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

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!

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Ah but it's different when a respected figure come out and says it

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Probably worth declaring that your mother has a fast swing speed and is currently bagging as her 'A' rig :

Nike Covert, Grafalloy BiMatrx Proto S
Titleist 913F 16.5 Talamonti PD80
Titleist 909H 19 Project X PXv
Mizuno MP68 3-W KBS C Taper Lite
Titleist Vokey SM 52, 60 DG Wedge
Best Grips Micro Perforated

And that you could only play them after she had the Protos S tipped 1/4". Before that it was either duck hooking or launching a high right bomb. The 1/4" made all the difference though.;)

neckedit

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Sure why not do it and post back the result?

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Probably worth declaring that your mother has a fast swing speed and is currently bagging as her 'A' rig :

Nike Covert, Grafalloy BiMatrx Proto S
Titleist 913F 16.5 Talamonti PD80
Titleist 909H 19 Project X PXv
Mizuno MP68 3-W KBS C Taper Lite
Titleist Vokey SM 52, 60 DG Wedge
Best Grips Micro Perforated

And that you could only play them after she had the Protos S tipped 1/4". Before that it was either duck hooking or launching a high right bomb. The 1/4" made all the difference though.;)

She's a great singer, can really hold a tone..