Custom fitting

[m10johnson]

Will be looking at getting some new irons in the new year and have heard a lot about custom fitting.

I don't really know a lot about it, heard it's around £30 or so to be measured, but does it actually make a difference? Is it something that everyone should have done or just a mater of preference?

 

[Snelly]

It is either a total waste of time or essential, depending on who you ask. I have no opinion on it myself.......

 

[bobmac]

Get off the fence Snelly

I would say it depends on several things.
Are you of average height?
Are you new to the game/Mid h/cap/ single figures?

Are you above or below average in any respect (golf wise of course)

 

[Snelly]

Best if the OP does a search on custom fitting. There's plenty to read already!

 

[pbrown7582]

cost varies and generally if you order from the place that fits you, you get a credit for the amount paid

 

[Monty_Brown]

C/F can give you clubs that SUIT your swing, but cannot give you clubs that IMPROVE your swing. Therein lies the key thing to bear in mind.

 

[chris661]

C/F can give you clubs that SUIT your swingonthe day but cannot give you clubs that IMPROVE your swing. Therein lies the key thing to bear in mind.

fixed

 

[diesel75]

I had a Mizuno custom fit on Monday, and was very impressed. As it turns out, I needed a heavier stiffer shaft, and 2degrees upright.

 

[Monty_Brown]

fixed

True dat. Wise words!

 

[Ethan]

Get off the fence Snelly

I would say it depends on several things.
Are you of average height?
Are you new to the game/Mid h/cap/ single figures?

Are you above or below average in any respect (golf wise of course)

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?

 

[bobmac]

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?

What a strange reply to what I thought was a sensible post

 

[markyjee]

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?[/QUOTE

Not quite true, If you had 100 golfers, 10 averaged 330yd drives, 80 averaged 300yds and 10 averaged 290yds. The average drive would be 302yds meaning 90% of the golfers were below average.

 

[surefire]

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?[/QUOTE

Not quite true, If you had 100 golfers, 10 averaged 330yd drives, 80 averaged 300yds and 10 averaged 290yds. The average drive would be 302yds meaning 90% of the golfers were below average.

Wouldn't the average be 300 yards?

 

[USER1999]

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?

49% surely. Some at least must be average, and some better.

 

[Ethan]

What is average - mean, median or mode?. Very different concepts. The answer is almost certainly that the player is average (aka typical) in some respects but not in others.

Did you know that 50% of all PGA pros (or doctors) are below average?

Not quite true, If you had 100 golfers, 10 averaged 330yd drives, 80 averaged 300yds and 10 averaged 290yds. The average drive would be 302yds meaning 90% of the golfers were below average.

In that unlikely data set, the mean is 302 yards, but the median (and mode) are both 300, and anyone with a GCSE in Maths knows that with skewed data, the median is a better statistic for 'average'.

My point to Bob, which he didn't get, is that 'average' is an elusive and in practice meaningless concept and has not been the basis for custom fitting since, well, it started.

Did you know the 'average' (using your preferred statistic of mean) number of arms per person in the population is less than 2? There are some people with only 1, and very few with more then 2, hence the mean falls below 2.
How many people do you know with fewer than 2 arms. Not many, I will guess. So how many arms does the average person have?

 

[bobmac]

Sometimes this forum leaves me speechless.
Apologies for the hijack m10johnson

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Trying to get back on thread, I've had both C/F and off the shelf. Did I benefit from either? Possibly. I certainly felt confident with the C/F clubs but ultimately it was my technique that held me back and not the equipment. As such the next set (indeed the ones I have now) I got as they were silly cheap and were straight off the rack. They've proved just as good.

I am howver looking at getting the R11's in the new year and am switching between treating myself to the full TM process at their HQ in Basingstoke but then reality kicks in and I think a set off my pro would be just as good. Decisions decisions

 

[Snelly]

In that unlikely data set, the mean is 302 yards, but the median (and mode) are both 300, and anyone with a GCSE in Maths knows that with skewed data, the median is a better statistic for 'average'.

My point to Bob, which he didn't get, is that 'average' is an elusive and in practice meaningless concept and has not been the basis for custom fitting since, well, it started.

Did you know the 'average' (using your preferred statistic of mean) number of arms per person in the population is less than 2? There are some people with only 1, and very few with more then 2, hence the mean falls below 2.
How many people do you know with fewer than 2 arms. Not many, I will guess. So how many arms does the average person have?

Whilst this might be mathematically correct, it also seems pointless and irrelevant to the discussion.


Custom fitting - all I know is that between 1986 and 1989, I played scratch team golf with some very, very good players as opponents and teammates. Nobody had anything in their bag that had been custom fitted for them yet they shot sub par rounds with regularity. I was also at a course when Mark Roe shot a 63 with no custom fitted clubs, no caddy, no GPS and with a Persimmon driver in his bag. I bet he only had two wedges too.

The point of the above is simple. Whilst advancements in golf technology are great and anything that helps people enjoy the game is a really welcome addition, they are not a yellow brick road to golfing success. In fact they are not even needed to play extremely good golf.

Custom fitted clubs included. I agree that they are a neccessity if you are tall, short or swing very quickly or slowly but that said, you still need to stand aligned and hit the ball properly. People do that, not clubs. And people get better by practicing and honing the short end of the game, not by buying a new club or set and definitely not by having a thicker grip, 1 degree angle adjustment or an extra half inch of shaft length. If you think you do then you are delusional and the marketing departments of Callaway, Titleist, Ping and Mizuno have succeeded in doing their jobs properly.

If you disagree then prove me wrong by explaining how your handicap significantly dropped after you changed your clubs. Any club in fact, custom fitted or not!

All that said, going for a custom fitting session is probably good fun so go for it if you want. I have no issue with people doing it at all. The issue I have is with people who insinuate that you are not giving yourself the best chance of golfing success if you don't do it. In my view, that is misleading.

 

[Ethan]

Snelly

A stout defence of the argument for buying off the shelf. Or returning to the 80s, I am not exactly sure which.

The point of the maths bit is that this idea that 'average' people can simply 'average' clubs is nonsense.

Back in the 80s, how many different golf shafts were available in drivers or irons? I played in the 80s too, so I know that most irons were fitted with the same shafts (Dynamic, later Dynamic Gold) and most woods had steel shafts. There were a few with graphites, which were mostly like fishing rods. It was much easier then to choose, because there wasn't much choice.

By the way, do you think you are the only player in the 80s who played with good golfers using off the shelf clubs?

Anyway, the Titleist 910 driver has 83 different shafts choices, as well as flexes, which span the range from Tour standard to high handicapper. There have been plenty of people who bought one 'off the shelf' then discovered that just because they had a stiff shafted Taylor Made didn't mean they could hit the 910 Project X 6.0 shaft.

So if you think that CF is just about changing the lie by 1 degree or adding a layer of tape, then we are not talking about the same thing at all. I completely agree that either of those make next to no difference. I also agree that ability and practice are what improves scores.

CF is partly about identifying which basic design of club is best, but mostly about getting the shaft choice and flex right. Then other factors such as lie and grip can be addressed, or not.

Oh, and Mark Roe, if he was an active Tour player today, would almost certainly be CF'd. If he didn't, he would be a rare exception among top players, both professional and amateur alike. I am sure he has moved on since the 80s.

 

[Snelly]

Snelly

A stout defence of the argument for buying off the shelf. Or returning to the 80s, I am not exactly sure which.

The point of the maths bit is that this idea that 'average' people can simply 'average' clubs is nonsense.

Back in the 80s, how many different golf shafts were available in drivers or irons? I played in the 80s too, so I know that most irons were fitted with the same shafts (Dynamic, later Dynamic Gold) and most woods had steel shafts. There were a few with graphites, which were mostly like fishing rods. It was much easier then to choose, because there wasn't much choice.

By the way, do you think you are the only player in the 80s who played with good golfers using off the shelf clubs?

Anyway, the Titleist 910 driver has 83 different shafts choices, as well as flexes, which span the range from Tour standard to high handicapper. There have been plenty of people who bought one 'off the shelf' then discovered that just because they had a stiff shafted Taylor Made didn't mean they could hit the 910 Project X 6.0 shaft.

So if you think that CF is just about changing the lie by 1 degree or adding a layer of tape, then we are not talking about the same thing at all. I completely agree that either of those make next to no difference. I also agree that ability and practice are what improves scores.

CF is partly about identifying which basic design of club is best, but mostly about getting the shaft choice and flex right. Then other factors such as lie and grip can be addressed, or not.

Oh, and Mark Roe, if he was an active Tour player today, would almost certainly be CF'd. If he didn't, he would be a rare exception among top players, both professional and amateur alike. I am sure he has moved on since the 80s.

A quick response. You make some very good points. But.....

No I don't think I am the only person who played in the 80's with good players but thanks for asking.

Yes Mark Roe would be custom fitted but he played golf for a living and there is a bit of difference between this and some mid-handicapper from the Midlands.

Lastly, instead of a sardonic response alluding to me being stuck in a time warp with Heaven 17, Roland Rat, Leg Warmers and Airwolf, why not describe how your game dramatically improved after you had your latest Star Trek shafts fitted? I bet you can't.....