2014 tm mc v 2011 tm cb - issues.......... Please help....

[Oddsocks]

**** long post warning ****

I was custom fitted in jan last year as I was in the market at the time for a set of irons, although the the dna suggested kbs tour stiff, px5.5 and xps300 105, as my current clubs were already fitted with xps300 it was decided that there wasn't much to be gained from a club change, this was despite a full on fit using flightscope. What was decided was that after a lie check I would be better off with 1* flat as my arms are slightly longer than average. Anyway after a loft adjustment on my irons, with my new found consistency the irons stayed in the bag for another season which saw me drop from 12 to 8.5 at my lowest. Was was interesting was that the iron shafts spec'd were exactly the same as the two years precious when I had purchased the cb's

Anyway moving forward and around a month ago I tried the new mc back to back against my Cbs on our club simulator, the stiles wasn't quite as consistent as that of the Cbs, but the ones that were Gaines at least 10 yards and the ones that was a little off still gained 5-6 yards. The ,aim thing I likes was the mc/kbs combo launched a little lowere which was perfect for around my course.

I coughed up and purchased but since buying really haven't felt at home, strikes seem a little off centre, but the flush ones are mega. Tonight at the range as it was quiet I hit of the grass an noticed that the divots were pointing slightly left, but the ones of the grass were so much more consistent that the ones off the mat, this got me thinking back to the fitting I had and the difference the 1* adjustment made in the Cbs.

I suppose I have two questions.

1) would you expect 1* to make that much difference, especially in the quality of the strike?

2) would that also effect the face angle mat impact this much

. I know the explanation I received from the fitter was that at impact, the heel of the club is hitting the turf first slightly closing the face at impact, but I'm wondering if it would actually make that much difference.

I suppose with the iron play going from some of my best to now hit and miss its either a case of heads or shafts of both wrong despite the dna suggestions, lies needing to be adjusting for that final sharpness... Or the fact that my game still isn't quite there for the mc set up.

I don't want to back out on these after around 3 games and 3 range session.... But confidence is starting to slip, I'm lucky enough to still have the ex's in the spare room, and I've actually knocked back a deal pending further tests with the new bats,

Help..... Pretty please.

 

[the_coach]

originally was this in the end a 'static address measurement' that gave the final fitting recommendation because of the arm length? or a dynamic one with board & tape so checking lie at impact? or dynamic with LM?

few gremlins/typos in the original op, but take it are we talking a 1º lie change, as further on it says loft?

& the change that happened was to 1º flatter? but that this was on the 'old' set of clubs & not the 'new' ones so new ones are standard spec, lie & length?

what's the common denom with the miss-strikes with the 'new' irons - direction & flight? & are the majority of the miss-strikes to say pretty much 95% showing the same shot pattern?

generally for every 1º your lie angle is off (flat or upright) from where it should be given the swing motion, you'd lose around 4 yards in either direction - left or right of target - with a repeatable swing motion .

but if this (lie angle) were the cause to your miss-strikes you'd see that definite pattern of direction for the majority of strikes so most going left, or most going right dependent on which ways 'wrong' the lie is.
but with a reasonably tuned repeatable swing motion/path to ball most would still be fairly good contact from center.

but as ever really hard to tell without seeing what's going on, would be best to book 30 mins take 5,6,7 of both sets & get the motion & results with both checked over if possible.
as say if the 'old' going direction & contact wise to target pretty good. but the 'new' missing consitently left - it could be the lie angle or it could be you'er just a little ways more anxious with them so snatching a little from the top & puliing.

 

[Oddsocks]

Cheers for the response coach and as in depth as always, sorry for any miss types, been a long day and was suffering with iPad-eye

When I had the fitting we started with the dna to establish what shafts would suit and discussed some heads, on to the range where they have the flight scope and it was soon apparent that from the numbers I wasn't getting nothing that my cb's wasn't already delivering. Spin, flight, distance and dispersion wise were all pretty much the same, but what was common against all clubs what the fact that my strike was slightly out the heel. when the pro looked at the sole on three irons I was trying he could see I was striking the ground more with the heel as there was next to no mat marks anywhere near the toe or either club, this was also backed up by my miss on good hits being left unless I tried to save it with the hands by holding it off slightly and not releasing.

We moved back inside and after a chat about it he Carried out a static measurement which confirmed that my arms were slight longer which he thought was effecting the lie giving the heely strikes. We hit around 10-15 balls on the trackman indoors with impact stickers on both the face and sole from a strike board which only backed up everything we had already found out.

He popped into the workshop to bend my 7i -1* flat and the repeated the strike board process, the sole tape was now showing 0 requirements, strikes were pretty much bang on centre but more importantly the left miss had moved to a very slight draw and strikes were much improved. What was a better bonus was by finding the centre with better strikes the distance was up by around 10 yards. We carried out the impact test on the 52*, 9i and 5i to ensure consistent results before bending the set to the same -1*.

The current irons seem to be producing the same sort of results, a miss left with a slightly heely strike which is also more commonly slightly thin. The thin ones are straight, but the ones I compress down on more always miss left side by around 5-10 yards

The original irons were standard 2012 tm cb's bent as above, the new irons are standard 2014 MC that have not been adjusted yet.

 

[pbrown7582]

Cheers for the response coach and as in depth as always, sorry for any miss types, been a long day and was suffering with iPad-eye


The current irons seem to be producing the same sort of results, a miss left with a slightly heely strike which is also more commonly slightly thin. The thin ones are straight, but the ones I compress down on more always miss left side by around 5-10 yards

The original irons were standard 2012 tm cb's bent as above, the new irons are standard 2014 MC that have not been adjusted yet.

have you not answered your query yourself? good luck with it.

 

[Oddsocks]

I was kinda thinking that as I typed it brownie

 

[the_coach]

The current irons seem to be producing the same sort of results, a miss left with a slightly heely strike which is also more commonly slightly thin. The thin ones are straight, but the ones I compress down on more always miss left side by around 5-10 yards

The original irons were standard 2012 tm cb's bent as above, the new irons are standard 2014 MC that have not been adjusted yet.

would seem like the new set may well need bending to get the club to work through not toe up. would take 5,6,7 of both sets into check that all out.
difficult to say what might be happening with the differing miss-strikes without seeing what's going on.

couple thoughts that may help some.

one thing worth checking at address is that the hands haven't dropped some, so got a little ways low at address. other words the hands nearer the thighs & the arms then are not hanging vertical so hands more under chin, but the arms have dropped 'inwards' some so angled back towards the legs.

should this have happened it would tend to exacerbate the 'toe up' even if the leading edge looks square at address with the more loft on the irons as you go through the set, with toe up the loft on the club face will look left through impact (if you get access to a magnetic lie angle tool you can check this out as folks tend to not believe that 'loft' can look left if the leading edge is square to target, but it will if the toe is up) so if your path is going even pretty neutral to the 0º ball/target line through strike you can still pull the shots.

second off with the low hands often times you can find there's not relaxed arm 'extension' at address but a little more bend in the elbows so you start the swing with a shorter arm/club radius, as well as encouraging the 'toe up', in the downswing the arms then extend back to where they should have been at address so if you stay in posture this can then push the clubhead outwards so contact happens nearer the heel.

as a intuitive reaction to this, swing radius extending from address to impact folks can instinctively lose the pelvic angle some & stand up a little ways & then the thins.

if the shafts are different specs & you just feel you need to work the new set harder to get the same results (distance wise as the old) could just simply mean transition is starting from the top, so the motion is just a little ways out of sync, extra effort causing a little ways out to in (plus because of the lie the clubs 'toe up', face looking left through the strike) if you stay in posture a fairly good strike but it's going straight left.
but you can also with the 'extra effort' of looking for more speed then stand up a little ways coming into the strike, pelvic angle, hips, straighten up searching for that 'little more' through the ball & you get it low on the face.