowing accuracy of loft and lie?  Do you have equipment that has been calibrated or cross-checked some clubs, measured on calibrated equipment, against your own? 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

I would presume from flat - that is the factory default is it not? The fitting for the PE2's were measurements (wrist to floor) and a lie board (circa 1987).  The other fittings have been in the last 4 years and with a GCQuad.

Yes flat but what is flat for one brand may not be flat for another. Zx5 irons have a lie angle of 62° for the 7i. Mizuno mp and jpx use 61.5° and titleist uses 63°. These are the ones I know off the top of my head from recent searches.

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

So if I was hitting most all of the test strikes with the oblong mark and dot in the center, the lie test would still be suspect?  Certainly adding more replicate tests would solidify whatever patterns emerge, and normalize strike inconsistency, but the three seemed to be telling a story... maybe not?

With a lie board it’s possible to be suspect. The sharpie marker test is more accurate and cheaper than buying wood and using tape. 

 

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

How do you go about knowing accuracy of loft and lie?  Do you have equipment that has been calibrated or cross-checked some clubs, measured on calibrated equipment, against your own? 

Depends on what you mean by accuracy is are they built to spec? Then that would be done via loft and lie machine.

If you mean accurate for your swing aka optimized that would be lie angle test using the sharpie marker test. This is used by many high level fitters. Loft would be via launch monitor numbers to see if launch, spin, peak height, land/descent angle are optimal for the club. The cheap way is to look at ball flight and also stopping power on the greens. Ball flight can also be used to see if lie angle needs to be adjusted. The sharpie test is going to show you where on the face you hitting the ball as well as a line to show you if your current lie angle is good (line straight up and down) or if its needs to be flatter or more upright 

[Kenny B]

Then throw in the fact that loft/lie can... over time and strikes on mats and hard ground... revert back to whatever the club was before adjustment.  

[fixyurdivot]

Yet another topic with varied points of view... awesome .  I stumbled into this article and found it interesting; one that attempts to correlate the tape testing with what I would presume is current state-of-art (ENSO High Speed 3D Imagery) capturing lie angle at the point of impact.

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Depends on what you mean by accuracy is are they built to spec? Then that would be done via loft and lie machine.

But how do you check the accuracy of your LL machine; Vernier scale or digital?  Do you use a calibrated standard?

 

1 hour ago, Kenny B said:

Then throw in the fact that loft/lie can... over time and strikes on mats and hard ground... revert back to whatever the club was before adjustment.  

So you're saying I now need to go have my irons re-adjusted?   Hey, maybe this is the way to do it... using the "hammer to fit, paint to hide" approach to club building .

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Yet another topic with varied points of view... awesome .  I stumbled into this article and found it interesting; one that attempts to correlate the tape testing with what I would presume is current state-of-art (ENSO High Speed 3D Imagery) capturing lie angle at the point of impact.

As the article mentions it lined up for the extreme over the top guy, but it also talks about where the golfer was making contact and that hitting behind the ball then bouncing into the ball where the toe isn’t going to be as toe down at that point.

This is why imo the best fitters use what their eyes show them in ball flight, compare it with the numbers on the monitor and also understand the golf swing and what the golfer is doing during the swing and at impact. It’s also why some will use length to test changes rather than lie angle adjustments.

Also why I think the sharpie test is better for most people because it tells you what happens when the club hits the ball.

Also interesting in that article that they reference the biometric aka static fitting yet I haven’t seen a single Ping rep including the ones from hq who drive the tour van around the country in the spring and early summer do any static measurements for iron fittings. I was fit for i20s when they came out (the rep is one of the first non engineer pxg hires and is the lpga rep) ie1s and i210, no static measurements used

8 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

But how do you check the accuracy of your LL machine; Vernier scale or digital?  Do you use a calibrated standard?

No idea, I let those who do club building and repair worry about that. If I don’t like what I see I have them adjust it as needed, so if their machine is off that’s fine because the loft will be adjusted by whatever is needed based on what their machine shows. Also remember if whoever built the clubs uses machine a and you use machine b, there could be tolerance differences there. Sharpie test will tell you how much you need to adjust based on what your current lie angle is. 
 

it’s best to baseline what your irons are when they arrive and before hitting them to avoid any changes from use as Kenny mentions 

8 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

So you're saying I now need to go have my irons re-adjusted?   Hey, maybe this is the way to do it... using the "hammer to fit, paint to hide" approach to club building .

Possibly

[Kenny B]

8 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Yet another topic with varied points of view... awesome .  I stumbled into this article and found it interesting; one that attempts to correlate the tape testing with what I would presume is current state-of-art (ENSO High Speed 3D Imagery) capturing lie angle at the point of impact.

But how do you check the accuracy of your LL machine; Vernier scale or digital?  Do you use a calibrated standard?

 

So you're saying I now need to go have my irons re-adjusted?   Hey, maybe this is the way to do it... using the "hammer to fit, paint to hide" approach to club building .

Probably a good idea to check them... your swing is pretty violent.  

[Shapotomous]

I agree to use visual ball flight data as primary and couple that with visual swing analysis and feel.  

As a secondary data point I use the sharpie and lie board data points.  As mentioned above if you are bouncing the club into the ball the lie board will not be accurate but I also think the sharpie data accuracy is impacted for those type hits for similar reasons. 

I believe the lie angle and loft adjustments I made to my clubs and how they affect the ball flight are for good contact hits.  I didn't make those adjustments to GET a clean hit but to affect the ball flight ON a good contact hit.  I worked to get good contact then flattened the lie a couple ticks after seeing good contact shots missing left consistently.

IMO the first thing to address is to get 'mostly' consistent and 'mostly' clean contact with your club length & swing before fine tuning the lie angle and loft tweaks.

[RickyBobby_PR]

41 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

As a secondary data point I use the sharpie and lie board data points.  As mentioned above if you are bouncing the club into the ball the lie board will not be accurate but I also think the sharpie data accuracy is impacted for those type hits for similar reasons. 

Yes but the sharpie test is telling you what happens when the club finally makes contact with the ball where the lie board is telling you when the club makes contact with the board and for most amateurs that’s before contact, and we know from previous posts the op hits slightly behind the ball as noticed by his fitter. 

 

43 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

IMO the first thing to address is to get 'mostly' consistent and 'mostly' clean contact with your club length & swing before fine tuning the lie angle and loft tweaks.

For the most part agree here, especially if someone has a relatively consistent ball flight/starting line but doesn’t compress the ball. For others tweaking lie can improve start line and also overall ball flight.

[fixyurdivot]

We need one of our pure ball (first) strikers to run a comparison experiment; using tape/lie board and sharpie.  It would be interesting to see those results.  I don't have a hitting net or mat, so the sharpie test isn't a convenient option. 

57 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

I agree to use visual ball flight data as primary and couple that with visual swing analysis and feel.  

I agree with this as well, but short of having GCQuad data available, and seeing the shots and ball witness marks on the clubface, how else besides the lie board or sharpie test can one assess lie angle?  It seems that pre-LM club building/tuning methods are being viewed as ineffective. 

[cnosil]

39 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

short of having GCQuad data available, and seeing the shots and ball witness marks on the clubface, how else besides the lie board or sharpie test can one assess lie angle?  It seems that pre-LM club building/tuning methods are being viewed as ineffective. 

Not sure there are really any other ways other than maybe the Mizuno Shaft Optimizer which is supposed to provide a lie angle.  I've seen people comment that GCQuads aren't accurate since the dots get hidden by the ball at impact.  The sharpie test seems to be considered the ideal way other than watching ball flight and simultaneously making corrections with a L/L machine. 

 

Not sure if you have seen this,  but it may give an overview on why the lie board may not be the best way to fit;  seems like just adjusting lie to make the impact centered may result in bad ball flights due to how it influences face angle.   I think in the video,  Ian was hitting a 50 yard hook based on centering impact using the lie board.

 

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, cnosil said:

Not sure there are really any other ways other than maybe the Mizuno Shaft Optimizer which is supposed to provide a lie angle. 

I've said it before in other threads but I really want to try that Mizuno Shaft Optimizer.

[Shapotomous]

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

.......

I agree with this as well, but short of having GCQuad data available, and seeing the shots and ball witness marks on the clubface, how else besides the lie board or sharpie test can one assess lie angle?  It seems that pre-LM club building/tuning methods are being viewed as ineffective. 

In the olden days before LM's, I have done a lot of practice sessions on the course to watch ball flight.  I had to wait to make the club adjustment until i got back to the workbench.

[dlow206]

On 6/2/2022 at 4:16 PM, fixyurdivot said:

Today I completed a small project/assessment that has been on my "to do" list for some time.  Not having access to a loft lie machine or check-fit gage (yet), I've been curious what my new ZX5's actually measure for loft and lie.  They were built by Fairway Jockey (now owned by TrueSpec) based on my TrueSpec fitting data.  I have no reason to doubt their correct but, coming from a career in aerospace "trust but verify" is my mantra. Plus, they don't always go right at the flag... so that makes me suspicious .

So I set up a couple of boards in the shop; one to stand on and one as the strike surface.  Having just purchased a Bridgestone JGR HF2 6i for my first DIY build (re-shaft) project, and not knowing whether it was still at standard lie, it was my first test.  Figured if the set-up was woefully wrong, I'd rather not find out on the Srixon's 

That looks pretty spot on .  But is it because I got lucky and it's 2* upright like my fitting data? 

Rather than re-strike the same tape, I elected to make 3 strikes with each club with new tape for each strike.  I also marked the face midpoint (grooved area) and placed a dot in the center of the oblong shaped strike mark.  Here is a picture of the first set of strikes.

And here is what all 3 sets look like.

The results suggest to me that I'm hitting most irons a bit toe-side; more so the 6-8i. For those of you who have some club fitting experience, what do they say about lie angle?  

I know many think the lie board test is near worthless and I honestly don't have enough experience in club fitting to argue one way or another.  I did see two of the OEM's using lie boards at a recent Demo Day... so at least some still feel it's useful.  All three club fittings I've ever had (first being static for PE2's), the others with LM's, result in a 2* up recommendation.  So, odds are that is correct.  But maybe the club build was off on some irons? 

As I move into my DIY club build projects, how to really know loft and lie is becoming a gnawing issue for me.  Access to shops/club builders that have calibrated gages are non-existent here in MT and in Yuma, AZ (though I may have finally found someone down there).  It would be helpful to have maybe a long and mid iron, that's been checked in a calibrated gage, to serve as a standard. What method do you use?  If I'm needlessly hyper-ventilating over all this, reach out and smack me.

 

 

 

although they say using a loft lie machine to measure lie angle is not always accurate, i feel i get pretty good measurements from it. it measured right on spec for some Ping wedges that i received recently, and Ping is usually pretty on spec or close for lie angle. i also have a separate loft lie gauge and i'm about 0.25 degrees between my Mitchell and that loft lie gauge. because of that, i don't really use the loft lie gauge anymore. 

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, dlow206 said:

although they say using a loft lie machine to measure lie angle is not always accurate, i feel i get pretty good measurements from it. it measured right on spec for some Ping wedges that i received recently, and Ping is usually pretty on spec or close for lie angle. i also have a separate loft lie gauge and i'm about 0.25 degrees between my Mitchell and that loft lie gauge. because of that, i don't really use the loft lie gauge anymore. 

Thanks Derrick, this is exactly what I'm looking for in regards to the question.  You're right, seems about a split decision from what've I've found on the subject.  No doubt my work background spilling over and into my DIY build-bench but, not having a reliable way of measuring loft and lie is a non-starter.  I'd be fine with knowing a bend machine is off x.x so long as it's consistent.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Thanks Derrick, this is exactly what I'm looking for in regards to the question.  You're right, seems about a split decision from what've I've found on the subject.  No doubt my work background spilling over and into my DIY build-bench but, not having a reliable way of measuring loft and lie is a non-starter.  I'd be fine with knowing a bend machine is off x.x so long as it's consistent.  

Here’s the question. If you have a machine for loft and lie what does it matter how off spec it is. You are going to make adjustments based on what the current lie is to what you need. So it deadly doesn’t matter if your machine is 1/2° off from someone else’s. If you need 1° flat based on your lie test you bend it 1° flat from where it’s at now. 

[dlow206]

4 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Thanks Derrick, this is exactly what I'm looking for in regards to the question.  You're right, seems about a split decision from what've I've found on the subject.  No doubt my work background spilling over and into my DIY build-bench but, not having a reliable way of measuring loft and lie is a non-starter.  I'd be fine with knowing a bend machine is off x.x so long as it's consistent.  

also one thing to note, on the analog loft lie machines, there is nothing to calibrate on the machine (assuming the machine is not damaged in some way). the accuracy is dependent on how accurately you place the iron in the machine with the groove lines being parallel to the reference line on the machine.

on a digital machine, there is some calibration that needs to be done. 

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, dlow206 said:

also one thing to note, on the analog loft lie machines, there is nothing to calibrate on the machine (assuming the machine is not damaged in some way). the accuracy is dependent on how accurately you place the iron in the machine with the groove lines being parallel to the reference line on the machine.

on a digital machine, there is some calibration that needs to be done. 

Yes, that makes sense on the Vernier scale units and one would expect those to be set by the mfg.  I have heard that registering the club head correctly in the clamp is key.  Some have much better/easier visual means of getting the grooves parallel to the jigs base.  I'll definitely get an iron checked on a calibrated unit to serve as a reference standard.

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Here’s the question. If you have a machine for loft and lie what does it matter how off spec it is. You are going to make adjustments based on what the current lie is to what you need. So it deadly doesn’t matter if your machine is 1/2° off from someone else’s. If you need 1° flat based on your lie test you bend it 1° flat from where it’s at now. 

As I stated previously, it doesn't matter so long as you know how much it's off over the measurement range.  Worse than being off is not being consistently off.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

18 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Yes, that makes sense on the Vernier scale units and one would expect those to be set by the mfg.  I have heard that registering the club head correctly in the clamp is key.  Some have much better/easier visual means of getting the grooves parallel to the jigs base.  I'll definitely get an iron checked on a calibrated unit to serve as a reference standard.

As I stated previously, it doesn't matter so long as you know how much it's off over the measurement range.  Worse than being off is not being consistently off.  

There is no range to compare to. You don’t know what the lie was when you got them so you don’t now if or how much they have moved from that point. You also don’t know what type of was used to measure them when they were built or what any type of tolerance that machine has.

So you are starting at whatever they are measured at on your machine and will adjust them to what you need based on your testing of lie angle. 
 

You could compare your reading to what the stabdard spec is on srixons website to see how close they are to what you ordered but again that doesn’t mean anything at this point if you are trying to dial in lie angle based on your current needs from testing of lie, face contact and ball flight 

[cnosil]

34 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

  I'll definitely get an iron checked on a calibrated unit to serve as a reference standard.

you just need a tool to calibrate yours.  CNC machined so you should be able to rely on the accuracy.  

https://www.golfworks.com/golf-mechanix-loft-and-lie-calibration-standard/p/gm1006/

[fixyurdivot]

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

There is no range to compare to. You don’t know what the lie was when you got them so you don’t now if or how much they have moved from that point. You also don’t know what type of was used to measure them when they were built or what any type of tolerance that machine has.

So you are starting at whatever they are measured at on your machine and will adjust them to what you need based on your testing of lie angle. 
 

You could compare your reading to what the stabdard spec is on srixons website to see how close they are to what you ordered but again that doesn’t mean anything at this point if you are trying to dial in lie angle based on your current needs from testing of lie, face contact and ball flight 

If one only intends to "tweak" their own clubs and does not care about loft and lie measurements sure but, for my purposes, whatever LL unit I eventually get will be checked/compared to a calibrated standard. Not knowing what a clubs true loft and lie is seems pretty pointless.  

[cnosil]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

If one only intends to "tweak" their own clubs and does not care about loft and lie measurements sure but, for my purposes, whatever LL unit I eventually get will be checked/compared to a calibrated standard. Not knowing what a clubs true loft and lie is seems pretty pointless.  

This is the key to the entire discussion.   If you are just doing your own clubs, then it probably doesn't matter the actual number since you will just adjust as needed.   If you are in a business setting and someone asks for or checks for a specific loft lie value you need to make sure your device is calibrated.   

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, cnosil said:

This is the key to the entire discussion.   If you are just doing your own clubs, then it probably doesn't matter the actual number since you will just adjust as needed.   If you are in a business setting and someone asks for or checks for a specific loft lie value you need to make sure your device is calibrated.   

Yes, that is key and I want to be able to measure someone else's clubs and be as accurate as possible.  A seperate check fixture can be used but it's an added cost and somewhat redundant IMO.  If one runs a calibration on whatever LL unit they have, against a few irons (say 4, 7, and 9i) that have been checked on a calibrated LL unit, then you'll know of any variance over the measurement range, and can either compensate the reading or adjust the units scales to match the standard if that's an option.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

If one only intends to "tweak" their own clubs and does not care about loft and lie measurements sure but, for my purposes, whatever LL unit I eventually get will be checked/compared to a calibrated standard. Not knowing what a clubs true loft and lie is seems pretty pointless.  

Again if one has a machine and tests the loft and lie they will get a reading and can compare to the ordered specs and have and idea if where they are at. Then while using the clubs if they think something is off they can be adjusted. 
 

That’s the benefit of having one’s own machine, it really doesn’t matter what the spec is, you can do what needs to be done to get them where a person wants.

 

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Yes, that is key and I want to be able to measure someone else's clubs and be as accurate as possible.  A seperate check fixture can be used but it's an added cost and somewhat redundant IMO.  If one runs a calibration on whatever LL unit they have, against a few irons (say 4, 7, and 9i) that have been checked on a calibrated LL unit, then you'll know of any variance over the measurement range, and can either compensate the reading or adjust the units scales to match the standard if that's an option.

There’s going to be tolerances between each person that measures. Even if you had the same machine as the clubs were built on the way the person uses the machine is going to have some variances. 

Imo there’s a lot of overthinking in this. 
 

it doesn’t really matter if it’s 61.5° or 62° if the ball flight does what the person wants and in lie testing the line is on point 

[fixyurdivot]

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Again if one has a machine and tests the loft and lie they will get a reading and can compare to the ordered specs and have and idea if where they are at. Then while using the clubs if they think something is off they can be adjusted. 
 

That’s the benefit of having one’s own machine, it really doesn’t matter what the spec is, you can do what needs to be done to get them where a person wants.

 

There’s going to be tolerances between each person that measures. Even if you had the same machine as the clubs were built on the way the person uses the machine is going to have some variances. 

Imo there’s a lot of overthinking in this. 

Clearly we have different points of view on this... and that's OK.

[dlow206]

to me, the key with loft lie measurement is that you as the operator are consistent with how you measure, especially if you are not doing a lie test with every iron in the bag. 

the main possible operator error with measurement in a loft lie machine is not lining up the clubhead so that it is parallel to the reference line. so say you do your test with a 6 iron and thats the only club you do the lie test with and it reads 62 on the machine and you want to bend one degree flat to 61. And let's say you want to follow a 0.5 degree progression between irons, so you want the 7 iron to be 61.5. Where the operator error comes into play is that you place that iron in the machine slightly crooked and then you are bending that 7 iron to 61.5, but in actuality you are off in progressions because the 6 iron was measured perfectly parallel to the reference line but the 7 iron was crooked. 

[McGolf]

DLOw, the set up you have the for lie board is just fine. The issue comes in this is discussion when the lie board is placed on the hitting surface, in your case it is the hitting surface. 

From the marking on your tape I would say a slight adjustment upright may be needed. That said, lie angle is more important in the lower end of the clubs 8-9-pw etc than the upper end. If the flight is ok to you then dont fix what aint broke. Again in the lower end, the slight tweak .5 to 1 degree  could help in the lower if you are looking to optimize directional control. 

The second thing to address is where the mark is being made. It is on the trail end of the sole indicating a slight flick/ early release/ scoop or a slightly open club face at impact.  

Keep in mind this measurement is not "oh you hit it so you automatically need,,,,," this is information use in conjunction the result of the ball strike. I.E. flight.  to make the proper decision. 

 

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, McGolf said:

DLOw, the set up you have the for lie board is just fine. The issue comes in this is discussion when the lie board is placed on the hitting surface, in your case it is the hitting surface. 

From the marking on your tape I would say a slight adjustment upright may be needed. That said, lie angle is more important in the lower end of the clubs 8-9-pw etc than the upper end. If the flight is ok to you then dont fix what aint broke. Again in the lower end, the slight tweak .5 to 1 degree  could help in the lower if you are looking to optimize directional control. 

The second thing to address is where the mark is being made. It is on the trail end of the sole indicating a slight flick/ early release/ scoop or a slightly open club face at impact.  

Keep in mind this measurement is not "oh you hit it so you automatically need,,,,," this is information use in conjunction the result of the ball strike. I.E. flight.  to make the proper decision. 

 

Hey Jim, thanks for the input.  I was wondering about where on the sole (fore/aft) the marks were being made and what that might say.  To be honest, I've been working on trying to trap and contact ball first... but think I may have been hesitant to do that on the plywood .  Because the ZX5's have the v-sole, and I was marking on the rear part of the sole, does it suggests one of the "3 sin's" you mention? 

More recently, I've been taking some turf with my strikes but doing so on a hard surface is a wee bit concerning.  Maybe the lie board test would be best done on top of a hitting mat?  My shop has 6" thick concrete.

[McGolf]

Sometimes the rearward hit starts with a set up the adds loft to the club.  I.e. the shaft goes straight through the head behind the ball. Most golf club except maybe 2 irons, have some level of forward shaft lean when the playing position.  Think of it much like using the loft and lie machine (mitchell) where the loft is found the shaft is leaning towards you. That imo is the lean you would see at address. 

a far as the mat goes. I place mine on top the mat. The 1/8 plastic does throw off the reading much, keep in mind the  flight is first the reading is second. if you are getting the desired flight and distance. Why change.