From my wrist to floor is 83 cm and I am around 170 cm tall.

I been told instead of adjusting the lie angle, i can just cut down about 1 inch in length. But then I have another advice to just adjust the angle of the lie to 2 degree flatter and keep the length for the distance.

Which advice is more reasonable in term of club fitting?

Ahh, I think you should find someone that can fit your clubs "dynamicly" meaning when you hit the ball.

Static fitting to me doesn't make any sense unless you are a complete beginner.

yep - dynamic fitting is the way to go!

The dynamic fitting process it been done therefore we arrive at this conclusion that i need to flatter 2 degree more than the standard lie, but what i try to understand is which one is the better method in addressing the issue, cutting down the length or adjust the lie angle.

I would say cut them down.

bending would be easier...

if your irons are of decent quality ie...won't break if bent then i would bend them

QUOTE: Toolish @ Jun 8 2006, 08:24 PM

I would say cut them down.

Ya #$%^ing kidding aren't you...

Guys, please think about this. It isn't a part thing to do, you either do both or forget it and play with dodgey clubs. Who ever told you to cut them down instead of doing a lie loft and length check needs to be ignored...

Length is based on physical attributes and skill. it is bloody important.
Lie is based on the swing and is also bloody important.

Why screw up one for the sake of another...

If you cut why would you need to adjust lie angle too?

EDIT:Or vice versa. Isn't lie angle related to length. You say that length is based on physical attributes and skill, if the guy is 170cm that is a bit shorter than average, so cut em down. Assuming the initial lie change required was correct shouldn't this cutting down cover the require lie angle change?

i've got over standard clubs...and lie angles adjusted acordingly.

if i hit some of the demo clubs (which are standard length) my posture at address changes which will alter my swing.

i'd want to recheck my lie angles if i were to change my posture, which is why i would recheck the lie angles if i were to cut down clubs

I am very much appreciated all the contributed opinion. The issue is much more clear for me now.

Being 170cm, all standard length appear to be too long for me and my iron shot go wacko and so far i have been gripping 1 inch down to be able to swing my iron properly and have a solid impact. When i hold the club without gripping down, i tend to hit the ball close to the heel and i can see the mark on the sole scrap close to the heel. As soon as I gripping 1 inch down then i hit it solidly again, in the middle of the club face.

This little test of mine is confirmed by my teaching pro. He advised to adjust lie angle and leave the length as it is for the distance.

I used this test result as an excuse to get a new set of iron i have been eyeing for so I went to visit one of the golf shop and when it come to fitting the advice i get is to cut down the length by 1 inch and leave the lie angle as cutting down will result in correct lie angle for me.

So, i am drawing a conclusion based on all of your contribution, I am not leaving for any chances of ill fitting club, I will get both the length and lie fully fitted for my swing, skill level and physical height. And for this i am going to see a genuine club fitter. (Most retail store or even to some extend pro shop/teaching pro just try to sell you a club as quick as possible with any passion in fitting the club to suit us!!!)

Again, thank you all for the advise.

Feel free if we all want to keep this thread running as I will reported the result once my fitting is being done.

QUOTE: Toolish @ Jun 8 2006, 11:13 PM

EDIT:Or vice versa. Isn't lie angle related to length.

Related to, not equivalent to.

There's a lot of misinformation floating around on clubfitting.

Others are:

If your lie angle is X degrees out it will make you miss by Y yards with a good swing.
Correct as far as the impact physics go, but less so in reality. To a certain extent the club tells the hands where to position, and the hands tell the body where to position. Small lie angle variations can get lost, or at least substantially reduced in effect, in the set up routine. In addition, does any player reading this believe that they can monitor or control their bend at the hips within plus or minus one or two degrees? Consider the impact that has on setup and clubfit.

Static fitting to me doesn't make any sense unless you are a complete beginner.
Only a player who intends to (and is able to) keep his current swing, without alteration, will gain enduring benefit from a dynamic fit. A player who is working on his mechanics or who varies from day to day (and that covers a lot of golfers) is as well off or better with a static fit. It may well be more likely to minimise his "misfit of the day".

Only a player who intends to (and is able to) keep his current swing, without alteration, will gain enduring benefit from a dynamic fit. A player who is working on his mechanics or who varies from day to day (and that covers a lot of golfers) is as well off or better with a static fit. It may well be more likely to minimise his "misfit of the day".

I'm sorry but that is just wrong. Dynamic fitting in all cases (except the beginner golfer) is far better than static fitting on any given day. Dynamic fitting isn't just about length, where static fitting is.

QUOTE: br4w1 @ Jun 9 2006, 08:57 AM

This little test of mine is confirmed by my teaching pro. He advised to adjust lie angle and leave the length as it is for the distance.

You height has little to SFA to do with club length. lets talk more about hand size, wrist to floor measurements and then lets see you actually hit a ball and where the impact marks are.

THEN we can see what is the correct length is. And yes, 1/4 of an inch is major when you swing a club at 90mph.

You are in Sydney and so am I - come and see me and I will do the assessment for free. Please do not butcher your golf game.

PM me if you are interested.

QUOTE: Ben @ Jun 9 2006, 10:54 AM

I'm sorry but that is just wrong. Dynamic fitting in all cases (except the beginner golfer) is far better than static fitting on any given day. Dynamic fitting isn't just about length, where static fitting is.

Try to do better. Just saying thats wrong is a waste of electrons.

There is a contrary view to mine. But you have to give reasons. Comment. Analyse. Argue.

Explain to me why you think the additional information from a dynamic fit is better than a static fit with standard lie angles for the classes of golfer I commented on.

I'll give you a head start. More golfers dynamic fit for adjustment up than adjustment down. There are several reasons. Some of which may support your views, and some mine.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:04 PM

Try to do better. Just saying thats wrong is a waste of electrons.

There is a contrary view to mine. But you have to give reasons. Comment. Analyse. Argue.

Explain to me why you think the additional information from a dynamic fit is better than a static fit with standard lie angles for the classes of golfer I commented on.

I'll give you a head start. More golfers dynamic fit for adjustment up than adjustment down. There are several reasons. Some of which may support your views, and some mine.

Mate - with all due respect, that's a bit rude and more than bit patronising.

You are not the be all and end all in the world of golf and your confrontational approach is becoming a little irritating. Both Ben & Virge are completely open and honest about themselves, their craft and their expertise. It is not fair to simply anonymously drop the boots in when you are not bound by (or do not observe) the same professional courtesy and forum restrictions.

Let all of us put some ego aside and off course everyone entitled to their opinion, there is no reason to challenge one opinion over ours.

I think we all agree that the better use of this forum is to in such way where information or opinion or review of certain topic in relation to golfing can be obtain, shares without any prejudice.

QUOTE: Fyirippu @ Jun 9 2006, 12:14 PM

Mate - with all due respect, that's a bit rude and more than bit patronising.

You are not the be all and end all in the world of golf and your confrontational approach is becoming a little irritating. Both Ben & Virge are completely open and honest about themselves, their craft and their expertise. It is not fair to simply anonymously drop the boots in when you are not bound by (or do not observe) the same professional courtesy and forum restrictions.

I'm sorry you find that patronising, rude and discourteous. I might well feel the same when I state a point of view, explain the reasons and receive a flat contradiciton without explanation in response. I do indeed find that patronising.

I might also feel that your taste for professional courtesy seems to have limited application. Whatever faults the PGA program may have, and it surely has faults, many folk seem to feel quite content to put the boots into that group without distinction between the good, the bad or the in between. Which is a little odd given that in most cases the boot appliers have no qualification whatever. I have not as yet noticed you objecting to the frequent sneering references to "PGAs".

I'm not a person to hold back, and I'm not a person to defer to the majority or to "seniority". When I am spoken down to, chances are that I might return the compliment. Sorry you find that wearing, but I dont see it changing any time soon.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:54 PM

I'm sorry you find that patronising, rude and discourteous. I might well feel the same when I state a point of view, explain the reasons and receive a flat contradiciton without explanation in response. I do indeed find that patronising.

I wasn't after an apology - I was making a point

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:54 PM

I might also feel that your taste for professional courtesy seems to have limited application. Whatever faults the PGA program may have, and it surely has faults, many folk seem to feel quite content to put the boots into that group without distinction between the good, the bad or the in between. Which is a little odd given that in most cases the boot appliers have no qualification whatever. I have not as yet noticed you objecting to the frequent sneering references to "PGAs".

I don't know that I have ever stuck the boots in to the PGA. My comments on the ISG forum have only ever been maintaining my viewpoint that a PGA certification does not necessarily mean that the individual can teach. Any other interpretation is well out of the obvious context. In any case, there are enough supporters of the PGA to not need my support. Regarding qualifications, despite some some direct requests - you haven't been too forthcoming on the forum about your own. Any requests are met with nebulous and evasive responses about doing your own thing with your own coach which is hardly credibility building.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:54 PM

I'm not a person to hold back, and I'm not a person to defer to the majority or to "seniority". When I am spoken down to, chances are that I might return the compliment. Sorry you find that wearing, but I dont see it changing any time soon.

There is a difference between deferring to majority/"seniority" and simple respect. Whilst some of the earlier posts in this thread may have been direct IMO they were not arrogant.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:04 PM

Try to do better. Just saying thats wrong is a waste of electrons.

There is a contrary view to mine. But you have to give reasons. Comment. Analyse. Argue.

Explain to me why you think the additional information from a dynamic fit is better than a static fit with standard lie angles for the classes of golfer I commented on.

I'll give you a head start. More golfers dynamic fit for adjustment up than adjustment down. There are several reasons. Some of which may support your views, and some mine.

Perhaps, Packard, You are not aware of the fact that, Ben is a professional club fitter, as well as a decent young fellow.

You may want to aknowledge his achievments before trying to darken his good advice.

QUOTE: Fyirippu @ Jun 9 2006, 01:18 PM

Regarding qualifications, despite some some direct requests - you haven't been too forthcoming on the forum about your own. Any requests are met with nebulous and evasive responses about doing your own thing with your own coach which is hardly credibility building.

Go to I think my third or fourth post forum and you will find a quite explicit and unambiguous statement. If you would like to point out some more personality faults, please take it to PM.

QUOTE: Postie @ Jun 9 2006, 01:21 PM

Perhaps, Packard, You are not aware of the fact that, Ben is a professional club fitter, as well as a decent young fellow.

You may want to aknowledge his achievments before trying to darken his good advice.

Professional clubfitters come in many shapes, sizes, and levels of competence. Some are invaluable advisers, some are more similar to used car salesmen. As I do not know the gentleman concerned he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, as I do not know the gentleman I would prefer his counter opinions to resemble explanations rather than pronouncements. Not unreasonable I would have thought.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 01:41 PM

Professional clubfitters come in many shapes, sizes, and levels of competence. Some are invaluable advisers, some are more similar to used car salesmen.

Also applies to Golf-pro gophers

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 01:31 PM

Go to I think my third or fourth post forum and you will find a quite explicit and unambiguous statement. If you would like to point out some more personality faults, please take it to PM.

I found this quote that saves me the hassle of typing.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 7 2006, 08:20 AM

I wouldnt hold my breath waiting. And I dont structure my life around your desire to get your way on the net.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 8 2006, 11:24 AM

it often helps to know if the person with whom you intend to argue with knows the subject.

How ironic...

packard, there is another Australian golf forum which I'm happy to link you to by PM. It is the place for those who know it all, and can't handle a well-constructed, contrary opinion. You'd fit in well there.

Dymanic fitting shows reality in action, nothing to do with trying to maintain any parts of swings, it shows what happens. Will lie angels change as swings change? Sure will.

Static lies are a total waste of time as the bear no relationship to the swing itself and can afford no help to a golfer other than by pure chance.

QUOTE: packard @ Jun 9 2006, 12:04 PM

Explain to me why you think the additional information from a dynamic fit is better than a static fit with standard lie angles for the classes of golfer I commented on.

Static fitting is simply based on height, wrist-to-floor or fingertip-to-floor measurements. It does not take into account the golfer's swing charecteristics such as plane angle, wrist action and posture. I was staticly fitted as a young bloke and told I needed 1° upright. Truth is, I require about 2° flat due to the characteristics of my swing.

Lie angle is one of, if not the most, important aspect of clubfitting. It is also about the easiest to get right. But the fitting must be dynamic - not static.

If static fitting works for you, it is only by coincidence - nothing else.

Mick