DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**excivaamome** · 08-18-2009, 06:35 PM

You'll have a hard time selling someone that concept. People want to see results and fancy equipment if they are going to shell out any money.

People want to see how this or that may or might not work with their own eyes.They don't like to be told what they should play.You have to proved to them why they need this or that.

People will have no problem buying a $500 suit and then spend the money to have it tailored.Why,cause they want it to fit. But, these are the same folks who won't spend the money to fit themselves to that $600 set of irons.Just makes no sense to me.

Because I know how oems build,I would never play a set off the wall or even a set ordered to my specs from an OEM. They just can't get it right.

Well, I think a lot of that stems from the fact that fitting is marketed to the public as some sort of magic elixir and that's the problem.

I think that playing golf and fitting for golf is very similar to learning an instrument.

When someone wants to learn to play the piano, they're taught to play "Chopsticks" and given simple exercises and simple instruction so that they can learn the basics of where the keys are, what fingers go where and so on.

When they get to an intermediate level, they're taught to play light classical or light jazz pieces and when they become advanced, they're taught complex classical and complex jazz.

In golf and in fitting for golf, it's very similar.

When a person first learns the game, they're taught basics and how to make contact with the ball and make it go somewhere. Intermediate golfers learn more detailed aspects of the game and advanced golfers begin to delve into the finer points of shotmaking.

I think the fitting that goes with that really ought to be a three-phase process. Basic measurement-oriented fitting, then a more detailed fitting based upon a stable and mostly repeatable swing and finally, "Optimization" which draws the last few percentage points of performance potential from a person's swing.

A beginning piano player doesn't need a $50,000 concert grand piano to learn how to play. An intermediate piano player might make some beautiful music with it, but only an advanced player can make that concert grand really sing and produce the sound it was designed to produce.

I mean, look at the golf ball itself. "Tour" balls are presumably designed so that they offer good performance for average players but only a powerful swing with solid contact and high clubhead speed can activate the deep core to produce optimal distance.

Fitting is only known to the general public because it's been marketed to them. But the problem with it is that it's being marketed in a "one time" sense when it really should be an evolving thing like learning to play the piano, where each stage gets more detailed.

-JP

08-18-2009, 06:35 PM	#12
excivaamome Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 381 Senior Member	You'll have a hard time selling someone that concept. People want to see results and fancy equipment if they are going to shell out any money. People want to see how this or that may or might not work with their own eyes.They don't like to be told what they should play.You have to proved to them why they need this or that. People will have no problem buying a $500 suit and then spend the money to have it tailored.Why,cause they want it to fit. But, these are the same folks who won't spend the money to fit themselves to that $600 set of irons.Just makes no sense to me. Because I know how oems build,I would never play a set off the wall or even a set ordered to my specs from an OEM. They just can't get it right. Well, I think a lot of that stems from the fact that fitting is marketed to the public as some sort of magic elixir and that's the problem. I think that playing golf and fitting for golf is very similar to learning an instrument. When someone wants to learn to play the piano, they're taught to play "Chopsticks" and given simple exercises and simple instruction so that they can learn the basics of where the keys are, what fingers go where and so on. When they get to an intermediate level, they're taught to play light classical or light jazz pieces and when they become advanced, they're taught complex classical and complex jazz. In golf and in fitting for golf, it's very similar. When a person first learns the game, they're taught basics and how to make contact with the ball and make it go somewhere. Intermediate golfers learn more detailed aspects of the game and advanced golfers begin to delve into the finer points of shotmaking. I think the fitting that goes with that really ought to be a three-phase process. Basic measurement-oriented fitting, then a more detailed fitting based upon a stable and mostly repeatable swing and finally, "Optimization" which draws the last few percentage points of performance potential from a person's swing. A beginning piano player doesn't need a $50,000 concert grand piano to learn how to play. An intermediate piano player might make some beautiful music with it, but only an advanced player can make that concert grand really sing and produce the sound it was designed to produce. I mean, look at the golf ball itself. "Tour" balls are presumably designed so that they offer good performance for average players but only a powerful swing with solid contact and high clubhead speed can activate the deep core to produce optimal distance. Fitting is only known to the general public because it's been marketed to them. But the problem with it is that it's being marketed in a "one time" sense when it really should be an evolving thing like learning to play the piano, where each stage gets more detailed. -JP
	Quote