Shaft flex doesn't really matter..... maybe

PARlance

This should set the cat amongst the pigeons

Mark Crossfield posted this video yesterday and it caused a bit of a stir.
Personally, I believe that people get a bit too caught up in the whole area of shafts (but I can't say I agree completely with the way Crossfield has gone about this....from my limited knowledge, he is using 2 fairly similar shafts here to prove that there's little difference)

Worth a watch but if it's too long, his general point is that shafts don't really matter as they give pretty similar numbers yet he does emphasis that "feel" is very important, so if it one feels better over another, that's the one for you.

newport2

Can't watch it now, but shaft flex does matter. Especially on drivers/woods.

If you put a regular shaft in my hand then I will hook it unless I intentionally swing really slow. You can feel the thing bending way too much as you swing. I also know that I cannot hit my mates 3 wood off the deck (can't get it airborn), the only difference is his has a stiffer shaft, xx-stiff.

Irregardless of what he says in the video, I know from experience it does matter.

PARlance

newport2 wrote: »

Can't watch it now, but shaft flex does matter. Especially on drivers/woods.

If you put a regular shaft in my hand then I will hook it unless I intentionally swing really slow. You can feel the thing bending way too much as you swing. I also know that I cannot hit my mates 3 wood off the deck (can't get it airborn), the only difference is his has a stiffer shaft, xx-stiff.

Irregardless of what he says in the video, I know from experience it does matter.

While I've never gotten too into shafts, I would have thought that there is a difference. I use a stiff stock shaft after I was told it was prob better suited to me than regular. That's the height of my experience

It'd be interesting to see what people that know the numbers make of his comparison. I think they'll prob find a lot of holes to poke.

TheDoc

I am a big fan of his work, will watch this video when I get home.

But I somehow would find it hard to disregard a decade of data gathering, in which so much R&D has gone into shaft developement and customisation, and advancements in fitting technology, to just put all that aside and go with "what feels right"

Depends I guess if he is only talking about shaft flex which I would marginally agree depending. I think it's a big difference in drivers, and think it's a stupid comment to disregard the variety of options available in a driver.

I use a stiff shaft, heavier then normal, with a different torque. My father has the same driver but with a regular flex shaft, lucky for him when he got fitted the OEM regular flex was best suited. When I use his, I absolutely spray the ball everywhere. When he uses mine, he hits a weird low hook.

If you are being fitted for say a Titleist, there is over 100 potential shafts that can go into that driver, and for good reason. Weight, flex, torque, the works. I think your doing yourself a dis service not getting your driver at a minimum fitted. There is a reason most pros are reluctant to change their drivers once they find one that suits. It can be the hardest club to get set just right for you perfectly. (Look at any video on youtube of pros going through their bag, most will be asked if the house is on fire what club would you grab, they all say their driver)

Irons I can somewhat understanding. I "should" be using stiff flex, but a mixup during ordering left me with regular. It's not a massive problem, but I've had to make some adjustments for it, and don't hit my irons as long as I should, but that's ok. I'm not shedding out the massive money required to re-shaft them.

When I came back to the game I got a Taylor Made Burner on the cheap, and disregarded it relatively quickly when I found out the shaft options available. TM have a shockingly poor selection, and essentially there wasn't one that would work for me, without making some changes. So I went with Titleist and their endless selection of shafts and don't think I'll ever stray away.

That's the sort of comment that annoys me now that I think about it. One of our regular partners is someone who disregards stuff like fitting and technology, and is adament it's all bollox. He has a set of Wilson clubs with a stupidly whippy regular shaft in his irons, woods and driver. He has a fast swing, and hits this horrible low draw, that mostly hooks. a few times when he has been totally out of the game I've told him to use my irons, and there is such a noticable difference. He comments about how he wont change because he thinks they "feel" lovely, but it's a bit blatantly obvious they arnt right for him, and causing him to play bad golf : /

TheDoc

PARlance wrote: »

While I've never gotten too into shafts, I would have thought that there is a difference. I use a stiff stock shaft after I was told it was prob better suited to me than regular. That's the height of my experience

It'd be interesting to see what people that know the numbers make of his comparison. I think they'll prob find a lot of holes to poke.

I think it's also worth remembering the vast difference in scratch/plus/proffesional golfers and us mere mortals. Their swings are different, their ball striking is different, and to get to that level, they have most likely already being fitted, or have analysis work done.

The marigns and variences in their numbers will be low anyway, they have a deeper understanding of their swing and how it works.

A guy I used to play with had a set of Rifle shafts in his irons. It was like solid steel, there was barely any flex because of the power he generated in his swing. I'd dare handing that to any golfer using regular flex clubs and asking them to hit that and see if there is a difference.

The variety of options are less when it comes to irons, for sure, but that doesn't mean it is any less important, or less variences.

Most walk in stores for example stock mostly regular flex irons, as they are somewhat regarded as the standard. But this can be misleading as regular flex irons don't suit everybody. Considering most places now do fitting for free if your making a purchase, I see no issue with atleast going to check it out, and see if its worth your while going different from the manafacturers OEM's/

newport2

TheDoc wrote: »

A guy I used to play with had a set of Rifle shafts in his irons. It was like solid steel, there was barely any flex because of the power he generated in his swing. I'd dare handing that to any golfer using regular flex clubs and asking them to hit that and see if there is a difference.

This. Hand a person a driver fitted with a ladies shaft, a regular shaft and an xx-stiff shaft. They all bend by a different amount when swung, that's not even up for debate. How could that possibly have no impact on the result?

PARlance

newport2 wrote: »

This. Hand a person a driver fitted with a ladies shaft, a regular shaft and an xx-stiff shaft. They all bend by a different amount when swung, that's not even up for debate. How could that possibly have no impact on the result?

Ya, I'd have thought (and still do) that there's quite a difference.
He is measuring a fellow pro in the video and he's only comparing a X v S model of the same shaft, same weight, torque etc.
My initial reaction was that there wouldn't be a massive difference between those 2 shafts anyway.
He could/should have used two shafts that were less similar if he really had a point to prove.

TheDoc

newport2 wrote: »

This. Hand a person a driver fitted with a ladies shaft, a regular shaft and an xx-stiff shaft. They all bend by a different amount when swung, that's not even up for debate. How could that possibly have no impact on the result?

Again I havn't seen his video, can only assume he is referencing iron shafts, but even at that there is a lot of options out there. But I guess most manafacturers only provide regular or stiff in irons, and at that its like a 60-40 production in favour of regular flex for steel shafted irons.

Maybe OP is leading us astray with some misquoting :P

PARlance

TheDoc wrote: »

Again I havn't seen his video, can only assume he is referencing iron shafts, but even at that there is a lot of options out there. But I guess most manafacturers only provide regular or stiff in irons, and at that its like a 60-40 production in favour of regular flex for steel shafted irons.

Maybe OP is leading us astray with some misquoting :P

Nope, I hope I'm not anyway
Look at the bloody video later

No mention of iron shafts in the video, he is just comparing an X v S shaft in Steve Buzzards driver.

GreeBo

You cant give an objective comparison/result by using a subjecting thing (a human) to do the analysis.

Stick the two shafts on Iron Byron and see what happens.

SaveOurLyric

TheDoc wrote: »

But I somehow would find it hard to disregard a decade of data gathering, in which so much R&D has gone into shaft developement and customisation, and advancements in fitting technology, to just put all that aside and go with "what feels right"

Why not ? Money spent on R&D doesnt mean it yields positive results. And most of it primarily motivated by getting a marketable distinction from the competition whether it really is a better product or not (not to mention the ratio of money spent on 'research' to the money spent on marketing....). Their aim is to sell you stuff, not give you something better. If its not any better, they pay people to try to convince you that it is even when it isnt.

Nice to see someone with a profile pointing out the emperor's new clothes.

Look forward to the comments from the 'club-fitting' 'industry'.

hades

PARlance wrote: »

He could/should have used two shafts that were less similar if he really had a point to prove.

I have to agree, i was hoping that when he mentioned that he was filming this segment that the type of shafts would be vastly different. Its unusual for him for not be thorough, as his review videos are really good. At this stage he seems to be turning into a parody of himself, especially with the way he is interacting with his followers on facebook.

alxmorgan

GreeBo wrote: »

You cant give an objective comparison/result by using a subjecting thing (a human) to do the analysis.

Stick the two shafts on Iron Byron and see what happens.

Agree with this. Especially given the test case is a pro. Who has no doubt demoed hundreds of clubs over the years in different flexes and can adapt. Perhaps he subconsciously swings slower/smoother with the S in hand as he knows it is S.

alxmorgan

Anyone that thinks clubs don't make much of a difference should have come with me to hit 910 D3 with RIP Red Eyes shaft alongside Ping G20 with stock stiff.

Difference in trajectory is night and day.

Former is low spin head, low spin shaft combo. Latter is supposedly lowish spin but massive difference in results

John Divney

I think a shaft actually doesn't matter in Iron Byron, as it can't simulate the loading of a shaft and the release of a human.

That's why x and s shafts he said Iron Byron type machine showed little difference.

But Angel Cabrera loads a shaft way differently to Mickelson.

All things considered I'd say shaft weight and club weight overall are the king in terms of suitability.

I'd say good players could play with any flex but not any weight

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

Stick the two shafts on Iron Byron and see what happens.

While I would be of the scientific approach, and tend towards agreeing with the above, I think it only goes half the way. Too simplistic conclusions are made by unscientific (or the marketing department) readings of the data.

The tendency is to say 'the numbers dont lie', etc, but not enough effort is made to link the numbers to the reality of a real golfer (of whatever level) and whether it really makes a difference to his score. Yes, this launch angle, or that spin rate, or the other dispersion pattern might be closer to an ideal.

But I have yet to see any real analysis that makes a clear link between golfers with 'bad' or 'good' number and taylored clubs really making any practical difference in the real world. (If anyone can point me to some I would love to read it).

And that Crossfield is probably correct. People care about feel. And have various irrational ideas about what it should be, and therefore what works for them. So for the not very smart, or the smart enough to know that he is being irrational but better to pander to it than fight it golfer, he should just go with what feels right. And ignore the magic potion science of the club/shaft manufacturers and their parish priests, the club fitters.

Russman

Haven't time to watch the vid just now.
But, IMO, shaft flex matters, the question for me would be just how much it matters.
For the top players and the hundreds of shafts they can choose from, those guys are really trying to dial in performance to the finest, tightest margin they possibly can.
Not that Joe Bloggs shouldn't do this also, but does an extra 100rpm of spin or one degree of launch really matter to your average Joe ? I'd have to say probably not IMO, and they likely don't want to spend, I dunno, say an extra €300 on a shaft that gives pretty marginal gains over a stock shaft.

One thing I have seen Mark Crossfield refer to in other vids is "shaftoids" - I do agree he has a point here, there's a lot of shaft snobbery out there, both in terms of the "I can't use stock shafts, they're only wet noodles, I need a 103g Whiteboard in X flex" brigade and the "this shaft is $700 but I got it on Ebay for $450" gang ! For the bulk of the golfing population, stock shafts are fine IMHO.

TheDoc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Why not ? Money spent on R&D doesnt mean it yields positive results. And most of it primarily motivated by getting a marketable distinction from the competition whether it really is a better product or not (not to mention the ratio of money spent on 'research' to the money spent on marketing....). Their aim is to sell you stuff, not give you something better. If its not any better, they pay people to try to convince you that it is even when it isnt.

Nice to see someone with a profile pointing out the emperor's new clothes.

Look forward to the comments from the 'club-fitting' 'industry'.

Yeah thats all well and good, but the R&D has been beneficial, and has provided actual advancements in technology and brought real benefits. If not for it, we would be buying drivers with one of two supplied shafts, without any regard for our unique swings.


So what are you getting at? That shaft manufacturers are just advertising fads?

Where exactly do you see shaft manufacturers advertising? I can't remember being in a shop seeing shafts being advertised. Are they pitching their €200 shafts at the average punter?

Where in golf shops here is the shaft departments? I keep missing them when I go in.

The fact of the matter is while there are certainly sales gimmicks in golf, I'd argue that is not the case with shafts, because shaft manufacturers are not actually selling directly to customers. In a lot of cases, their target market is club manufacturers, who arn't going to buy gimmicks, and want to see quality results.

TheDoc

Russman wrote: »

One thing I have seen Mark Crossfield refer to in other vids is "shaftoids" - I do agree he has a point here, there's a lot of shaft snobbery out there, both in terms of the "I can't use stock shafts, they're only wet noodles, I need a 103g Whiteboard in X flex" brigade and the "this shaft is $700 but I got it on Ebay for $450" gang ! For the bulk of the golfing population, stock shafts are fine IMHO.

Well, I wouldn't use a stock shaft on a driver, unless after fitting, it proved to be the most optimal for me. But I'm not snobby about it. I don't think it's something to really be snobby about. Ideally I'd like to be suitable for the OEM shafts, so I can just walk into a shop and buy a club, but unfortunately I can't. I miss out on all the deals and bargains because I can't use the Titleist OEM's.

McGuriks at the moment have a good deal on the new 9xx series, hyrbids down to €149, but they can't give me that price with the shaft I need which is fine. I'd hardly call it being snobby. I'm not exaclty thrilled about having to fork out more money for a shaft that suits me.

But I get your point if there are people out there that somehow "brag" about the shaft they use, that's pretty laughable.

I'd also query if the bulk of golfers are fine with stock shafts. I think it's more accurate to say the bulk of golfers buy stock shafts because they walk in shops and buy a driver, instead of waiting to be fitted for one.

SaveOurLyric

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah thats all well and good, but the R&D has been beneficial, and has provided actual advancements in technology and brought real benefits. If not for it, we would be buying drivers with one of two supplied shafts, without any regard for our unique swings.


So what are you getting at? That shaft manufacturers are just advertising fads?

Where exactly do you see shaft manufacturers advertising? I can't remember being in a shop seeing shafts being advertised. Are they pitching their €200 shafts at the average punter?

Where in golf shops here is the shaft departments? I keep missing them when I go in.

The fact of the matter is while there are certainly sales gimmicks in golf, I'd argue that is not the case with shafts, because shaft manufacturers are not actually selling directly to customers. In a lot of cases, their target market is club manufacturers, who arn't going to buy gimmicks, and want to see quality results.

Yes, pushing shafts is pushing a fad and an aspiration.

The average consumer doesnt care enough to pay 200 for a shaft. Fortunately for him. It is the true addicts who are caught up in it all. The margins are enourmous.
But as with drug addicts, or people spending 500 on a bottle of wine, or 10000 on a pair of loudspeakers, or whatever you are into, reason is lost at that stage and the marketing spiel is swallowed, hook line and sinker. And post purchase evaluation is already severly coloured by a desire to believe that that have indeed bought Nirvana - it was so expensive, it must be that superior to the stock shaft those outside the inner circle are gaming.

TheDoc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But I have yet to see any real analysis that makes a clear link between golfers with 'bad' or 'good' number and taylored clubs really making any practical difference in the real world. (If anyone can point me to some I would love to read it).

I don't know what you want here. The data and numbers that will be provided for each fitting will vary between each golfer. I guess there is a very much general acceptance, that being fitted for a club, will provide you more personalised performance benefits.

I'd also say it's a rare occurance where you meet someone who is a relatively low handicap (high handicappers being fitted for clubs makes little sense) and complain that the fitting is a pain point.

I watched my father get fitted for irons, where he had no intention of getting new ones ( he was just down watching me get fit for a driver) and he walked away after paying for a custom fit set.

There was a noticeble difference between the OEM's he had from Callaway, and the refined setup the guy from Titleist provided. It factored in so much stuff, but most importantly it was all unique to my father.

He is hitting the best irons of his life the last 18 months, and I'd find it hard to argue he was sold some imaginary sham. From shaft length and weight, down to adjusting the clubhead so it lies flat as opposed to his Callaway which setup of the heal, it's made a huge difference.

Is there actually people that think custom fitting, and personalised fitting, is all a big sham and a hoax?

SaveOurLyric

TheDoc wrote: »

Is there actually people that think custom fitting, and personalised fitting, is all a big sham and a hoax?

Yes, I would be of the opinion that its a sham and a hoax (in many cases not deliberately even by the custom fitting people themseves - they have also swallowed and believe the myth). I have dicussed this point hereabouts in a previous incarnation

newport2

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes, I would be of the opinion that its a sham and a hoax (in many cases not deliberately even by the custom fitting people themseves - they have also swallowed and believe the myth). I have dicussed this point hereabouts in a previous incarnation

What are you basing this on?

TheDoc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes, pushing shafts is pushing a fad and an aspiration.

The average consumer doesnt care enough to pay 200 for a shaft. Fortunately for him. It is the true addicts who are caught up in it all. The margins are enourmous.
But as with drug addicts, or people spending 500 on a bottle of wine, or 10000 on a pair of loudspeakers, or whatever you are into, reason is lost at that stage and the marketing spiel is swallowed, hook line and sinker. And post purchase evaluation is already severly coloured by a desire to believe that that have indeed bought Nirvana - it was so expensive, it must be that superior to the stock shaft those outside the inner circle are gaming.

This is the point I don't get, the average consumer doesn't pay for a shaft, ever. If you go for a custom fit, before buying a new driver. Most often then not, the cost of WHATEVER shaft that turns out right for you, is included in the price.

The shaft I got isn't OEM, although you can very rarely find it in Halpenny I've seen, didn't cost me more on my 910D purchase. The price was the price, and the fitting was free, and whatever shaft I needed was irrelevant. As I said above, as explained to me, in a lot of cases the club brand has already bought large varients of shaft in bulk. And they do this so they can provide you options, and in turn enhance their reputation as a brand that will work to fit a club exactly for you.

I could see maybe if with an existing driver, and you go to change the shaft you will have an outlay, but in most cases when you go to the manufacturer fitting sessions, there is no extra cost for the shaft(albeit depending in certain cases). I even went to a TM fitting day with a friend, he paid up for a custom fit and shaft, but it was not extra cost compared to say walking into McGuirks and buying it.

As I said, there is a reason you don't walk into Mcguriks or Halpenny and see posters for the latest shafts from the various manufacturers. Because they arn't trying to target sell to the average punter, and to be honest I'd imagine they don't see their work as fluffed marketing, but quality instead.

TheDoc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes, I would be of the opinion that its a sham and a hoax (in many cases not deliberately even by the custom fitting people themseves - they have also swallowed and believe the myth). I have dicussed this point hereabouts in a previous incarnation

How are you basing this exactly?

This isn't like say football, where in general football boots would be very much accepted as a marketing fad to get children and teens to buy the latest model, when there is actually zero advancements in technology or performance. That is WIDELY regarded as a sham and marketing fad.

Now you are saying that something WIDELY regarded as one of the best advancements in golf, the availability of custom fitting for the average golfer, something considered in ALL quarters are something you should do as you get to the point of developing a consistent swing and wanting to improve, is a hoax..and a sham.

Genuinelly interested in knowing why you think this.

I'd probably outline you won't change my opinion and that I'd raise a brow at anyone saying that custom fitting or swing analysis is a hoax, and not beneficial. But I'd like to understand how you came to that opinion. (And I'm not going to be condescending or immature about it, it's a genuine interest)

John Divney

It's like all after market niche products, they don't heavily advertise and have a small but dedicated base, but the high cost offsets it.

Does the high cost mean the shafts are 'better'?

There's research to say a lot of 500 dollar shafts are garbage. But they also get called out on it due to the obsessive nature of the buyers.

The thing about shafts is that we always can't be sure our swing is the problem and not the shaft, even if the shaft is garbage.

TheDoc

John Divney wrote: »

It's like all after market niche products, they don't heavily advertise and have a small but dedicated base, but the high cost offsets it.

Does the high cost mean the shafts are 'better'?

There's research to say a lot of 500 dollar shafts are garbage. But they also get called out on it due to the obsessive nature of the buyers.

The thing about shafts is that we always can't be sure our swing is the problem and not the shaft, even if the shaft is garbage.

But I think that's two separate points. And it needs clarifying where people are taking this view from.

If you are looking at the average golfer, sure, a shaft isn't going to magically fix a problem. There is a lot of factors involved. Ability, fitness, body shape, strength, age, swing and the 101 things included in your swing.

You could get drastic improvements with a shaft change, then make a change to your swing, intentional or otherwise, and your back to the drawing board, the shaft doesn't suit you anymore.

But we need to take the context from looking at where we can accurately see the benefits, and measure them correctly. Low handicappers and professionals. Taking aside that it's not advised for a high handicapper, or someone who frequently changes their swing to be fitted, looking at low handicappers and proffesionals is a good bench mark.

Most importantly their swing is consistent. The fitting process is much better for them because each strike is replicated. Hence why they are good golfers. The benefits here are enormous, as the fitter/analyst has a stable base to work off and the numbers can remain consistent and accurate.

Like I don't know, personally cant fathom how anyone would think it's rubbish. The professionals en mass consider their driver for example, to be the one club they would save from the rest, because of how difficult it is to get one that is perfect. And this comes from countless hours through trial and hour, working with different shafts, getting fitted, and testing it out on the course. And when you consider NONE of these players have endorsements from shaft manufacturers, and pick simply what works for them, I find it a bit rich calling the whole thing a hoax.

GreeBo

alxmorgan wrote: »

Agree with this. Especially given the test case is a pro. Who has no doubt demoed hundreds of clubs over the years in different flexes and can adapt. Perhaps he subconsciously swings slower/smoother with the S in hand as he knows it is S.

We all do.
Give me a SLDR that i know is set for a fade and i subconsciously will adjust and probably hit it straight. I guess I can feel that the face is open etc and adjust. Using a human is just silly imo.

John Divney wrote: »

I think a shaft actually doesn't matter in Iron Byron, as it can't simulate the loading of a shaft and the release of a human.

That's why x and s shafts he said Iron Byron type machine showed little difference.

But Angel Cabrera loads a shaft way differently to Mickelson.

All things considered I'd say shaft weight and club weight overall are the king in terms of suitability.

I'd say good players could play with any flex but not any weight

It may not swing exactly the same as all people, but its a defined, directly comparable swing to use to compare shafts.
Compared to a guy in front of a video trying to show that shafts make no difference...see how far that gets you in New Scientist Journal!

John Divney

It's not a hoax, but it is an industry is my point, just a niche one, and they are not all good shafts, they test the frequency and some are just not what they claim.

You are right though, it's all down to whether you have a repeatable swing. I think there is correct what you say about finding drivers and woods that suit, there are variables that make us feel good with one over the other, the weight is really the most important thing that we perceive.

Light shaft in an iron can save a player and could wreck another because it can throw tempo and sequencing, feel well off, before you are at impact.

John Divney

It may not swing exactly the same as all people, but its a defined, directly comparable swing to use to compare shafts.
Compared to a guy in front of a video trying to show that shafts make no difference...see how far that gets you in New Scientist Journal!

Yes, but it can only take the data for speed, and not type of swing.

His point about the Iron Byron goes against him anyway for this reason, flex matters not for speed, it's the load and release, tempo.

He's wrong I agree, because he can swing any flex is proof some players could, but not really much else.

Senna

I have an Adams Fast12LS with a stiff and a regular Fubuki Alapha shaft, I swear to god, the difference is tiny and probably more in my head that actual results. Flight is identical, feel is slightly different.
I'm going to start playing it again and I will have to take both shafts to the range and try and decide which one to use.

GreeBo

John Divney wrote: »

Yes, but it can only take the data for speed, and not type of swing.

His point about the Iron Byron goes against him anyway for this reason, flex matters not for speed, it's the load and release, tempo.

He's wrong I agree, because he can swing any flex is proof some players could, but not really much else.

What type of swing could a machine not do though, in reality?
the club is held in our hands, that'd all the contact we have with it. I'm not sure what type of swing a machine couldn't replicate, it's all just forces and levers.

John Divney

Well for example, it can't start the downswing before the club has reached it's full turn and load the shaft, it's just one lever, where the human body has two forces on the shaft as levers, and all the big muscles too, creating massive variation if tempo, loading pattern, and the differing releases.

Two players can have the same speed at impact but get there very differently regarding what and when the forces are applied and released.

Fast smooth players can use regular shafts, slower aggressive ones can use stiff ones.

ShivasIrons

Mark Crossfield is correct, for certain types of players flex doesn't matter. If a golfer casts or releases the club early in the downswing then all the loading in the shaft is gone and the flex in the shaft won't contribute to how the club performs.

However different flexes will feel different to different golfers. Some will hate the feel of stiff, others soft shafts. Flex will matter in how the clubs feel and a result will have some bearing on performance.

As an example, Ping Eye 2s were the best selling iron for the best part of 10 years in the 80s/90s and they had a ZZ65 shaft which was x flex or even close to xx flex but many golfers still used them well including many who should have had no business in using stiff flexes.

Also flex is only one component of the shaft, weight, length, torque are some of the others and these also affect performance so for the type of golfer who casts or releases early the fitting process is still worthwhile, even if it just to find a shaft or club that feels just right in the hand.

I'm sure we all know golfers that seemingly have clubs that shouldn't work for them but they get on pretty well with it and they talk about how much they like the feel. More then likely, they're probably golfers who hang back or don't get off their right side i.e. they cast.

Also to be noted that fitting is a bit of a black art, there's never only one option that will work, there's normally a few.

GreeBo

John Divney wrote: »

Well for example, it can't start the downswing before the club has reached it's full turn and load the shaft, it's just one lever, where the human body has two forces on the shaft as levers, and all the big muscles too, creating massive variation if tempo, loading pattern, and the differing releases.

Two players can have the same speed at impact but get there very differently regarding what and when the forces are applied and released.

Fast smooth players can use regular shafts, slower aggressive ones can use stiff ones.

Iron Byron isn't just one lever, it's a forearm and a wrist...same as you and I.
obviously it doesn't rotate as it's a single axis swing but I think it can load the shaft just like we can

John Divney

But we have up to four power sources, the machine has one, it's basically the force if one arm uncocking, which is not dynamic enough to be of use in flex determination for golfers.

It's main use is to study how a ball reacts at speeds off the face as it is perfectly accurate. It tells you what the base is, so off centre hits and centre hits can be compared and design altered.

alxmorgan

A view on robots versus humans for testing.

http://www.mygolfspy.com/golf-club-testing-results-you-can-trust/

GreeBo

John Divney wrote: »

But we have up to four power sources, the machine has one, it's basically the force if one arm uncocking, which is not dynamic enough to be of use in flex determination for golfers.

It's main use is to study how a ball reacts at speeds off the face as it is perfectly accurate. It tells you what the base is, so off centre hits and centre hits can be compared and design altered.

Big difference seems to be the constantly driven arm, but I would have thought that's pretty easy to address.

Wonder how long before Sony or someone builds a robotic swing that resembles a human. If they can make running cheetahs golf should be easy!

spacecoyote

I can kind of see the idea behind the "feel" of the shaft.

My dad is a strange one, he was fitted for both his irons & driver, senior flex in the irons, but a stiff flex in the driver. The fitter was a bit confused by it according to my dad, but he had to agree with the numbers & he got easily the best performance out of the stiff driver shaft.

SaveOurLyric

newport2 wrote: »

What are you basing this on?

That I have never seen anything convincing to make the case that it delivers what it claims to.

Yes, adjusting swing weights, shaft flexes, kick points, head weight balance etc, does modify measured numbers. And tweaks can bring your numbers closer to target numbers. But nothing making the case that these target numbers make a difference to how even a world class golfer will play, let alone a less skilled and more erratic amateur.

'Tailored to the individual' sounds like a good pitch, but tends to go unchallenged - 1) what is the target for a given individual and his physique/skill level, and 2) what is the evidence that these perfect fits influence on his game for the better versus an off the shelf 'these look nice' fit really have ?

So the club fitting industry is getting away with selling moonbeams in a jar to gullible golfers. I might have a little more respect for them if they for example turned away any golfer who didnt have a plus handicap. Fitting a 21 handicapper is just taking the mick. The Ping range of old had it about right for the keen handicap golfer : less than 5'6 - play a shorter shaft, over 6'2 play a longer shaft, handful of coloured dot lie angles, good golfer - stiff shaft , regular golfer - regular shaft. And even for the obsessive, thats more than enough choice. Most people can still ignore it and their game wont know the difference.

Its up the the club-fitting people to justify what they claim. And so far, to my knowledge, they havent. Just woolly notions of 'tuned to your game', 'everyone is an individual', 'the computer will measure the optimum for you', etc, whether from the bandwagon merchants in the big retail stores, the club pro who buys a launch monitor to offer another service to his members, or the specialist club fitting outfits. As earlier post - its just emperor's new clothes.

GreeBo

^ coupled with the fact that people get fitted regularly I call shenanigans!

If its tailored to me then why does it have to be retailored?
- My swing changes?
o Of course it bloody does, it different between each shot never mind each day. Hence why tailoring it exactly in the first place is hoopla.

zuutroy

Everyone's swing is different from one shot to the next but that doesn't mean fitting can't help. There are two types of error, systematic and random as illustrated below.

The average pro will have a very small random error, meaning their swing is typically very repeatable and a very small systematic error meaning this tight distribution is centred around the flag.
A low handicapper could have a very low random error, again having a very reproducible swing, and fitting can help move any systematic error back towards the flag.
A high handicapper will have a large random error due to not having the muscle memory to reproduce the same swing over and over, but can also have a systematic error component that can certainly be eradicated by fitting, meaning their large random error's mean still lies at the hole and their average distance from the pin will come down as a result.

/physics lecturer hat off

GreeBo

zuutroy wrote: »

Everyone's swing is different from one shot to the next but that doesn't mean fitting can't help. There are two types of error, systematic and random as illustrated below.

The average pro will have a very small random error, meaning their swing is typically very repeatable and a very small systematic error meaning this tight distribution is centred around the flag.
A low handicapper could have a very low random error, again having a very reproducible swing, and fitting can help move any systematic error back towards the flag.
A high handicapper will have a large random error due to not having the muscle memory to reproduce the same swing over and over, but can also have a systematic error component that can certainly be eradicated by fitting, meaning their large random error's mean still lies at the hole and their average distance from the pin will come down as a result.

/physics lecturer hat off

I could save Mr Systematic error a fortune in custom fitting costs by telling him to aim a bit to the right!

Though I know what you mean, we'd all kill to have a systematic fault.
Mine, sadly vary between a duffed pull hook and a skinny push fade, and thats just the putter

newport2

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

That I have never seen anything convincing to make the case that it delivers what it claims to.

Yes, adjusting swing weights, shaft flexes, kick points, head weight balance etc, does modify measured numbers. And tweaks can bring your numbers closer to target numbers. But nothing making the case that these target numbers make a difference to how even a world class golfer will play, let alone a less skilled and more erratic amateur.

'Tailored to the individual' sounds like a good pitch, but tends to go unchallenged - 1) what is the target for a given individual and his physique/skill level, and 2) what is the evidence that these perfect fits influence on his game for the better versus an off the shelf 'these look nice' fit really have ?

So the club fitting industry is getting away with selling moonbeams in a jar to gullible golfers. I might have a little more respect for them if they for example turned away any golfer who didnt have a plus handicap. Fitting a 21 handicapper is just taking the mick. The Ping range of old had it about right for the keen handicap golfer : less than 5'6 - play a shorter shaft, over 6'2 play a longer shaft, handful of coloured dot lie angles, good golfer - stiff shaft , regular golfer - regular shaft. And even for the obsessive, thats more than enough choice. Most people can still ignore it and their game wont know the difference.

Its up the the club-fitting people to justify what they claim. And so far, to my knowledge, they havent. Just woolly notions of 'tuned to your game', 'everyone is an individual', 'the computer will measure the optimum for you', etc, whether from the bandwagon merchants in the big retail stores, the club pro who buys a launch monitor to offer another service to his members, or the specialist club fitting outfits. As earlier post - its just emperor's new clothes.

I had my irons custom fit when I bought them, didn't cost anything extra.

I had my driver and 3 wood fitted about 4-5 years ago. They gave me a far better trajectory, something I'm happy with to this day. This was at a range, watching the actual ball flight, not using a simulator. (There was a machine giving figures too, which matched what I was seeing.) If anything, they've saved me money, because once they were custom fit, I wouldn't even consider replacing them. On the same day getting fitted, the guy said my rescue club and irons were fine and that nothing needed changing there. (Honest enough to reduce his business)

Anyway, I think we have our wires crossed here, because a lot of what you say above that you agree with - basic shaft length, flex, etc - is what I mean by custom fitting. Which is now usually available at no extra cost when you buy new clubs. If what you're talking about is the likes of driver shafts costing €hundred on top of the cost of your driver, then I agree.

TheDoc

newport2 wrote: »

On the same day getting fitted, the guy said my rescue club and irons were fine and that nothing needed changing there. (Honest enough to reduce his business)
.

Reputation is everything in the fitting business.

Many a fitter would happily send away business, but take greater merit in the fact they gave accurate results and their best opinion, and hopefully the customer appreciates it.

When I first went to get my driver fit, the weather was terrible, high winds and lashing rain. He gave me what he thought would fit me, but said that he wasn't overly comfortable in making the recommendation as there was possible some margin of error there with the weather conditions.

I was way to excited at the prospect of a brand new driver and went with the sale, and when it arrived from Titleist it also came with a note from the guy who did the fitting to pass onto me. He outlined that he wishes me all the best with the club, and provided his e-mail address and said to contact him at any time to find out when he would be i nthe area, and he would happily re-run the numbers to make sure I was happy. For free.

I actually never took him up on it since the performance was just so good and I havnt struggled in anyway shape or form with my driving that would make me question the club, and not maybe a bad day swinging.

Reputation is literally everything to those guys.

SaveOurLyric

More from Crossfield on the same topic. Damn all difference between stiffest and flexiest shaft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVZ3PCgxTlw

PARlance

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

More from Crossfield on the same topic. Damn all difference between stiffest and flexiest shaft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVZ3PCgxTlw

Just got around to watching this. Much better video than the first.
He's posting a third video tonight on this.

Russman

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

More from Crossfield on the same topic. Damn all difference between stiffest and flexiest shaft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVZ3PCgxTlw

Excellent vid, IMO the stretch between 8:40 & 9:20 is the key message.

SaveOurLyric

Really skewers the junk being pedelled by the club fitters.
Serious evidence that one of the supposedly most important factors in selecting a club, and the single most important factor in selecting a shaft, is total bunkum. Not to mention shelling out serious cash on 'exotic' stuff and hitting balls to see if the Graffalloy or Fubuki or whatever 'fits' your swing better.
Nice to see someone in the industry calling the bluff.

PARlance

He has posted another video were he compared a ladies shaft v X stiff.
On phone so can't link but well worth a look.

GreeBo

I posted before that I reckoned I wouldn't play that differently with my mother's clubs and was laughed out of here!