Question:
You may recall I built a set of MOI-matched clubs for myself, modelled on a 7-iron whose characteristics I really like. The only problem such matching did for me was to make irons longer than the 7-iron shorter than the norm (I incremented the irons at .4" length difference rather than the usual .5"). That makes the longest iron–the 3-iron–shorter than normal by .4". I discovered when originally testing them that the club had a definite fade bias. Making a club shorter than normal gives one a more upright lie angle. (Prove it to yourself, using something like a 7-iron to show how this happens: Take a normal stance with the club, and slowly lift the shaft to vertical while keeping the clubhead in the same orientation toward the target. What happens to the face? It begins to point right). I had a similar fade bias in the 4-iron. So I adjusted the lie angle in each, making the 3-iron about a degree and a half more upright, the 4-iron about a degree more upright. Despite temperatures at 50 degrees, I took the clubs out late yesterday afternoon because I just had to see what this accomplished. Changing the lie angle eliminated the fade bias in both clubs. Despite how cold it was, they both went straight–well, at least, when I put a decent swing on them. Mostly, though, that’s what they did. The only fades I hit were bad swings (wow, it was chilly). I’m not sure that lie angle will always be a problem when MOI-matching. I made another set recently–MOI-matched–that used the same .4" increment in length between clubs, and I had no difficulty at all hitting the 3-iron straight (nor the 4-iron, for that matter). I’m not sure how much lie-angle difference one can expect from making a club shorter by .4". Someone commented on this not long ago on RSG, and I haven’t found it on Google yet. It’s quite possible I just had some odd lie angles (in both sets) due to the normal variation in tolerances. But one thing’s clear: Just a little lie-angle tweaking made a noticeable difference in the performance of my clubs. Makes me wonder if anyone who has trouble with fade bias in a particular club has a lie-angle problem, not a shaft or swing problem. Mike — Mike Dalecki RSG-Wisconsin 2001 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis I do not patronize spammers! Help keep RSG clean. Expect the same etiquette from me on RSG as on the golf course. RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
Response:
IMO lie angle is at the top of the list of what is needed to fit your clubs properly. Not only to solve direction problems, but impact itself is critically dependent on having the ability to meet the ground essentially with a sole that matches the lie of the ground. GH
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You may recall I built a set of MOI-matched clubs for myself, modelled on a 7-iron whose characteristics I really like. The only problem such matching did for me was to make irons longer than the 7-iron shorter than the norm (I incremented the irons at .4" length difference rather than the usual .5"). That makes the longest iron–the 3-iron–shorter than normal by .4". I discovered when originally testing them that the club had a definite fade bias. Making a club shorter than normal gives one a more upright lie angle. (Prove it to yourself, using something like a 7-iron to show how this happens: Take a normal stance with the club, and slowly lift the shaft to vertical while keeping the clubhead in the same orientation toward the target. What happens to the face? It begins to point right). I had a similar fade bias in the 4-iron. So I adjusted the lie angle in each, making the 3-iron about a degree and a half more upright, the 4-iron about a degree more upright. Despite temperatures at 50 degrees, I took the clubs out late yesterday afternoon because I just had to see what this accomplished. Changing the lie angle eliminated the fade bias in both clubs. Despite how cold it was, they both went straight–well, at least, when I put a decent swing on them. Mostly, though, that’s what they did. The only fades I hit were bad swings (wow, it was chilly). I’m not sure that lie angle will always be a problem when MOI-matching. I made another set recently–MOI-matched–that used the same .4" increment in length between clubs, and I had no difficulty at all hitting the 3-iron straight (nor the 4-iron, for that matter). I’m not sure how much lie-angle difference one can expect from making a club shorter by .4". Someone commented on this not long ago on RSG, and I haven’t found it on Google yet. It’s quite possible I just had some odd lie angles (in both sets) due to the normal variation in tolerances. But one thing’s clear: Just a little lie-angle tweaking made a noticeable difference in the performance of my clubs. Makes me wonder if anyone who has trouble with fade bias in a particular club has a lie-angle problem, not a shaft or swing problem. Mike — Mike Dalecki RSG-Wisconsin 2001 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis I do not patronize spammers! Help keep RSG clean. Expect the same etiquette from me on RSG as on the golf course. RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
Response:
That makes the longest iron–the 3-iron–shorter than normal by .4". I discovered when originally testing them that the club had a definite fade bias. Making a club shorter than normal gives one a more upright lie angle.
The language is a little tricky… 
The lie angle does not, of course, change (unless you bend the club as well as shorten it.) However, the club will *appear* to have a flatter lie angle. You’ve taken a club that had a relatively upright lie in the address position, and made it have a relatively flatter lie in the same address position. This is why you had to adjust the lie angle to be more upright. So I adjusted the lie angle in each, making the 3-iron about a degree and a half more upright, the 4-iron about a degree more upright. Changing the lie angle eliminated the fade bias in both clubs.
That makes sense. The BUY.COM pro I caddied for was short, so I asked him if he had customized clubs. He said he used standard length clubs, but had his long irons set more upright, "to fight the fade effect." I’m not sure how much lie-angle difference one can expect from making a club shorter by .4".
Ralph Maltby sez .5" = 1*. It’s quite possible I just had some odd lie angles (in both sets) due to the normal variation in tolerances. But one thing’s clear: Just a little lie-angle tweaking made a noticeable difference in the performance of my clubs. Makes me wonder if anyone who has trouble with fade bias in a particular club has a lie-angle problem, not a shaft or swing problem.
It’s a real mess. There isn’t any standard. Club manufacturers seem to make it up as they go along, depending on how they think the players who will buy those clubs will swing the clubs. Maltby sez if a set of clubs are built with 1* lie angle increments from 1 through 9 irons, chances are the short irons will end up too upright, and the long irons too flat. In other words, there will be a tendency to pull the short irons and fade the long irons. Not a good thing, especially for slicers who already do that. The problem is that longer golf clubs flex downward at impact more than shorter clubs, and more than the "old standard" allows for. So some manufacturers start with a 1 iron that is 2* more upright, and then go down in 1/2* increments, making for a "standard" 5 iron and a flat 9 iron. But as I said, even the same manufacturer will play with the numbers on different models they make. All the Hogan irons have different progressions, for example.
Response:
Mike, In your post you said"Making a club shorter than normal gives one a more upright lie angle." That is not correct.It does the opposite.A shorter club gives a more perceived FLAT lie angle.At the same hand position,the shorter club rests more on it’s toe,giving it an "effective or perceived" flatter lie.I’m sure that was a typo. Btw,I had a interesting customer last week.He is 83 years old,plays his age!!!!AND HE WALKS-amazing! Fred.
Response:
Mike, In your post you said"Making a club shorter than normal gives one a more upright lie angle." That is not correct.It does the opposite.A shorter club gives a more perceived FLAT lie angle.At the same hand position,the shorter club rests more on it’s toe,giving it an "effective or perceived" flatter lie.I’m sure that was a typo.
It wasn’t really a typo, but what I’m trying to say is that as it gets shorter you *need* a more upright angle, for the reason you indicate, i.e., that the clubhead rests on its toe. I could have said it better. Ah, language. You know the old saying? Listen to what I mean, not to what I say Btw,I had a interesting customer last week.He is 83 years old,plays his age!!!!AND HE WALKS-amazing! Fred.
I’d be happy to make it to 83 *riding* and shooting 74. Mike Mike Dalecki RSG-Wisconsin 2001 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis I do not patronize spammers! Help keep RSG clean. Expect the same etiquette from me on RSG as on the golf course. RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
Response:
<snip I’d be happy to make it to 83 *riding* and shooting 74. Mike
Hell, I’ll be happy if I’m 74 shooting 83! — Joe Cartpath – www.joecartpath.com
Response:
I’d be happy to make it to 83 *riding* and shooting 74.
I’ll be happy to make it to 74 and shoot 83, no matter what the transportation medium. By the way: I just tried your experiment. If I keep the clubhead oriented towards the target, which I take to mean keeping the bottom edge of the face perpendicular to the target line, it stays that way because I’m keeping it that way. How can the clubface open up if I’m preventing it from doing that by keeping the clubhead aligned to the target? Sign me… Confused Peter
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d be happy to make it to 83 *riding* and shooting 74. I’ll be happy to make it to 74 and shoot 83, no matter what the transportation medium. By the way: I just tried your experiment. If I keep the clubhead oriented towards the target, which I take to mean keeping the bottom edge of the face perpendicular to the target line, it stays that way because I’m keeping it that way. How can the clubface open up if I’m preventing it from doing that by keeping the clubhead aligned to the target? Sign me… Confused Peter
Dear Confused: If you’re turning the clubface while tilting the shaft away from you, then you’re introducing another variable in the equation. To exaggerate the effect, do this: Simply move the shaft from setup position to one that points 45 degrees away from you, *without* turning the shaft in your hands to correct for this effect. When you do this, the sole of the club is off the ground a lot (approaching vertical, actually). If it *were* vertical, yet the sole is still aligned to the target line, the face *must* be pointing way right. Later on, just for grins, I might take a couple pics of this and post them on my website. Mike — Mike Dalecki RSG-Wisconsin 2001 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis I do not patronize spammers! Help keep RSG clean. Expect the same etiquette from me on RSG as on the golf course. RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm