Sadly and hilariously at the same time, both Stuart and Howard (along with many others) regularly acknowledge that really bad and incorrect information continues to be taught and/or spread regarding clubfitting, yet they themselves often post inaccurate information and continue to perpetuate such erroneous matter about multiple subjects.

Just one of these subjects (but hardly the only one) is swingweight. This epitomizes why the clubfitting industry has been and continues to be such an unqualified joke, glaringly displaying a situation that continues to embarrass the entire game and influence more and more people to find some other activity more worthy of their time and effort.

Based on their written explanations, neither Stuart nor Howard has ever personally been able to experience first hand how swingweight does and is meant to function, perhaps because their personal golfing motions have never technically matched up well with the specification’s design (which very broadly tends to favor more practiced players). This is why their beliefs about swingweighting lack sound logic, prompting many to shake their heads in distrust amid growing trade infamy.

This often happens among so-called clubfitters that are more book-taught and do not have sufficient practical performing experience to reliably compare against theories they think they correctly learned from others. So they are reduced to just blindly repeating whatever (often equally blind) people before them stated (like but hardly limited to swingweighting being meant as a form of MOI [Moment of Insanity] club matching, a complete fallacy).

Anyway, swingweight scale readings are not incorrect or fooled as grip weight changes. The workable swingweight value of a golf club is just as the scale reads, grip installed and all, and with the true swingweight value of a club changing as grip weight changes. This is how it ultimately works for most golfers whose swings have developed normally, just as the scale was developed by its inventor (helped by select best golfers of the day).

In correct theory, a completed golf club as measured by a swingweight scale is the only swingweight value that matters. Do not try to make it more complex than that, because on a foundational level it is not (though ably proceeding from there does become slightly more involved). Anyone stating differently is red-flag deficient in properly knowing not just one but two topics, both clubfitting and how decent swing performance develops.

I hope this inspires fr8dog to stay in the game and not get too discouraged by the glut of uniformed responses by others that promote failure and needless confusion among golfers. I mean honestly, one can easily look back now and state how ignorant people were when virtually everyone on the planet truly believed the world was flat (amusing to many now, but not very amusing then and relatively not all that long ago). Many in golf think they are too smart for such a thing to happen to them, yet it is happening to them right now.

Not meaning to dismiss or hijack kody17’s original inquiry, it would largely depend upon which grip size (midsize or jumbo) is a better fit for your present swing mechanics. (The grip pressure concept is another farce within the clubfitting trade, silliness that might be comparable with choosing your shaft based on the pressure of the underwear being worn). Without being able to actually observe your swing and check out a thing or two, it would be pure guesswork attempting a more definitive answer.

If you are not able to determine the answer on your own (no launch monitor is needed) and generally do not trust the clubfitting industry (a well-grounded view that has rightly become more widespread in more recent times), then consider searching for a qualified clubfitting consultant. On a personal or business level, that could help you conquer the comedy of errors still being made by the commercial trade and achieve greater success.

Your post pretty much exemplifies everything that I originally stated.

I do not know what brought about your comments specifically surrounding shaft weight and balance point, as I never stated that the shaft and/or certain shaft parameters should be completely brushed off or anything even close to that.

But based on your perception and comments, anyone capable of fitting a golf club to a golfer’s swing knows which other club specification(s) needs to be adjusted and in what manner(s) in order to help bring out the golfer’s best swinging when weights and/or balance points of various shafts differ. This is rather elementary clubfitting knowledge and universal in nature.

Then again, if one does not really know how to fit a club to a golfer’s swing, and one is in a different world of really only knowing how to use a launch monitor and its numbers to basically just alter ball travel results (the strike as you term it is merely an element of ball travel result), then naturally one (actually an entire trade here) would not likely possess the education and skill needed to enact the above.

It is funny (yet sad) how most appear to agree about how much the clubfitting industry is generally stinking up the whole game currently, that is unless of course they are referring to themselves, where then everybody is an exception and never part of the problem.

And when I state that the entire trade from top to bottom desperately needs to be reeducated and retrained basically from the ground up if it ever hopes to possibly recover and grow, the statement is blindly ignored and so no progress can be made.

The bulk of my work that I have decided to display to this point is viewable. Just not here, as various terms of the forum actually discourage the posting of any original, corrected, and advanced materials (and it is working, at least for me) unless one is a paying sponsor of the site. So in the end it is hardly an open and unbiased forum, which is fairly easy to see.

Among these terms, for all practical purposes anything posted becomes virtually owned by the site. This is no big deal for the types of rehashed materials that have been around seemingly forever, but a different matter altogether for new material capable of guiding the industry forward. So regarding sharing any original work directly on the forum, especially information that technically corrects past erroneous materials, currently I cannot do that despite a strong desire to help poor golfers (and clubfitters).

It is admittedly a frequent struggle trying to decide whether to post any original matter directly on this and/or similar sites to publicize it more quickly (but with a potentially very heavy price to pay of gravely diluting any intellectual property rights), or refrain from posting any original matter directly on such sites, likely further delaying any spreading of my work.

The latter has won out thus far and I sense no immediate changes. Under the circumstances, I mostly limit my forum comments to rehashed information already very commonly known (some of this rehashed information is indeed correct) and/or pointing out where the industry is flawed for example yet stopping short of directly posting any required solutions. With that and within the scope of my work and research results, I am justly abiding by the published terms devised by the forum site.

If you are content with the current state of the industry and the ongoing inaccurate forum postings (made by people who have helped make a mess of a situation that already existed in golf even worse over time with such public comments), then so be it.

But if you desire corrected, advanced information and solutions that the industry needs very badly right now and that can help move the game forward rather than backward, then you will need to reference a separate site for that or suggest any other acceptable alternatives if hoping to see any of that information posted directly here. Any honest feedback is appreciated.

The deterioration of the clubfitting industry to the pathetic state it is currently in might seem somewhat abrupt to certain people, but it has actually been occurring over a very long time already.

And with due respect to the man, Wishon, probably more than any other single individual, has contributed to long, slow declines in the performance and reputation of the clubfitting trade as a whole, declines that started or accelerated when his brand of clubfitting material began to be released.

He started with some of what (Ralph) Maltby began, but instead of improving on it Wishon took much of it in a backward direction based on his own experiences. Maybe the man is the greatest clubhead designer that ever lived. But that is primarily a totally different, full-time occupation in and of itself than that of clubfitting. And it is a plain fact that Wishon is not very good at knowing clubfitting.

As far as the PCS, I vaguely recall that it went bust largely because someone embezzled its funds, but it was already falling apart anyway mainly because of the flawed clubfitting instruction it provided. (I have no first-hand knowledge about how much if any of the organization’s materials were developed based on Wishon’s work, so I will have to defer to you about that).

But I am informing you here that if you practiced swingweighting and grip-sizing techniques the way you learned them from the PCS and as you described them in this thread, then you were right in the middle of an extended downturn that contributed to the delinquency of the clubfitting trade, eventually resulting in where the pitiful industry sits today.

And now you, like countless others in more recent times, have learned why the clubfitting industry has become such a laughable joke that continues to contribute to the diminishing popularity and reputation of and participation in the game.

Some might chime in and attempt to say that a demo day is not a real clubfitting and that you need to search out an entity that is more comprehensive. But more comprehensive entities are commonly even worse than demo days. Obsessing about the shaft as being the most critical club component is one (though hardly the only) telltale sign of an incompetent clubfitting process.

Fancy launch monitors are merely glorified devices for fitting clubs based on ball travel results. And they have turned the heads of gullible golfers (and clubfitters alike) so easily that this has resulted in the pitiful trade not even knowing how to fit a club to a golfer’s swing anymore. (At least there was some semblance of some people able to do this before launch monitors helped to reveal how truly bad the trade currently is overall).

There are people that have posted here as many as 20,000 times or more and yet still have no idea whatsoever of what swingweighting even is and/or how to fit grip size so a golfer can accomplish his/her maximum swing speed and control. Unless and until this (rightly) ridiculed industry is retrained and reeducated essentially from the ground up with competent clubfitting theories and practices, the whole game will continue to move more toward complete extinction, guaranteed.

And with all due respect, this includes relearning what you previously learned in order to become a “Class A” clubfitter (whatever that is supposed to signify). The swingweighting and grip sizing procedures as you learned and described them in order to gain your certification are dead wrong. Yes, the clubfitting trade is this bad from top to bottom, no exaggeration needed.

You appear to have a firm belief through knowledge and experience that once a grip size is determined for you, the same size should be used on all of your clubs (not really counting the putter) in order to play your best.

This is a major, debilitating flaw in clubfitting process that is hurting and limiting you, and just one of numerous elements that helps differentiate between clubfitters that are able to get the most out of one’s swing and game and clubfitters that cannot.

The bottom line is are you more interested in having all of your grips feel the same size to you throughout all of your clubs, or are you more interested in playing as well as you are capable of? These are very different priorities that can actually conflict with each other.

Evidence of how to competently fit for critical grip size goes back to at least the middle of the last century. If you have never properly learned this skill anywhere, you might consider a qualified, paid clubfitting consultant to help guide you through the process.

Perhaps Stuart is right about my gold standard comment, so I clarify here. Compared with loony MOI golf club matching, swingweight is certainly still the gold standard of golf club matching. Assuming that one properly understands the mechanics of both specifications, and even though it admittedly does not work consistently for everyone, swingweight can at least be called a legitimate golf club specification. It comprises a rational concept(s) that golfers can use to help regulate their swings and that golfers of all abilities can appreciate.

MOI theory and practice, on the other hand, comprise multiple irrational concepts on multiple levels that are so absurd (even for golfers) and can easily hurt one’s swing performance, it is almost as if supporters of the specification are purposely trying to destroy their own industry (and they are succeeding). Selecting between the two is a no brainer for anyone who really wants to be able to swing and play his/her best, unless as mentioned above the technicalities of one or both specifications are not comprehended properly.

I know it is typically ignored, like trudging through a long contract in many cases. But even if just quickly browsing through the published posting terms of most if not all of the noted forums, one would promptly learn that they are anything but fair, equal, and open. And as a result they habitually produce extremely poor quality material. They are in fact commonly quite biased, regularly participated in by countless so-called “experts.” Many of them post thousands (if not tens of thousands) of times while having no idea what they are writing about, particularly regarding certain golf swing and clubfitting topics.

Exact details can vary from site to site. But such terms can range from sites in essence owning anything that is posted by anyone, prohibiting self-linking to any new educational material developed by anyone that is not a paying sponsor, and/or moderators and/or administrators (people that are often the least knowledgeable regarding the above topics) routinely having the power to alter anything posted in any manner desired. This is just a small sampling of various terms.

No one with half a brain would ever post any original and/or protectable material on sites having such terms, especially advanced material that is lawfully the first to correct the countless faulty swing and clubfitting concepts within the game of golf that have been published in the past. Forums having such terms lack integrity and show little to no respect for the postings of participants. This is certainly reflected in the second-rate quality and reputation that such sites have overall. The common result is a glut of self-proclaimed know-it-all participants that are really just pretenders and really only capable of rehashing faulty materials of the past over and over and over again.

On the whole and since becoming rather commonplace, such forums and the laughable nonsense they continue to produce have actually been noticeably contributing to the delinquency, declining popularity and reputation of, and participation in the game of golf. That is a real shame. I am sure that everyone has heard about how fallacious information can potentially be as found on the Internet. Present golf forums prove how very true this can be, so beware. But perhaps in the future there will be one or more sites developed that will be of far higher quality and actually help the game of golf rather than hurt it.