virtuocity
Tour Winner
Didn't want to clog up another thread, so thought I'd rant here, and hopefully spark some respectful critical discussion. I just need to get this down so I can shut up. Yes, it's a long post. You don't have to read it.
When it comes to Custom Fitting, my view is that there should be little scope for critical discussion. There should be an evidence base pointing towards, with some confidence, the impact of custom fitting on the short, medium and long term performance (scores) of consumers. I do acknowledge that isolating the impact of custom fitting as one variable isn't without methodological challenge- golfers might fall into one or more of these categories which can affect performance and/or impact on the static nature of custom fitting:
-The new and improving golfer
-The golfer whose scores are rising with age
-The golfer who is changing their swing a lot (either by fault or design)
-Golfers who practise a lot or not (including the impact of putting practice- how can you conclude that custom fitted irons are helping scores when you are holing more 5 footers than normal?)
-Desire to improve scores vs just happy to play golf
You might think that I'm anti-fitting when actually I come from a position of being open to the idea that it is beneficial, but faced with a lack of evidence to make such conclusions. Similarly, I absolutely accept that if you put me in a fitting room with 1000 shafts / heads, a good fitter will get me closer to 'the numbers' that best match my swing dynamics (although I think a lot of my cynicism about fitting is fuelled by the quiet strengthening of lofts over the past decade- and yes, I did buy Taylormade Rocketbladez... look at that 7 iron distance!!!).
Given I ama complete nerd scientifically curious about this, I spent a wee while last night looking around the net for an answer to the question:
"What is the impact of custom fitting on golfers' performances (across different levels of ability) in the short, medium and long term?".
It wasn't a really long search. Much of what I was stumbling upon was a lot of articles/posts/reflections by and from golfers. Most of what I read was that custom fitting was a very beneficial and enjoyable process and the outcomes justified the additional spend. However, these were often juxtaposed with contradictory stories of either 'misfortune' or consciously developed rationales as to why the number at the bottom of their scorecard wasn't lower than before, as thus:
"So does custom fitting really work? Well, I have to say it has been really beneficial to my game – even if my handicap hasn’t fallen as I might have hoped. I went up half a shot overall, from 10.6 to 11.1, but 50% of that increase came in the last three weeks of the test when I hit a patch of poor form and was trying to push for a good result."
However, I did stumble across this quote:
“92% of golfers custom fit with a launch monitor see immediate benefit after buying new clubs” (Source: Foresight Sports, cited on https://www.silvermere-golf.co.uk/shop/custom-fitting/)
I followed up with Foresight Golf's marketing department (I told you) and asked for access to their research to review their methodology. They came back really quickly advising that the quote actually originates from a PGA of America study from 2010/11 and was provided with this link:
https://sportsandleisureresearch.co.../Golfsmith_Clubfitting-Study_For_PGA_Show.pdf
I have had a bit of a read over the research. In summary, the study found golfers who have been custom fit play better, have more fun and are more satisfied with their purchases.
The most telling findings are:
This study acts as much as a means of advocating the use of launch monitors, and promotion of custom fitting as a benefit for retailers as it does for golfers. The funders of the study include Golfsmith, which isn't surprising. Interesting to me is the theme of consumer justification emerges again. We've probably all done this to a degree. The study found that consumers who were custom fit spent 78% more than consumers who bought off the rack. Either way, it's natural that consumers would be invested in putting a positive spin on purchases- as I said, have we not all done this at some point, either within golf or otherwise?
And thus, we come to the responses of consumers who have been custom fit, and whose handicap has not improved (i.e. has increased or remained stagnant). They were asked why they believed this to be the case. The common responses were "I'm just not playing well" (42%); "I'm working through some swing changes" (30%); "I haven't practised enough" (24%) and "I haven't played enough" (24%).
The study reports that only 8% of participants in the above group stated that they now believe they bought the wrong equipment for their game. That's a tiny percentage considering that (and this wasn't tested, so I'm guessing here) many of them would have been custom fit with the specific goal of lowering their handicap / improving their scores. This needs to be considered more critically. To what extent do golfers continually justify the outlay of clubs (whether custom fit or not) even when they do not result in the desired effect?
So what (now)?
Well, this study comes from over a decade ago when the Nike SQ driver was causing a stir, and there was a bit more wiggle room in pushing limits of R&A standards and regulations in respect of conforming clubs than there is nowadays. This needs to be updated.
I am happy (genuinely) to conclude that golfers find custom fitting to be an enjoyable and beneficial process- their perceptions are well measured within the study. However, I can't conclude with a level of confidence that I would like (personally, and empirically) that these perceptions represent what can be quantified, given the methodological limitations of the study. Alas, this leaves a lot of room for a contemporary comprehensive study with more methodological rigour than what has been examined here. I would welcome this as a consumer. If results confidently predict immediate, medium term and/or long-term improvements in scoring, then it has the potential to significantly damage the second-hand club market, and bolster new product line sales and associated custom fitting services. Manufacturers and golf retailers would naturally enjoy huge benefits from such findings which, in itself raises the question- why is there no such study?
TL; DR- There is a lack of evidence pointing towards the efficacy of custom fitting in how it impacts scores. Evidence suggests that golfers enjoy the process of custom fitting and report benefits in scoring. However, there is a need for more rigid examination of this process in order to justify claims in respect of the positive benefits of custom fitting.
Back to work...
When it comes to Custom Fitting, my view is that there should be little scope for critical discussion. There should be an evidence base pointing towards, with some confidence, the impact of custom fitting on the short, medium and long term performance (scores) of consumers. I do acknowledge that isolating the impact of custom fitting as one variable isn't without methodological challenge- golfers might fall into one or more of these categories which can affect performance and/or impact on the static nature of custom fitting:
-The new and improving golfer
-The golfer whose scores are rising with age
-The golfer who is changing their swing a lot (either by fault or design)
-Golfers who practise a lot or not (including the impact of putting practice- how can you conclude that custom fitted irons are helping scores when you are holing more 5 footers than normal?)
-Desire to improve scores vs just happy to play golf
You might think that I'm anti-fitting when actually I come from a position of being open to the idea that it is beneficial, but faced with a lack of evidence to make such conclusions. Similarly, I absolutely accept that if you put me in a fitting room with 1000 shafts / heads, a good fitter will get me closer to 'the numbers' that best match my swing dynamics (although I think a lot of my cynicism about fitting is fuelled by the quiet strengthening of lofts over the past decade- and yes, I did buy Taylormade Rocketbladez... look at that 7 iron distance!!!).
Given I am
"What is the impact of custom fitting on golfers' performances (across different levels of ability) in the short, medium and long term?".
It wasn't a really long search. Much of what I was stumbling upon was a lot of articles/posts/reflections by and from golfers. Most of what I read was that custom fitting was a very beneficial and enjoyable process and the outcomes justified the additional spend. However, these were often juxtaposed with contradictory stories of either 'misfortune' or consciously developed rationales as to why the number at the bottom of their scorecard wasn't lower than before, as thus:
"So does custom fitting really work? Well, I have to say it has been really beneficial to my game – even if my handicap hasn’t fallen as I might have hoped. I went up half a shot overall, from 10.6 to 11.1, but 50% of that increase came in the last three weeks of the test when I hit a patch of poor form and was trying to push for a good result."
However, I did stumble across this quote:
“92% of golfers custom fit with a launch monitor see immediate benefit after buying new clubs” (Source: Foresight Sports, cited on https://www.silvermere-golf.co.uk/shop/custom-fitting/)
I followed up with Foresight Golf's marketing department (I told you) and asked for access to their research to review their methodology. They came back really quickly advising that the quote actually originates from a PGA of America study from 2010/11 and was provided with this link:
https://sportsandleisureresearch.co.../Golfsmith_Clubfitting-Study_For_PGA_Show.pdf
I have had a bit of a read over the research. In summary, the study found golfers who have been custom fit play better, have more fun and are more satisfied with their purchases.
The most telling findings are:
- 56% of those who bought custom fit equipment dropped 2 shots off their handicap vs 46% of those who bought 'off the rack'
- 25% of those who bought custom fit equipment dropped >5 shots off their handicap vs 16% of those who bought 'off the rack'
- 76% of those who bought custom fit equipment were having 'better average scores' vs 62% of those who bought 'off the rack'
- 21% of those who bought custom fit equipment reported no difference in scores vs 36% of those who bought 'off the rack'
- Reporting in respect of handicap changes are reliant on participant self-reporting
- A vast percentage of participants are improving golfers, whether custom fit or not, and isolating the impact of custom fitting on scores therefore becomes challenging and no reference to managing variables is mentioned in the research
- I'm hitting longer shots than I did before
- I've become a better player
- I'm enjoying golf better than I ever did
- My friends are complimenting me on my game more than they did previously
- This is the best golf equipment purchase I have ever made
- I'm playing more golf than I ever did before
This study acts as much as a means of advocating the use of launch monitors, and promotion of custom fitting as a benefit for retailers as it does for golfers. The funders of the study include Golfsmith, which isn't surprising. Interesting to me is the theme of consumer justification emerges again. We've probably all done this to a degree. The study found that consumers who were custom fit spent 78% more than consumers who bought off the rack. Either way, it's natural that consumers would be invested in putting a positive spin on purchases- as I said, have we not all done this at some point, either within golf or otherwise?
And thus, we come to the responses of consumers who have been custom fit, and whose handicap has not improved (i.e. has increased or remained stagnant). They were asked why they believed this to be the case. The common responses were "I'm just not playing well" (42%); "I'm working through some swing changes" (30%); "I haven't practised enough" (24%) and "I haven't played enough" (24%).
The study reports that only 8% of participants in the above group stated that they now believe they bought the wrong equipment for their game. That's a tiny percentage considering that (and this wasn't tested, so I'm guessing here) many of them would have been custom fit with the specific goal of lowering their handicap / improving their scores. This needs to be considered more critically. To what extent do golfers continually justify the outlay of clubs (whether custom fit or not) even when they do not result in the desired effect?
So what (now)?
Well, this study comes from over a decade ago when the Nike SQ driver was causing a stir, and there was a bit more wiggle room in pushing limits of R&A standards and regulations in respect of conforming clubs than there is nowadays. This needs to be updated.
I am happy (genuinely) to conclude that golfers find custom fitting to be an enjoyable and beneficial process- their perceptions are well measured within the study. However, I can't conclude with a level of confidence that I would like (personally, and empirically) that these perceptions represent what can be quantified, given the methodological limitations of the study. Alas, this leaves a lot of room for a contemporary comprehensive study with more methodological rigour than what has been examined here. I would welcome this as a consumer. If results confidently predict immediate, medium term and/or long-term improvements in scoring, then it has the potential to significantly damage the second-hand club market, and bolster new product line sales and associated custom fitting services. Manufacturers and golf retailers would naturally enjoy huge benefits from such findings which, in itself raises the question- why is there no such study?
TL; DR- There is a lack of evidence pointing towards the efficacy of custom fitting in how it impacts scores. Evidence suggests that golfers enjoy the process of custom fitting and report benefits in scoring. However, there is a need for more rigid examination of this process in order to justify claims in respect of the positive benefits of custom fitting.
Back to work...
Last edited: