Club Gapping - Do you do it? And how often?

[High cut]

100% agree about using tracknan outdoors off grass, same for fitting . The most accurate and and useful way versus indoors into a net/screen.

as for needing a starting point. Don’t we all have that already ? It comes from playing. We all know roughly how far we hit a club , at least I do and everyone I know does . I do agree with the person who said that people tend to use when they make a pure hit and their best as the number whereas that happens rarely with Ams. That is why 90% of amateur shoyt come up short. Doing a happing session won’t help that imo especially off perfect lies in perfect conditions. I know how far I hit every club wishing 10/15 yards., don’t need a gap session . If I’m having a poor ball striking day I take more club. We all have a laser or gpa so can measure every shot

also agree that Arcos is probably the best as it is real data from real conditions. I don’t use it but a friend does and telly gets into the analysis. There are also comparators to other golfers with the sMe h/c to gauge yourself. Big data base .

I think it is important to have your lofts and lies checked and adjusted to proper spec and also check each shaft flex . They differ from one to the next. Just did a set of irons for a guy and they weren’t out much 1-2 degrees here and there for loft

You are a good player and I'm sure have a good starting point. I've played with a lot that don't, either have no clue (crazy eh) or always think they are going to hit a career shot.

I'm of the opposite opinion about gaping not helping though, but I guess some might need some guidance. Any PGA pro or even a half assed amateur like me can steer them toward averaging their numbers from trackman rather than taking the 2 best. A couple of playing lessons can teach them what a flyer lie looks like vs. rough that will cost yardage. Same with different lies etc.

Will it always work, not even close because of contact etc as you have shared but I think it is better to know what you are trying to do vs not. Also way more fun to have a plan you are confident is right (even if you can't always execute) rather than hit and hope with not much of a clue.

Re: Arcos vs trackman, I have both (or access to) and find Arcos super interesting but my swing isn't consistent enough to trust it on the course, using my trackman numbers gives me total confidence that if I execute I will like the results unless I have misread the conditions.

The execution, well that comes and goes but I still like to know that what I am trying to do is correct

[Weirfan]

You are a good player and I'm sure have a good starting point. I've played with a lot that don't, either have no clue (crazy eh) or always think they are going to hit a career shot.

I'm of the opposite opinion about gaping not helping though, but I guess some might need some guidance. Any PGA pro or even a half assed amateur like me can steer them toward averaging their numbers from trackman rather than taking the 2 best. A couple of playing lessons can teach them what a flyer lie looks like vs. rough that will cost yardage. Same with different lies etc.

Will it always work, not even close because of contact etc as you have shared but I think it is better to know what you are trying to do vs not. Also way more fun to have a plan you are confident is right (even if you can't always execute) rather than hit and hope with not much of a clue.

Re: Arcos vs trackman, I have both (or access to) and find Arcos super interesting but my swing isn't consistent enough to trust it on the course, using my trackman numbers gives me total confidence that if I execute I will like the results unless I have misread the conditions.

The execution, well that comes and goes but I still like to know that what I am trying to do is correct

As always you present a solid case and again I agree on the Trackman and Arcos.

The big advantage of Arcos over a indoor, simulated gapping session is it is obtained under real conditions and as such is likely much more representative than artificially perfect indoor conditions ...simulated.. We know that most ams will find the center of the clubface a few times a round ( including me) so the averages obtained on course are the best indication. My buddy's ( 5 cap) average yardages on Arcos are all way below what he gets indoors and while that is only one guy, it makes perfect sense to me.

I would be curious what your trackman vs Arcos distances are like

[ryan151]

As always you present a solid case and again I agree on the Trackman and Arcos.

The big advantage of Arcos over a indoor, simulated gapping session is it is obtained under real conditions and as such is likely much more representative than artificially perfect indoor conditions ...simulated.. We know that most ams will find the center of the clubface a few times a round ( including me) so the averages obtained on course are the best indication. My buddy's ( 5 cap) average yardages on Arcos are all way below what he gets indoors and while that is only one guy, it makes perfect sense to me.

I would be curious what your trackman vs Arcos distances are like

The thing about arcos though is you would need a huge sample of data/rounds to get accurate numbers. Also doesn’t arcos use total distance instead of carry distance? That would be arguably more misleading than indoor off a gc quad because certain days would have different wind/temperature.

It would even out over time but much easier to just start off with getting carry distances off a proper launch monitor. Also one area I think a lot of people struggle with is knowing their distances with half/3 quarter wedge shots. Now if someone writes all their distances down and gets out on the course and is always short 5 yards then you take note and make adjustments. For the average weekend golfer that just likes to have fun maybe they don’t care enough, but if someone wants to score better knowing their distances is only going to help imo.

[High cut]

The thing about arcos though is you would need a huge sample of data/rounds to get accurate numbers. Also doesn’t arcos use total distance instead of carry distance? That would be arguably more misleading than indoor off a gc quad because certain days would have different wind/temperature.

It would even out over time but much easier to just start off with getting carry distances off a proper launch monitor. Also one area I think a lot of people struggle with is knowing their distances with half/3 quarter wedge shots. Now if someone writes all their distances down and gets out on the course and is always short 5 yards then you take note and make adjustments. For the average weekend golfer that just likes to have fun maybe they don’t care enough, but if someone wants to score better knowing their distances is only going to help imo.

Completely agree

[High cut]

As always you present a solid case and again I agree on the Trackman and Arcos.

The big advantage of Arcos over a indoor, simulated gapping session is it is obtained under real conditions and as such is likely much more representative than artificially perfect indoor conditions ...simulated.. We know that most ams will find the center of the clubface a few times a round ( including me) so the averages obtained on course are the best indication. My buddy's ( 5 cap) average yardages on Arcos are all way below what he gets indoors and while that is only one guy, it makes perfect sense to me.

I would be curious what your trackman vs Arcos distances are like

Great question and very relevant.

For clubs that I normally hit stock shots on the course with, they are almost identical (sometimes less than a yard off). For clubs that I hit a lot of specialty shots or less than full swings they are way off.

For example, my 6I is about 5 yards shorter than my TM numbers which is due to bad lies etc., my 5I is 10-15 yrds shorter (186) than my TM numbers. This isn't due to bad contact but due to the fact that I use it for a lot of punch and run shots out of the very thick rough at my club. Non standard shots that are real but don't help me predict the outcome of the next shot.

For this reason, TM is way more useful in giving me a feel for what to expect on "normal" fairway shots. My SW, GW and PW are almost bang on as rough doesn't affect those clubs as much.

If your friend is struggling taking TM to the course, there are a couple of things to look at. It starts with where he is using it. My numbers indoors on a good LM where the ball is reading correctly is fairly good for irons. For some reason, my numbers for woods are way off. This isn't a tech issue, it's a me issue, I just don't swing the longer clubs the some without the visuals and space.

The more common issue though is the settings on LM's. If the numbers are consistently longer on the LM than on the course chances are the settings are off. It is very common that places use higher elevation or hard fairways to make people feel good about themselves. If you give the average golfer the truth, they don't like it and don't come back or buy anything.

Use TM outdoors with true settings (leave your ego at the door) outdoors, ideally at your club with grass you usually play off of. It will be very interesting and useful, then use your knowledge of the game to make adjustments depending on lie, elevation, wind etc. Mishits, wind, elevation etc. are still going to be a factor but at the very least you will enjoy knowing when you hit your numbers and at the most it will help you continue dropping your factor..... Seems like you have done a good job of that lately regardless!

[Weirfan]

Great question and very relevant.

For clubs that I normally hit stock shots on the course with, they are almost identical (sometimes less than a yard off). For clubs that I hit a lot of specialty shots or less than full swings they are way off.

For example, my 6I is about 5 yards shorter than my TM numbers which is due to bad lies etc., my 5I is 10-15 yrds shorter (186) than my TM numbers. This isn't due to bad contact but due to the fact that I use it for a lot of punch and run shots out of the very thick rough at my club. Non standard shots that are real but don't help me predict the outcome of the next shot.

For this reason, TM is way more useful in giving me a feel for what to expect on "normal" fairway shots. My SW, GW and PW are almost bang on as rough doesn't affect those clubs as much.

If your friend is struggling taking TM to the course, there are a couple of things to look at. It starts with where he is using it. My numbers indoors on a good LM where the ball is reading correctly is fairly good for irons. For some reason, my numbers for woods are way off. This isn't a tech issue, it's a me issue, I just don't swing the longer clubs the some without the visuals and space.

The more common issue though is the settings on LM's. If the numbers are consistently longer on the LM than on the course chances are the settings are off. It is very common that places use higher elevation or hard fairways to make people feel good about themselves. If you give the average golfer the truth, they don't like it and don't come back or buy anything.

Use TM outdoors with true settings (leave your ego at the door) outdoors, ideally at your club with grass you usually play off of. It will be very interesting and useful, then use your knowledge of the game to make adjustments depending on lie, elevation, wind etc. Mishits, wind, elevation etc. are still going to be a factor but at the very least you will enjoy knowing when you hit your numbers and at the most it will help you continue dropping your factor..... Seems like you have done a good job of that lately regardless!

Thanks....very good explanation.

I think my friend struggled with making good contact outdoors versus indoors and his indoor numbers are using a simulator and another machine vs trackman, i have mentioned the lack of accuracy of that approach but that is how he was fit. The Arcos seems really good as gives him real numbers under real conditions.....but there is wild variation shot to shot as would be expected based on conditions

[High cut]

Thanks....very good explanation.

I think my friend struggled with making good contact outdoors versus indoors and his indoor numbers are using a simulator and another machine vs trackman, i have mentioned the lack of accuracy of that approach but that is how he was fit. The Arcos seems really good as gives him real numbers under real conditions.....but there is wild variation shot to shot as would be expected based on conditions

Starting to make sense.

Sims are often not accurate period and even the good ones are often set to make golfers feel good, not real numbers.

Add in hitting off a mat and it all makes sense.

[foreright99]

Agree with you on that High Cut. I recently used the simulator at Metro Golf Dome in Scarborough. I was told they use the full swing E6 simulator. My distances were reasonably close when it came to the short and very long clubs, but i was getting very odd numbers with my mid / long irons. For example, my typical carry distance for a 5 iron is about 158.....I was getting around 185 for this simulator. Also, i didn't get the impression that it was as accurate to capture the side spin to reflect my OTT shots. With the trackman, it "accurately" reflected my shots starting left and fading right....with the E6 simulator, the ball flight went left and straight. Food for thought.

[ARL67]

FWIW I feel I swing harder indoors, as I have grooved my swing with many shots already. That, and combined with a perfect lie and perfect target alignment off a mat give me longer numbers indoors.

[High cut]

FWIW I feel I swing harder indoors, as I have grooved my swing with many shots already. That, and combined with a perfect lie and perfect target alignment off a mat give me longer numbers indoors.

That is interesting but not all that surprising.

The grooved swing part goes along with no pressure and good lies for why many people hit it better on the range than course. The other factor is your comfort level, sight lines, depth perception spacial awareness etc. in one environment vs another.

As mentioned, my iron game is very similar indoors but I just can't get comfortable hitting driver.

[ARL67]

^^^ I rarely hit Driver indoors as I just can't get comfortable ( swinging freely ) within the hitting bay's space and also with target alignment

[bl8d]

^^^ I rarely hit Driver indoors as I just can't get comfortable ( swinging freely ) within the hitting bay's space and also with target alignment

Same here. I tried but can't adjust to them either.

[Weirfan]

Same here. I tried but can't adjust to them either.

Hitting anything indoors off matts is a no go for me, especially woods

[dmcdam]

FWIW I feel I swing harder indoors, as I have grooved my swing with many shots already. That, and combined with a perfect lie and perfect target alignment off a mat give me longer numbers indoors.

I'm the same - I swing way harder indoors, especially once I'm warmed up. I remember getting fit for a driver in the early days of MG. My ss with the driver combo was averaging 106mph, and was carrying almost 270 and rolling out to over 290. While I'm not short off the tee, I'm not in that range normally.