Jacko_G
Blackballed
Just to be clear, i dont have an opinion about strike boards one way or the other.
However, in post #23, you mocked Teebs for suggesting they didnt check lie angle, saying it was the crux of their fitting. If this is true, surely they wont just use a static measurement to determibe lie angle.
You then stated that strike boards are inaccurate, despite the fact that Bobmac posted a video of Wayne Riley being fitted at Gainsborough and part of the process being him having his lie checked on a strikeboard.
I also posted an article from Ping which supported the use of strikeboards to which you replied i was being selective.
I'm trying to understand whether you think the Ping fitting process is flawed if they use a strikeboard and how you think they should be checking 'the crux of their fitting process'
The answer is clear read my reply re difference between +3 upright to -2 flat.
I was fitted by Ping two weeks ago - guess what - no lie board. Static measurements and GC Quad info only - surprise surprise I came iut with blue dot. Same colour code I have had for over 27 years........
I believe the research that shows them to be a flawed. You may and can opt to chose differently.
For the record Ping use your static measurements for there baseline to fit you for lie. So yes I'm calling BS on they didn't check the lie. The trackman/GC Quad data and ball flight by eye will tell them straight away if tweaking is required.