369 replies to this topic

[jaskanski]

A valid point Thrillhouse. High handicappers could indeed lower their scores by thinking their way around the course better - irrespective of their playing ability. Using a smart play is just as rewarding as a properly fitted club in this regard - if not more.
However, in order to eliminate any other margin of error, it's important to use the law of averages to keep the ball in the fairway. A smart play combined with a club that fits the user better stands the greatest chance of a positive result. In other words, even if the high handicapper may not possess the ability to control the ball as they would like, they stand a much better chance of producing they kind of result they want by having a club that is correctly fitted for their game. It's all very well saying that the high handicap golfer will make a decent contact with the ball only one shot in ten, but when they actually do, it's beneficial if it goes straight! - making good contact with an improper lie is still a bad shot for any skill level.

[bluedot]

[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357973927' post='6214111']
[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1357954141' post='6212787']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357941429' post='6211791']
[quote name='myronm' timestamp='1357926141' post='6210395']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357358361' post='6171249']
We keep going around in circles with this on this site and we continue to get nowhere with the whole thing.

The question everyone continues to ask is "how will custom fitting improve my game" and all they get in return is a bunch of vague answers purporting potential benefits.

When a car company claims their car is safer the consumer asks for the data, when a pharmaceutical company says their pill works better the consumer asks for the data. To those in the golf industry who expect consumers to purchase their product over that of the oem I think it's time we as consumers demand the same thing. Wanna say your product is better that what the big firms are offering? Prove it, give us some quantifiable evidence.

I want to see hard data that proves that clubs from a custom clubmaker perform better than both fit clubs and off the rack clubs from an oem. As a consumer who is being told that this is the case I feel I have a right to see the evidence.
[/quote]

I don't know about hard data but I can tell you my experience.  And its informative.

I decided to get fit for clubs (was 17+ handicap at the time - varying between 16 and 18+ depending upon the season) and decided I wanted some better clubs. I had had a number of lessons over the years, but with one teacher and with various around the country.

I first went to a callaway fitting center and went thru the entire process and was writing the check when I asked about the shaft flex.  They stated that it really did not make any difference at all in my swing or whatever.  And went on and on about this.  Being at the time not super knowledgeable but experienced in flex, I knew that shaft flex was reasonable important.  i tore up the check right there, cancelled the order for the irons and went elsewhere.

Went to a custom shop that had a number of options.  Spent 2.5-3 hours on the range hitting a number of different brands, models, shaft flexes and lengths using trackman.  I ended up with a set of Miura Blades as the numbers were clearly best for them (I was 65 at the time and did not figure that blades were for someone that age but the numbers from trackman were that much better - and my feel and everything else was better.)

Within a few months, my handicap (no other basic changes) went from the 16-18 down to a 5 range and is still in the 8-9 range.   Before the Miura's and that custom fitting I had been playing off the shelf OEM clubs that had loft/lie and length adjusted for me.  And I had been a 16-18 for a few years since working regularly with a local pro (he got me from a 25-30 down to the 16-18 but couldn't seem to get me lower).

Were the Miura's that much better than OEM and worth the difference in Price?  I still cannot tell.  But did they and the fitting make a difference in my handicap.  NO QUESTION!   Numbers proved it unquestionably.   But as I found out, there is a world of difference in the quality of fitters.  Just because some one has a shingle and certification doesn't mean that they know what they are doing, but if the fitting works, it really works.  I'm a believer because of this.

Tom makes sense and I'm living proof of the 16-18 using true custom fitting and making a difference.  I'll fully grant my body characteristics are not average nor is my swing normal.  But still, it did work., And I've done enough testing since then of drivers and shafts, etc to see the difference changes make and now understand much more about fitting.  I've taken classes, read extensively and become semi-knowlegeable about the subject.  And I've helped a few people since with some of my own recommendations.

Does it work for everyone, of course not.  Nothing is 100% nor is it foolproof.  But can it make a dramatic difference, yes.  I've seen too many instances now in the last few years where simple fitting changes made dramatic differences in people's games.
[/quote]

Saying that you went from an 18 to a 5 in short succession simply because you bought a set of $2000 irons is absolute nonsense.

That's all I have to say about that.
[/quote]

So you say you want evidence.  A guy posts his own personal evidence and you determine that it is nonsense.  That's a pretty tough standard you've set, making yourself judge, jury and executioner.

If I told you I went from a 8 to a 4 after first being fit, would THAT work for you?  That's what happened.  Now 20 years later I'm still getting fit every time I buy new equipment, and I'm still a 5 at age 60.  There isn't a doubt in my mind that fitted clubs have helped retain my length and IMPROVE my accuracy, and I have a lot of mathematical evidence to support that.

If you say you need evidence on a mass scale, you've set an impossible standard because there isn't any way to set up a control group and have only one variable.  That reduces us to anecdotal evidence from people like me and MyronM, among others, and you seem to have your mind made up on that.
[/quote]

If you look at the statistics of where shots are lost in an 18 handicappers round it is overwhelmingly weighted toward penalty shots and the short game, neither of which will be improved by the improvement factor of 360% due to a new set of irons (or improvement in iron play which stretches past the claims made in the statement) as asserted by the gentleman above.

I asked for statistical evidence, and now you're trying to incite an argument because I wouldn't take someone at their word that they improved 360% overnight simply because of a purchase of a set of irons? His post was nonsense and yours is just as bad. Stop insulting my intelligence with this drivel.
[/quote]

Lighten up, Francis...

I'm not trying to incite anything.  You're the one referring to what others say as "nonsense" and "drivel".

I get that you aren't a fan of custom fitting of clubs, and that's ok by me.  But to demand what you call "hard data" and then flame people who provide exactly that from their own experience might be a little harsh, don't you think?

I'm a stats geek; chart EVERY round and enter it in a program called Scorekeeper, and have since computer programs were on floppy disks.  I've got the exact data that you are talking about.  You don't have to like it, and you don't have to see fitting as important, or whatever your deal is.  But if you consider it to be nonsense and/or drivel, then there's no talking to you.  Go play some golf and try to settle down a little bit, dude.

Edited by bluedot, 12 January 2013 - 09:35 AM.

[Thrillhouse]

[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1357996901' post='6214587']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357973927' post='6214111']
[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1357954141' post='6212787']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357941429' post='6211791']
[quote name='myronm' timestamp='1357926141' post='6210395']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357358361' post='6171249']
We keep going around in circles with this on this site and we continue to get nowhere with the whole thing.

The question everyone continues to ask is "how will custom fitting improve my game" and all they get in return is a bunch of vague answers purporting potential benefits.

When a car company claims their car is safer the consumer asks for the data, when a pharmaceutical company says their pill works better the consumer asks for the data. To those in the golf industry who expect consumers to purchase their product over that of the oem I think it's time we as consumers demand the same thing. Wanna say your product is better that what the big firms are offering? Prove it, give us some quantifiable evidence.

I want to see hard data that proves that clubs from a custom clubmaker perform better than both fit clubs and off the rack clubs from an oem. As a consumer who is being told that this is the case I feel I have a right to see the evidence.
[/quote]

I don't know about hard data but I can tell you my experience.  And its informative.

I decided to get fit for clubs (was 17+ handicap at the time - varying between 16 and 18+ depending upon the season) and decided I wanted some better clubs. I had had a number of lessons over the years, but with one teacher and with various around the country.

I first went to a callaway fitting center and went thru the entire process and was writing the check when I asked about the shaft flex.  They stated that it really did not make any difference at all in my swing or whatever.  And went on and on about this.  Being at the time not super knowledgeable but experienced in flex, I knew that shaft flex was reasonable important.  i tore up the check right there, cancelled the order for the irons and went elsewhere.

Went to a custom shop that had a number of options.  Spent 2.5-3 hours on the range hitting a number of different brands, models, shaft flexes and lengths using trackman.  I ended up with a set of Miura Blades as the numbers were clearly best for them (I was 65 at the time and did not figure that blades were for someone that age but the numbers from trackman were that much better - and my feel and everything else was better.)

Within a few months, my handicap (no other basic changes) went from the 16-18 down to a 5 range and is still in the 8-9 range.   Before the Miura's and that custom fitting I had been playing off the shelf OEM clubs that had loft/lie and length adjusted for me.  And I had been a 16-18 for a few years since working regularly with a local pro (he got me from a 25-30 down to the 16-18 but couldn't seem to get me lower).

Were the Miura's that much better than OEM and worth the difference in Price?  I still cannot tell.  But did they and the fitting make a difference in my handicap.  NO QUESTION!   Numbers proved it unquestionably.   But as I found out, there is a world of difference in the quality of fitters.  Just because some one has a shingle and certification doesn't mean that they know what they are doing, but if the fitting works, it really works.  I'm a believer because of this.

Tom makes sense and I'm living proof of the 16-18 using true custom fitting and making a difference.  I'll fully grant my body characteristics are not average nor is my swing normal.  But still, it did work., And I've done enough testing since then of drivers and shafts, etc to see the difference changes make and now understand much more about fitting.  I've taken classes, read extensively and become semi-knowlegeable about the subject.  And I've helped a few people since with some of my own recommendations.

Does it work for everyone, of course not.  Nothing is 100% nor is it foolproof.  But can it make a dramatic difference, yes.  I've seen too many instances now in the last few years where simple fitting changes made dramatic differences in people's games.
[/quote]

Saying that you went from an 18 to a 5 in short succession simply because you bought a set of $2000 irons is absolute nonsense.

That's all I have to say about that.
[/quote]

So you say you want evidence.  A guy posts his own personal evidence and you determine that it is nonsense.  That's a pretty tough standard you've set, making yourself judge, jury and executioner.

If I told you I went from a 8 to a 4 after first being fit, would THAT work for you?  That's what happened.  Now 20 years later I'm still getting fit every time I buy new equipment, and I'm still a 5 at age 60.  There isn't a doubt in my mind that fitted clubs have helped retain my length and IMPROVE my accuracy, and I have a lot of mathematical evidence to support that.

If you say you need evidence on a mass scale, you've set an impossible standard because there isn't any way to set up a control group and have only one variable.  That reduces us to anecdotal evidence from people like me and MyronM, among others, and you seem to have your mind made up on that.
[/quote]

If you look at the statistics of where shots are lost in an 18 handicappers round it is overwhelmingly weighted toward penalty shots and the short game, neither of which will be improved by the improvement factor of 360% due to a new set of irons (or improvement in iron play which stretches past the claims made in the statement) as asserted by the gentleman above.

I asked for statistical evidence, and now you're trying to incite an argument because I wouldn't take someone at their word that they improved 360% overnight simply because of a purchase of a set of irons? His post was nonsense and yours is just as bad. Stop insulting my intelligence with this drivel.
[/quote]

Lighten up, Francis...

I'm not trying to incite anything.  You're the one referring to what others say as "nonsense" and "drivel".

I get that you aren't a fan of custom fitting of clubs, and that's ok by me.  But to demand what you call "hard data" and then flame people who provide exactly that from their own experience might be a little harsh, don't you think?

I'm a stats geek; chart EVERY round and enter it in a program called Scorekeeper, and have since computer programs were on floppy disks.  I've got the exact data that you are talking about.  You don't have to like it, and you don't have to see fitting as important, or whatever your deal is.  But if you consider it to be nonsense and/or drivel, then there's no talking to you.  Go play some golf and try to settle down a little bit, dude.
[/quote]

More nonsense, have fun being blocked.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1357996901' post='6214587']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357973927' post='6214111']
[quote name='bluedot' timestamp='1357954141' post='6212787']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357941429' post='6211791']
[quote name='myronm' timestamp='1357926141' post='6210395']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1357358361' post='6171249']
We keep going around in circles with this on this site and we continue to get nowhere with the whole thing.

The question everyone continues to ask is "how will custom fitting improve my game" and all they get in return is a bunch of vague answers purporting potential benefits.

When a car company claims their car is safer the consumer asks for the data, when a pharmaceutical company says their pill works better the consumer asks for the data. To those in the golf industry who expect consumers to purchase their product over that of the oem I think it's time we as consumers demand the same thing. Wanna say your product is better that what the big firms are offering? Prove it, give us some quantifiable evidence.

I want to see hard data that proves that clubs from a custom clubmaker perform better than both fit clubs and off the rack clubs from an oem. As a consumer who is being told that this is the case I feel I have a right to see the evidence.
[/quote]

I don't know about hard data but I can tell you my experience.  And its informative.

I decided to get fit for clubs (was 17+ handicap at the time - varying between 16 and 18+ depending upon the season) and decided I wanted some better clubs. I had had a number of lessons over the years, but with one teacher and with various around the country.

I first went to a callaway fitting center and went thru the entire process and was writing the check when I asked about the shaft flex.  They stated that it really did not make any difference at all in my swing or whatever.  And went on and on about this.  Being at the time not super knowledgeable but experienced in flex, I knew that shaft flex was reasonable important.  i tore up the check right there, cancelled the order for the irons and went elsewhere.

Went to a custom shop that had a number of options.  Spent 2.5-3 hours on the range hitting a number of different brands, models, shaft flexes and lengths using trackman.  I ended up with a set of Miura Blades as the numbers were clearly best for them (I was 65 at the time and did not figure that blades were for someone that age but the numbers from trackman were that much better - and my feel and everything else was better.)

Within a few months, my handicap (no other basic changes) went from the 16-18 down to a 5 range and is still in the 8-9 range.   Before the Miura's and that custom fitting I had been playing off the shelf OEM clubs that had loft/lie and length adjusted for me.  And I had been a 16-18 for a few years since working regularly with a local pro (he got me from a 25-30 down to the 16-18 but couldn't seem to get me lower).

Were the Miura's that much better than OEM and worth the difference in Price?  I still cannot tell.  But did they and the fitting make a difference in my handicap.  NO QUESTION!   Numbers proved it unquestionably.   But as I found out, there is a world of difference in the quality of fitters.  Just because some one has a shingle and certification doesn't mean that they know what they are doing, but if the fitting works, it really works.  I'm a believer because of this.

Tom makes sense and I'm living proof of the 16-18 using true custom fitting and making a difference.  I'll fully grant my body characteristics are not average nor is my swing normal.  But still, it did work., And I've done enough testing since then of drivers and shafts, etc to see the difference changes make and now understand much more about fitting.  I've taken classes, read extensively and become semi-knowlegeable about the subject.  And I've helped a few people since with some of my own recommendations.

Does it work for everyone, of course not.  Nothing is 100% nor is it foolproof.  But can it make a dramatic difference, yes.  I've seen too many instances now in the last few years where simple fitting changes made dramatic differences in people's games.
[/quote]

Saying that you went from an 18 to a 5 in short succession simply because you bought a set of $2000 irons is absolute nonsense.

That's all I have to say about that.
[/quote]

So you say you want evidence.  A guy posts his own personal evidence and you determine that it is nonsense.  That's a pretty tough standard you've set, making yourself judge, jury and executioner.

If I told you I went from a 8 to a 4 after first being fit, would THAT work for you?  That's what happened.  Now 20 years later I'm still getting fit every time I buy new equipment, and I'm still a 5 at age 60.  There isn't a doubt in my mind that fitted clubs have helped retain my length and IMPROVE my accuracy, and I have a lot of mathematical evidence to support that.

If you say you need evidence on a mass scale, you've set an impossible standard because there isn't any way to set up a control group and have only one variable.  That reduces us to anecdotal evidence from people like me and MyronM, among others, and you seem to have your mind made up on that.
[/quote]

If you look at the statistics of where shots are lost in an 18 handicappers round it is overwhelmingly weighted toward penalty shots and the short game, neither of which will be improved by the improvement factor of 360% due to a new set of irons (or improvement in iron play which stretches past the claims made in the statement) as asserted by the gentleman above.

I asked for statistical evidence, and now you're trying to incite an argument because I wouldn't take someone at their word that they improved 360% overnight simply because of a purchase of a set of irons? His post was nonsense and yours is just as bad. Stop insulting my intelligence with this drivel.
[/quote]

Lighten up, Francis...

I'm not trying to incite anything.  You're the one referring to what others say as "nonsense" and "drivel".

I get that you aren't a fan of custom fitting of clubs, and that's ok by me.  But to demand what you call "hard data" and then flame people who provide exactly that from their own experience might be a little harsh, don't you think?

I'm a stats geek; chart EVERY round and enter it in a program called Scorekeeper, and have since computer programs were on floppy disks.  I've got the exact data that you are talking about.  You don't have to like it, and you don't have to see fitting as important, or whatever your deal is.  But if you consider it to be nonsense and/or drivel, then there's no talking to you.  Go play some golf and try to settle down a little bit, dude.
[/quote]

Your experience is not data...it is your experience...that's it.....you may keep the geekiest, nerdiest stats known to mankind, but that does create an entire, thorough data set which answers the question (or even provides robust information) as to whether and OEM fitting is better/worse/equal to a "custom" fitting from a clubfitter...

[myronm]

topekareal, on 11 January 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

I get the difficulty of the conversation...and every person will have a different and unique experience...and on one hand, I get the idea that there are too many variables to perform a simple study...people will generally advocate based on their experiences and these collective experiences can create a somewhat reliable data set...however, given that we're dealing with humans, human error will always be part of the equation...


But, I don't think it's farfetched to question a guy dropping 13 strokes nearly overnight because of a fitting...was he playing left-handed??  I wonder if he'd been fit for Ping's or TM's if he would have dropped as many strokes...doubtful...

Whether I'm nonsense or not is debatable.   But the facts are there - in my GHIN history, the scores actually improved and stayed close.  it went to 5 due to a few very very exceptional scores I had.  And has stayed around 8 since then. (currently 8.2)  Reason for drop pretty simple:  1) Eliminated many penalty strokes due to OB/red stake issues,  2) Hit many more greens in regulation -  amazingly the shots are straighter which means that i hit what I aimed at.  And the shots stopped on the green more often (remember they were higher than before due to better contact).  Went from 1 average green in regulation to 6-8 greens in regulation.  And as a result get more birdies per round.

Whether it would have happened with TM or others not sure.  Remember I had "fitted - loft/lie/length" clubs from OEMs before (including at one time TM,  and other brand X).

Was it due to the fitting?  I can't say for sure.  I had extensive lessons (3 years worth weekly with extensive practice between) which I had just stopped about 2 months prior.  Yes I was practicing on the range at least 2-3 times per week as well as playing 2-3 times per week.  And every practice session includes at least 30 balls on short game.  Plus for years, I've done at least twice per week, 1/2 hour of putting practice at home.

So given this,  did the fitted clubs make a difference?  No question that they did in my mind and most sensible people that understand comparisons.  Were they the entire reason?   Probably and MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!   But they were a major contributing factor.   And anyone with a bit of common sense (thrillhouse excluded here) will say that they did make some difference.  13 strokes - probably NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!   but DID THEY MAKE at least part of the difference.  Absolutely.  If you hit the ball higher, straighter, longer there must be some difference, although I can see some on this thread would argue that doing that doesn't make any difference to your score.  Hitting more greens in regulation has been proven to be a major factor in reducing scores.  And I did hit more greens in regulation with the new fitted clubs.  They went where I aimed.

Yes, I've been and am a bit sarcastic about some of the posters.  I don't like being called nonsense.  It's totally unprofessional and uncalled for.  People may not believe it and may not understand why, but to say it's nonsense is belittling and I don't like it.

I don't claim it would work for everyone nor do I claim that fitting was the entire reason.  But in my own opinion based upon the factors that I know about, it did make some significant difference.  And yes, I do have very very extensive scientific and statistical background (close to 50 years working in the field) so I do know how to compare what's different and what changed and how statistics can be used to lie.  I have done this on a daily basis for those 50 years.  Its part and parcel of my training and my job.

How much of that change (13 strokes) was due to fitting and how much due to other factors such as all the prior training taking finally taking effect, I really can't say.   But it was a factor, no question about it.  A big one in my mind and according to the stats I keep.

But I do track things such as greens in regulation, distance hit for each club, especially the driver and mid-irons, up/downs, puts per hole, penalty strokes, etc. and have been tracking them for close to 30 years.  And I know when certain things changed, such as driver distances.  And when I do notice a trend, I do go and figure out what changed and why and what I can do about the change, if anything.  Some can't be helped (such as loss of distance - age - loss of flexibility due to arthritis and other joint problems for example).  

And there are others that do the same thing.  So saying our experiences are nonsense is just sticking the head in the sand and ignoring reality.

I don't have the experience with working with thousands of customers like Tom has so I can't say with that depth or wealth of knowledge, but I do have enough experience with several clients that I've fitted to have seen 3-5 stroke improvements pretty quickly with some club fitting changes.  Just eliminating several penalty shots per round will do that.  If the ball goes much straighter versus big hooks or slices, keeping it in play can make a phenomenal difference in one's score.  One lost ball penalty eliminated per round is two strokes eliminated per round.   And it doesn't take many of those to make a huge difference.

[Thrillhouse]

myronm, on 15 January 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

topekareal, on 11 January 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

I get the difficulty of the conversation...and every person will have a different and unique experience...and on one hand, I get the idea that there are too many variables to perform a simple study...people will generally advocate based on their experiences and these collective experiences can create a somewhat reliable data set...however, given that we're dealing with humans, human error will always be part of the equation...


But, I don't think it's farfetched to question a guy dropping 13 strokes nearly overnight because of a fitting...was he playing left-handed??  I wonder if he'd been fit for Ping's or TM's if he would have dropped as many strokes...doubtful...

Whether I'm nonsense or not is debatable.   But the facts are there - in my GHIN history, the scores actually improved and stayed close.  it went to 5 due to a few very very exceptional scores I had.  And has stayed around 8 since then. (currently 8.2)  Reason for drop pretty simple:  1) Eliminated many penalty strokes due to OB/red stake issues,  2) Hit many more greens in regulation -  amazingly the shots are straighter which means that i hit what I aimed at.  And the shots stopped on the green more often (remember they were higher than before due to better contact).  Went from 1 average green in regulation to 6-8 greens in regulation.  And as a result get more birdies per round.

Whether it would have happened with TM or others not sure.  Remember I had "fitted - loft/lie/length" clubs from OEMs before (including at one time TM,  and other brand X).

Was it due to the fitting?  I can't say for sure.  I had extensive lessons (3 years worth weekly with extensive practice between) which I had just stopped about 2 months prior.  Yes I was practicing on the range at least 2-3 times per week as well as playing 2-3 times per week.  And every practice session includes at least 30 balls on short game.  Plus for years, I've done at least twice per week, 1/2 hour of putting practice at home.

So given this,  did the fitted clubs make a difference?  No question that they did in my mind and most sensible people that understand comparisons.  Were they the entire reason?   Probably and MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!   But they were a major contributing factor.   And anyone with a bit of common sense (thrillhouse excluded here) will say that they did make some difference.  13 strokes - probably NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!   but DID THEY MAKE at least part of the difference.  Absolutely.  If you hit the ball higher, straighter, longer there must be some difference, although I can see some on this thread would argue that doing that doesn't make any difference to your score.  Hitting more greens in regulation has been proven to be a major factor in reducing scores.  And I did hit more greens in regulation with the new fitted clubs.  They went where I aimed.

Yes, I've been and am a bit sarcastic about some of the posters.  I don't like being called nonsense.  It's totally unprofessional and uncalled for.  People may not believe it and may not understand why, but to say it's nonsense is belittling and I don't like it.

I don't claim it would work for everyone nor do I claim that fitting was the entire reason.  But in my own opinion based upon the factors that I know about, it did make some significant difference.  And yes, I do have very very extensive scientific and statistical background (close to 50 years working in the field) so I do know how to compare what's different and what changed and how statistics can be used to lie.  I have done this on a daily basis for those 50 years.  Its part and parcel of my training and my job.

How much of that change (13 strokes) was due to fitting and how much due to other factors such as all the prior training taking finally taking effect, I really can't say.   But it was a factor, no question about it.  A big one in my mind and according to the stats I keep.

But I do track things such as greens in regulation, distance hit for each club, especially the driver and mid-irons, up/downs, puts per hole, penalty strokes, etc. and have been tracking them for close to 30 years.  And I know when certain things changed, such as driver distances.  And when I do notice a trend, I do go and figure out what changed and why and what I can do about the change, if anything.  Some can't be helped (such as loss of distance - age - loss of flexibility due to arthritis and other joint problems for example).  

And there are others that do the same thing.  So saying our experiences are nonsense is just sticking the head in the sand and ignoring reality.

I don't have the experience with working with thousands of customers like Tom has so I can't say with that depth or wealth of knowledge, but I do have enough experience with several clients that I've fitted to have seen 3-5 stroke improvements pretty quickly with some club fitting changes.  Just eliminating several penalty shots per round will do that.  If the ball goes much straighter versus big hooks or slices, keeping it in play can make a phenomenal difference in one's score.  One lost ball penalty eliminated per round is two strokes eliminated per round.   And it doesn't take many of those to make a huge difference.

In your first post you claimed to go from an 18 to a 5 in short succession simply due to your purchase of $2000 irons. If the term nonsense offends you I'll put it another way, that statement is the biggest load of bull**** I've ever read on this site, and I've read a lot of it.

In this post you chose to be honest. You experienced a significant drop in scores due to the effect of lessons and practice as well as a significant drop in penalty strokes and lost balls from the tee, and more greens in regulation.

Frankly only one of those four things could potentially have anything to do with your new irons (GIR), and even then most of that improvement was probably due to the fact that you were playing your approach shot from the fairway rather than grandma Millie's swimming pool, which has nothing to do with your irons.

By your own admission you were disingenuous in your first post, you omitted pertinent information to incite a response and you got it, therefore you don't have the right to play victim and if anyone is "unprofessional" it's you because you were, by your own admission, dishonest.

So thanks for proving to everyone what I already knew, you did not go from an 18 to a 5 because you bought a set of irons. And for future reference, if you don't want people to call you out on your nonsense don't post nonsense.

I think we're done here, moving on.

[myronm]

let's see,  I had the same handicap area for 3 years.  Changed one parameter, specailly fitted clubs.  Handicap went down to consistent 8 (went to 5 but that was not constant over the years and could be anolmaly, but 8 area has stayed since then.  Have had no more lessons from 2-3 months prior to fitting.,   Practice was consistent or even less after the fitting (i know about 1.5 to 2 years ago my practice has become significantly less, maybe once every two to three weeks and way less numbers of balls (from 160 to 80) per session due to physical conditions.  Certainly was not more. Pysical limitations.   So if practice or lessons were the main factor, why did it not make any difference in the 2 years prior to that.  Same for lessons.  Why did it take so long after stopping the lessons?

Yes, lessons took me from 24-26 to 16-18 but not lower for over three years (had lessons for almost 5 years and last three made little difference in handicap).

And of course, by your logic, since I went from 5 to 8 (long term has stayed there) that the clubs actually hurt me.  I'll grant the 5 was one month and was probably an anolmaly and not realistic change. But 15-20 months in the 8 area (up down depending upon time of year, health, etc) has shown to be pretty consistent.  So by my calculations 16-8 is 8 strokes.


In my second post, I stated that it could be the impact on the other items, although I still question them and am willing to say that they could be although by every scientific factor that I understand, it was primarily the clubs.   I tried to approach the subject in a scientific fashion on the second and got another personal attack.

BUT I consistently have stated that in my opinion, the clubs made the most difference.  And I cannot identify any other factors that changed during that period that would/could have made the difference.    Was it "13 stroke " difference.  Of course not,  I never said that.  But i did say there was a consistent change from long term 16-18 to 8 long term and that is about 8 strokes of which most was due to the fitting and clubs.  It was the only factor changed.    All of this difference i'm not sure, but am 100% not able myself to identify anything that made much of a difference.

Let's approach this from a reasoning point of possible factors:

Lessons:  No change for 3 years of them.  then stopping for few months with no change inn handicap
Practice :  Amount did not change but has decreased over the last 2.5 years due to major health issues
Clubs:  Yes - major change  -  changed ball flight, straightness, spin increased significantly
Amount of play  - no significant change in amount or type of courses  90-130 rounds per year for last 10 years
Health - worse  - should have impacted handicap adversely

handicap of course does vary by +/- a couple of points depending upon trips/courses, health, time of year.  I'm never at exactly the same exact number but it's been in the same general range for years at a time.

So in that period of 6 months,  only major change was clubs.  And handicap went from 16-18 to 5-8  (since then has fluctuated from 7 to 10 (went up to 10 for a couple of months last year when  I was experimenting with new drivers and shafts.  Plus I played a few courses during that time at distances that were flat out too long for me ).  Has since gone back to 8.2

So what would one attribtue the change in handicap too logically if the only real change was clubs?  Other factors DID NOT change that much or were less over long term (practice, for example).

As you said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.  This is my last post on this topic.    In my second post, I stated that it could be the impact on the other items, although I still question them, I tried to approach the subject in a scientific fashion on the second and got another personal attack.  I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS on GolfWRX. And thought that there was no place for them here.  Pardon me for posting and breathing since i clearly don't have the expertise with words that you want to hear. It takes me more words and posts to explain things.   I'm not the  expert in writing and posting that you seem to think people should be.

  I'm a techie and not a professional writer so I may not explain things perfectly in one short post.  But i DO KNOW SCIENCE and CAUSE and EFFECT type items.  And if one thing by itself changes and other factors do not, what would one expect to be the cause.  And I do understand related items and correlations, both positive and negative, including positive correlations from misleading items.

[Thrillhouse]

myronm, on 15 January 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

let's see,  I had the same handicap area for 3 years.  Changed one parameter, specailly fitted clubs.  Handicap went down to consistent 8 (went to 5 but that was not constant over the years and could be anolmaly, but 8 area has stayed since then.  Have had no more lessons from 2-3 months prior to fitting.,   Practice was consistent or even less after the fitting (i know about 1.5 to 2 years ago my practice has become significantly less, maybe once every two to three weeks and way less numbers of balls (from 160 to 80) per session due to physical conditions.  Certainly was not more. Pysical limitations.   So if practice or lessons were the main factor, why did it not make any difference in the 2 years prior to that.  Same for lessons.  Why did it take so long after stopping the lessons?

Yes, lessons took me from 24-26 to 16-18 but not lower for over three years (had lessons for almost 5 years and last three made little difference in handicap).

And of course, by your logic, since I went from 5 to 8 (long term has stayed there) that the clubs actually hurt me.  I'll grant the 5 was one month and was probably an anolmaly and not realistic change. But 15-20 months in the 8 area (up down depending upon time of year, health, etc) has shown to be pretty consistent.  So by my calculations 16-8 is 8 strokes.


In my second post, I stated that it could be the impact on the other items, although I still question them and am willing to say that they could be although by every scientific factor that I understand, it was primarily the clubs.   I tried to approach the subject in a scientific fashion on the second and got another personal attack.

BUT I consistently have stated that in my opinion, the clubs made the most difference.  And I cannot identify any other factors that changed during that period that would/could have made the difference.    Was it "13 stroke " difference.  Of course not,  I never said that.  But i did say there was a consistent change from long term 16-18 to 8 long term and that is about 8 strokes of which most was due to the fitting and clubs.  It was the only factor changed.    All of this difference i'm not sure, but am 100% not able myself to identify anything that made much of a difference.

Let's approach this from a reasoning point of possible factors:

Lessons:  No change for 3 years of them.  then stopping for few months with no change inn handicap
Practice :  Amount did not change but has decreased over the last 2.5 years due to major health issues
Clubs:  Yes - major change  -  changed ball flight, straightness, spin increased significantly
Amount of play  - no significant change in amount or type of courses  90-130 rounds per year for last 10 years
Health - worse  - should have impacted handicap adversely

handicap of course does vary by +/- a couple of points depending upon trips/courses, health, time of year.  I'm never at exactly the same exact number but it's been in the same general range for years at a time.

So in that period of 6 months,  only major change was clubs.  And handicap went from 16-18 to 5-8  (since then has fluctuated from 7 to 10 (went up to 10 for a couple of months last year when  I was experimenting with new drivers and shafts.  Plus I played a few courses during that time at distances that were flat out too long for me ).  Has since gone back to 8.2

So what would one attribtue the change in handicap too logically if the only real change was clubs?  Other factors DID NOT change that much or were less over long term (practice, for example).

As you said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.  This is my last post on this topic.    In my second post, I stated that it could be the impact on the other items, although I still question them, I tried to approach the subject in a scientific fashion on the second and got another personal attack.  I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS on GolfWRX. And thought that there was no place for them here.  Pardon me for posting and breathing since i clearly don't have the expertise with words that you want to hear. It takes me more words and posts to explain things.   I'm not the  expert in writing and posting that you seem to think people should be.

  I'm a techie and not a professional writer so I may not explain things perfectly in one short post.  But i DO KNOW SCIENCE and CAUSE and EFFECT type items.  And if one thing by itself changes and other factors do not, what would one expect to be the cause.  And I do understand related items and correlations, both positive and negative, including positive correlations from misleading items.

I've said everything I've had to say on this subject.

And you can yell and scream about "personal attacks" all you want, but the fact is that there are none. You posted nonsense and it was identified as such, that's all, heck you admitted that your post was nonsense so I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about.

This has gone on long enough, knock it off, I'm not going to participate in the ruining of this thread just because you want to throw a pity party for yourself.

[chuckyz2]

I'm unthrilled at your replies TH.  You seemed to attact a person giving his experience with fitting as if he was a liar.  You exxagerated his outcome to attempt to justify your attack.  His actual gain was + or - 10 strokes.  I saw this on my first reading of his results. You saw what you saw for whatever reason you saw it, to justify your rude attack of a good review of a personal fitting experience.  As a unbiased reader, it is obvious to me what your intentions are.

Anyone with any real experience in proper fitting could tell of similar results.  I fitted myself and have seen almost as much benefit as he.  I have also help others in limited #'s to see the benefits of even a few adjustments make a huge difference.  I am sure any bonifide experienced fitter will claim the same.

Myronm,  dont let people like this get under your skin.  Some people go on the web only to get a rise from people.  It is their source of entertainment and they have a group that keeps score of who gets the biggest reaction.

Its sad that more people dont jump in in defence from such senless attacks.  Like moderators for example.  It annoys me to see such annoyances taking place.  I for one appreciate and believe your review.  Made perfect sense to me and your scientific methods seem more than adequate.  Did I spell that right?  : )  

When trying to research info on the web, you have to waist so much time filtering out haters and risers.  Itis a trend that that is getting worse every year.  And no matter the topic or the page, the methods are the same.  And as obvious s their methods and intentions are, they are allowed to run free, unchecked by those in control.  Freedom of speech protects them but their rude conduct and name calling go unchecked as well even though it is against board rules.  Makes me wonder if the ones in contol are part of the sick game.

[Thrillhouse]

chuckyz2, on 04 February 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

I'm unthrilled at your replies TH.  You seemed to attact a person giving his experience with fitting as if he was a liar.  You exxagerated his outcome to attempt to justify your attack.  His actual gain was + or - 10 strokes.  I saw this on my first reading of his results. You saw what you saw for whatever reason you saw it, to justify your rude attack of a good review of a personal fitting experience.  As a unbiased reader, it is obvious to me what your intentions are.

Anyone with any real experience in proper fitting could tell of similar results.  I fitted myself and have seen almost as much benefit as he.  I have also help others in limited #'s to see the benefits of even a few adjustments make a huge difference.  I am sure any bonifide experienced fitter will claim the same.

Myronm,  dont let people like this get under your skin.  Some people go on the web only to get a rise from people.  It is their source of entertainment and they have a group that keeps score of who gets the biggest reaction.

Its sad that more people dont jump in in defence from such senless attacks.  Like moderators for example.  It annoys me to see such annoyances taking place.  I for one appreciate and believe your review.  Made perfect sense to me and your scientific methods seem more than adequate.  Did I spell that right?  : )  

When trying to research info on the web, you have to waist so much time filtering out haters and risers.  Itis a trend that that is getting worse every year.  And no matter the topic or the page, the methods are the same.  And as obvious s their methods and intentions are, they are allowed to run free, unchecked by those in control.  Freedom of speech protects them but their rude conduct and name calling go unchecked as well even though it is against board rules.  Makes me wonder if the ones in contol are part of the sick game.

Way to dig up a months old thread in an attempt to restart a resolved conflict.

I have no idea who you are, I didn't read what you had to say, and I won't be talking to you again because I'm blocking you.