Opinion & Analysis
Adams: When modern day fittings aren’t so modern
In the comments from my story on golf equipment costs, there was some confusion on how equipment companies could be restricted by the USGA on distance and still be marketing drivers that “go farther.” It brought to mind one of my earlier ideas that, like many others, that did not make the cut into the marketplace.
This took place many years ago, and my thought process was such that I knew that it took more speed to deliver a longer-shafted club to the ball, hence producing more distance. Anyone remember the “Killer Bee,” the next great breakthrough? My tests were pre-killer bee.
I also knew it was more difficult to get the head back to square with a longer shaft, and nothing helps distance more than hitting the ball on the sweet spot. For the record, the reason that it’s been called the “sweet spot” is due to that solid, soft feel at impact. What you’re feeling is the absence of vibration, a form of wasted energy, which is more beneficial when imparted to the golf ball.
So to help offset the problems associated with the longer shaft, I decided to incorporate a bigger club head with maximum perimeter weighting, with the club length measuring slightly over 48 inches. Today, the maximum allowable club length is 48 inches, but this preceded the USGA limits. I had experimented with even longer clubs, but felt that 48 inches was the best option given the head weight with which I was experimenting.
You may notice the absence of computer simulations, launch data, or anything suggesting sophistication by today’s standards. For years I was kind of a technically unsophisticated one-man band who took ideas from the range to our shop, worked them until they were worthy of a field test and went back to the range.
After months of effort, I went to the range with my 48.75-inch driver knowing that finding lost yards awaited me. It didn’t happen. In fact, I LOST yardage compared to my old faithful! The problem wasn’t not getting the extra speed, but was the inability to hit the ball consistently on the sweet spot. I tried variations, shortened the shaft, installed a longer one, experimented with counterbalancing, different head sizes, etc., and within a consistent margin of error got the same results — NEGATIVE!
“Maybe it’s just me,” I thought. So I used my personal test group (the folks who came to the Haney Ranch where I was the club fitter) and over a few months collected a significant data base. The results were mixed; some liked it, but only after they hit a lot of balls.
I had a system for club fitting and it was designed to mirror the golf experience as closely as possible. You warmed up, and when your body was ready I had you “tee off” with your driver. Then I handed you the new club you’d be testing. The first swing I overlooked because the new club usually looked much different. It took golfers that first swing to get comfortable. The second consecutive swing was the key!
If you didn’t hit the new club as advertised, whether it be longer or straighter, it wasn’t the answer. Because two shots didn’t seem like enough for most golfers, I allowed three or even four tries, but I generally discounted the extra results anyway.
Why did I discount extra shots? The objective was to find a club that worked for the player “under course conditions.” After the second try, the results were an indication of the player’s ability to adjust to the club and I wanted the opposite. I want the club to fit the player. This, by the way, was the cornerstone of the fitting system I used. For those about to question my sanity, I collected and analyzed reams of data and statistical analysis was in my background.
I mention this because in occasional trips to golf stores I see potential customers banging balls while the salesperson collects results. The best few shots will be pointed out as “what the club can do for you,” and this makes me run to the shoe department to avoid conflict.
The ending to my failed long driver story is intriguing. I ended up giving the club to a friend who was maybe a 15-handicap, and he killed it!
He thought I was a genius, and that’s the story of modern “technically advantageous” equipment in a nutshell. It’s applicable to some and lousy for others. I realized that concept just 20 years ago!
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Pingpro1959
Sep 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Kind of a confusing article Barney…ten years ago I went to a seminar Adams put on in Cleveland, OH where we were told that your new 45.5″ drivers did not affect accuracy…Hmmmmm
JIMMY
Sep 23, 2014 at 11:30 pm
LOL no answer to that one eh “czar”
Double Mocha Man
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:44 am
The “Killer Bee” driver! Ah yes, I remember an older gentleman bringing that thing to our golf course driving range. With a 7-8 foot shaft he couldn’t hit from the bays, too confined… he had to find an open area and hit off the grass. He loved to have people watch him in awe and ask questions. He’d hit a few good ones every now and then. That’s all he did. He never ventured onto the golf course to play a round. In fact, I never saw him with any other clubs.
Joe Golfer
Sep 18, 2014 at 12:33 am
Wonder where he got that shaft?
You say the club was 7 to 8 feet long?
Even long drive aftermarket shafts have limits on how long they are, and I’d guess that the longest the average person could make a club might be around 50″ with a special “Long Driver” shaft, perhaps even using a 2″ graphite extension at the butt end.
The Killer Bee that was sold in stores was 48″ long in total length.
The only time I’ve seen a club that was 7 to 8 feet in length was in a show put on by a “trick shot” artist.
Rodan
Sep 12, 2014 at 9:31 am
For me Barney’s fitting concept would be right in line. My warm up is stretching and about 5 practice swings on the tee. My first ball of the day is the one I tee off with on #1. My first ball may not be long (avg 250 yds) but it is usually straight. I gain some length as I play and the ball stays straight (within reason).
I was fit with this driver and it was one of two that I could perform with from swing 1.
Steve Barry
Sep 11, 2014 at 6:05 pm
You say this 15 handicapper ‘killed it’. Your name is Barney, starts with a ‘B’. Does this guy happen to be the guy who came out with the Killer Bee? I do remember that club, though I was a young pup when it came out.
Think about it….Killer “B”.
Makes sense to me…
Gautama
Sep 11, 2014 at 2:22 pm
“in occasional trips to golf stores I see potential customers banging balls while the salesperson collects results. The best few shots will be pointed out as “what the club can do for you”
I think this is a really important point to remember in fittings. We all know what it’s like to really “find my swing” during a range session, usually after some trial, error, and repetition, or just leaving the office behind and settling into things. Suddenly it all clicks and you’re in the zone and feeling like Hogan. I find the exact same thing happens during a fitting session, and it’s really easy to attribute it all to whatever club or shaft is in my hands at that moment. And if I put that “magic moment” club down and move to another, my mind is already telling me that this new one isn’t the one. So then I buy the magic combo, go out to play, and find that not all that much has really changed – I just happened to find my “A” swing during the fitting while that particular combo was in my hands, and that great swing is now nowhere to be found on the first tee!
Same thing used to happen with women when I was younger, but that’s probably a whole other confession and forum 🙂
Matthew
Sep 11, 2014 at 10:12 am
Hitting 10-20 balls with a driver on a launch monitor can be a practical way to do a fitting. You must be smart enough to logically look at the data though. If you hit 10 balls you should throw out the 3 worst & 3 best and look at your median result averages. Similar theory goes to if you hit 20 balls.
It’s the same theory as the guy that claims he hits his driver 315+. Yes one time you may hit it 315, but what about the other 20 swings where you averaged 220?
I would never base my fitting on only taking 2 swings with a club. As a matter of fact, I typically hit a club on multiple occasions over multiple days before making a buying decision. I know with my swing as a 9 HC that it changes wildly from day to day and I like to get a feel for what the club will do on my “off” days.
Alex
Sep 11, 2014 at 10:05 am
I firmly believe if you hit a new club 3 or 4 times and hit it ok, it’s for you. Same happens with ball flight, it’s the best judge.
Pingback: Adams: When Modern Day Fittings Aren’t So Modern | Golf Gear Select
Corey Clarkin
Sep 10, 2014 at 11:23 pm
As a PGA Member and the head club fitter at a club in DFW that currently does not posses “technology”(launch monitor) I have increased club sales by over 200% by doing traditional fittings that involve the players feel and analysis of ball flight. We are a large club surrounded by competition with technology. The only thing we did different from the past was set up on the range with all of our fitting and demo equipment simply letting the members try the product under a trained eye. My question is this; would you back up your fitting recommendations in the past against a launch monitor today? Furthermore how would you accomplish the goal of guaranteeing members’ confidence in you without said technology?
Brian
Sep 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Corey, I applaud your successes with the use of what you have. I would tend to lean towards how you do fittings, lean on the PGA Professional for flight analysis and information while letting your Members test on a real range. However, like you inquired to Mr. Adams about, I would then consult the technology to back up my findings and “fine tweak” the fitting. I have been to your range, great facility, however with longer hitters, you cannot gauge how the ball reacts after it hits the ground there. A simple adjustment in shaft that could, theoretically, lower the spin by 200/300/400 rpm and could contribute to more roll out and in turn, a happier member. That data can only be found with technology. I’ll introduce myself next time I’m at your club.
barney adams
Sep 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm
I don’t think you can escape launch monitor data even though you can fit without it. My argument is it’s a tool, not the be all, end all. Members confidence will come from their positive results and telling their friends. Where are you guys?
Brian
Sep 18, 2014 at 11:42 am
I agree Mr. Adams, the launch monitor should be a secondary tool, not the main source. If all that was used is a launch monitor, Professional fittings would be defunct, all you would need is a “data cruncher” instead of a pair of trained eyes. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that is how things are viewed and how things are trending.
Corey Clarkin is out of Trophy Club Country Club in Trophy Club, TX. Wonderful golf club with a Ben Hogan designed course and another course donned with Kathy Whitworth’s name.
Stu
Sep 10, 2014 at 8:46 pm
From a Adams Hybrid and Iron player: what if i hit five shots and all were good except the second? I realize i don’t have to hit 30 shots to realize if a club fits me but as a 8 handicap i am going to have the occasional miss even like the PGA tour pros (LOL). Of course distance is important but to me straight and consistent are much more important.
Barney Adams
Sep 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm
In any analysis there are exceptions that fall outside the limits. I used my procedure of three enough to be very confident I was doing the best job for my customers. And the formula wasn’t just distance it was accuracy and distance.
steve
Sep 10, 2014 at 7:27 pm
He is right on..I can tell if I like a club with 2 swings every time
nikkyd
Sep 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Some people are skilled enough and have had enough repetitions with swinging a golf club, that any club they grab , should work (or make it work). I get ya mr. Adams. You said it was an experiment after all.
Johnny
Sep 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm
It is only logic and accounts for all kinds of clubs, even in other sports like tennis or baseball. Physics defines that the speed at the end of the lever increases with its length but also does the rotational moment of inertia as well as torque.
Jive
Sep 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm
I’m a firm believer you take an iron to a driver fitting. Hit the driver, then switch to hit the iron. If you snap hook the driver, then hit a punch iron shot. That mimics the game a little.
How do you truly get into a rhythm in golf, with 14 clubs in the bag different lies and shots, and 12 minutes in between driver swings. I like Mr. Adams approach. We always talk about a driver stops working once you buy it. Maybe it was working because you learned how to groove it by hitting 10+ shots in a row. I’m enjoying your articles Mr. Adams, keep them coming.
Tom Duckworth
Sep 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
I get what he is saying. Taking into account a persons tempo and swing speed even with the naked eye a good fitter should be able to give a club to a golfer that should fit them and that club should feel “right” with one swing. I think most golfers that hit twenty or thirty shots with a club would be able to figure out how to make about any club work. Maybe that club wouldn’t be the best for them but you could hit it in the store and get some good results. Hitting it over and over it would start to feel OK after awhile.
I have trouble telling the difference between two drivers hitting them 50 feet or so into a giant net. They both would feel OK but I really like to see ball flight on the range that is the best feedback. I also think if you see a ball flight that you like that club will tend to feel good to you. I think when most of us hit with a new club how it feels is the first thought in our minds. I thing everyone has picked up an iron,putter or driver in a store hit it once and put it down after on swing because it didn’t feel good..
Anders Pedersen
Sep 10, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Definently getting the point ofthis article. I’ve just been at the local store getting fitted for new Woods. I tried the first couple of models on my wishlist, after 10-15 hits I didnt get more than that 2-3 perfect hits. The pro then found another driver made the adjustments he had seen in my swing and data collected, and “BOOM”! Pretty much instant results, my fade/slice was pretty much gone, the ones hit on the toe, buttom – gone… this fitter new his trade and the articles main point “the equip should fit you, not the other way around” is right on the spot for my fitting session. I actually hit the very first drive, with was has become my new driver, right in the middle, going longer and straighter than I ever think Ive hit a driver before…
Kudos to the author ! (and the Pro @ GolfExpertenAarhus he knows what he is doing)
Carl
Sep 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I can’t say I’ve ever seen many people warming up fully before testing a club so I’m not sure the second shot is going to be representative of how the person actually swings a club.
dr bloor
Sep 10, 2014 at 5:33 pm
If your club fitter hasn’t made sure you’ve warmed up before you start testing, you need another club fitter.
barney adams
Sep 11, 2014 at 9:56 pm
If you’re a fitter it’s your job to get them warmed up
dr bloor
Sep 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm
I recently had a fitting for irons using pretty much the same approach. No machines, three shots a club/shaft combo. He’d watch my swing, I’d focus on how the club felt, we’d look at the ball flight and impact mark on the club face. More than enough for my purposes, and with great results.
Justin
Sep 10, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Well said. Too many people spend way too much time chasing numbers. Even if they could manage 2, 3, or even 4 in a row that fit into the “ideal”, how often are they going to do that in “game conditions”? Even then, would it matter? Flighting a ball for wind changes, you’re aforementioned punch shots, etc. happen quite a bit, and “optimizing” in a game that isn’t played in an optimized environment it is just a waste.
phatchrisrules
Sep 10, 2014 at 2:17 pm
I’m not sure if this article is supposed to be satire or not….but….come on? One shot with a brand new club and you immediately are supposed to discard it if the result is less than optimal? Even the first shot with my (long time) gamer driver after a range session doesn’t always net a piped drive down the gut. Golf is hard, and your average player certainly is not skilled by any stretch of the imagination.
So in your testing before, did you tell the person to immediately buy the driver IF they hit the first one well? I can see the threads now if that was the case: “GG/Dicks/GS Employee Only Gave Me One Shot With A Driver And Told Me To Look No Further”…that company would be crucified. Coming from 10 years in the big box golf retail business, I can tell you yes, we do prune out some shots. However, these are usually the abysmally bad strikes such as a 115 yard pull hook with a launch 0.2 degrees that ended up 97 yards offline. How is that data even remotely helpful in the selection process? Short answer: it isn’t. Now if a person is doing that continually with one club, then we try a second, maybe a third, and if the pattern continues, it’s time to suggest a lesson.
Now being the founder of Adams, surely to heaven you aren’t dumb. Your product caters to the higher handicap, and then you have a small, but albeit damn good (and expensive!) pro line of equipment. And you know, being a large pusher of distance in the past, that this demand for more distance at the sacrifice of accuracy is a bed you helped design, at least on the periphery. I can remember as far back as the A3 line, and help me out here, that’s got to be pushing 2005/2006, your lofts were markedly stronger than most, and your woods and irons touted lengths at least 1/2 an inch longer than most other company’s standards.
I’m not trying to dump on your company, far from it, I think you guys make an amazing product. I’m really just confused at the double standard of “Rah Rah Rah distance is king” to “forget distance, accuracy is key, sweetspot is key, and anyone who pushes distances is an idiot” tone I get from this article.
Any responses would be appreciated.
Barney Adams
Sep 10, 2014 at 7:53 pm
To start. I always asked the customer their objective before a fitting session. I KNEW distance was critical along with whatever they said. If they really wanted to improve and had terrible swings I’d send them for lessons.
I stand by my system of the club fitting the player. Sometimes you ” finessed” the situation but I knew the best service I could give was a club that fit them.
I don’t at all disparage distance in the article. I was searching for playable distance not one or two shots out of a bucket of balls.
Master fitter
Sep 14, 2014 at 1:04 am
Agreed. As a certified fitter at a big box store, this fitting method would be considered asinine and dismissive leading to the customer flying out the door.
Joe Golfer
Sep 18, 2014 at 12:52 am
Barney’s last name is Adams, but it was my understanding that he no longer owned a golf company, nor had he for quite some time now.
TaylorMade owns Adams Golf, and I don’t think Barney works for TaylorMade.
I don’t think Barney was involved in the running of Adams Golf company for any of the years you mention, so it’s really not relevant to call him out for the club line being built for distance type of stuff.
I’m surprised that Barney himself didn’t mention that he’s not a company owner anymore, at least to the best of my knowledge.
He is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to equipment though.
If Barney Adams is currently pushing the idea of accuracy, hitting the sweet spot, as opposed to building clubs extra long for distance, I don’t see any contradiction in his philosophy since he hasn’t owned Adams Golf for a long long time.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t owned a major company in this current century.
Perhaps he’ll respond and contradict my knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding his ownership or current position with any established golf company.
I suspect that Barney didn’t have anything to do with the loft strengthening or the length increasing of irons, whether the Adams brand or any other.
Let’s face it, there’s a reason they sell clubs in 4-GW now.
It’s the exact same set as the old 3-PW of when Barney Adams was in charge of a business. All that’s changed is the number on the sole of the club. And companies keep strengthening the lofts such that soon one will need even more wedges.
Josh
Sep 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Even thought I read through the article twice, I still don’t understand what the point is. However, please let the world know where a 15 handicapper is fitted with a 48 inch driver. I’m sure everyone would want to know so they can avoid the place.
LB
Sep 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm
I don’t think he’s trying to change the world with this article, just pointing out that hitting 30 shots and only taking the results from the 10 best isn’t the right way to get set up.
The alternative and more real-life applicable is getting handed a club and hitting it well immediately. That’s the one you want at your 7:20 tee time hitting your first drive of the week.
Barney Adams
Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm
The point is finding a club that fits you ant it WAS a 15 who loved it. Thought I was a genius !
Martin
Sep 10, 2014 at 9:48 pm
This was 20+ years ago, he experimented with a super long shaft.
For Barney it didn’t work, so he gave it to a friend who liked it.
End of story.
I personally can easily disgard a club after 2 shots, and generally hit anything well after 5-6 shots in a row with the same one.
AND
I’m not that good.
bradford
Sep 11, 2014 at 7:52 am
I know plenty of 15’s that could handle a 48″ driver…they just can’t putt.
gvogel
Sep 10, 2014 at 1:30 pm
Brilliant!
IF the second shot with a new club is poor, return it to the rack. There is so much wisdom in this article.