Set Makeup
I've titled this "set
makeup", but it is really only the length part of the very
important topic of set makeup. I hope to have a chapter on this before
my ebook is done.
So now we've found the maximum and minimum length irons the
golfer
can hit at all consistently, and perhaps the maximum length wood
as well. How do we translate this into a set of lengths for the
clubs the golfer needs?
In this section, I'll deal with choosing a set makeup for the
irons.
The woods can follow in this spirit, but more likely should be fit
individually
and experimentally. Note that there are fewer woods than irons in most
sets,
and they are used more "individually", rather than in a simple
progression of intended distance. (E.g. tee club, fairway club,
trouble wood.)
The first step in fitting the irons is to relate the maximum
and
minimum lengths to the "standard" lengths for the irons.
Assume that the clubs will differ by 1/2" from one to the next,
and see what the total difference will be over the set.
For instance, a conventional set from 3iron to 9iron has 6 gaps,
so the set "needs" a 3" difference from 3iron to 9iron.
(That's 6 times 1/2", or 3 inches.)
If the golfer's "comfort zone" is three inches wide (or more,
if
the set will contain more irons), then you're set. Make the set
for a 1/2" difference from club to club. Choose the actual lengths
within the range from the following considerations:
 Choose the length that results in proper lie angle with the
clubheads you intend to use. (If you can bend the clubheads, this
is not an issue.)
 Choose the longer end of the range for distance, or if the
golfer likes a heavier swingweight.
 Choose the shorter end of the range for accuracy or
consistency,
or if the golfer likes a lighter swingweight.
Note that I didn't suggest spreading the gap between clubs to use the
whole range, if the range is bigger than a 1/2" gap would fill.
That's because every set of iron heads on the market is "sequenced"
assuming a 1/2" spacing. The if you depart from this spacing, you
will have to do something special about swingweight and lie angle;
you can't just use the heads as they arrive.
If you can't "fill up" the range, just smile. You're left with a few
happy options:
 Most golfers will do better over a smaller portion of the
range, anyway.
 If the golfer is more skilled and wants to use the whole
range,
you can use the additional lengths by adding irons at the high end
(2iron, 1iron) or the low end (more wedges).
NonStandard Length Sets
But suppose the range turns out to be narrower than 1/2" times the
number of gaps in the intended set. You have two options:
Go with fewer clubs.
Don't dismiss this out of hand. A narrow range generally indicates
a lessskilled golfer. Removing long irons is generally the best
prescription for improving a golf score.
Unfortunately, many golfers' egos don't deal well with this
suggestion.
There is a "Plan B".
Go with narrower gaps than 1/2".
This can be made to work, but it requires more work than just cutting
the lengths closer together.
 The clubs must be bent for lie angle, because most sets as
sold assume
that the length increment will be 1/2".
 Something must be done about swingweight, because most sets
as sold assume
that the length increment will be 1/2".
 Flex must be tuned to the narrower increment, because most
shafts as sold assume
that the length increment will be 1/2".
A word about the swingweight: The first 20% of narrowing the range
(down to a .4" increment) could be justified on the basis of moving
from a swingweightmatched set to a momentofinertiamatched
set.
After that, you will have to deal with the fact that the long irons
are relatively lighter and the short irons relatively heavier, due
to the difference in length. You will either have to modify the
heads or "live with it".
For comparison purposes, here is the difference between a "standard"
(halfinch
increment) set and a completely constantlength set of irons.
I have used Max
Dupilka's "Trajectory"
program to calculate the carry distances for a normal
(halfinch) set and a
constantlength set.
The range is compressed a bit, compared with a normal set, but
not
a lot. (105171 yards, compared with 103177 yards.) But that's not
the big difference. The constantlength set has a swingweight
difference of twenty points between the 3iron (lightest) and the
9iron (heaviest). The distance curves assume the customer can
properly swing a set with that big a difference. I have factored in
the distance vs. head weight curves from Cochran and Stobbs;
it reflects
the fact that the lighter 3iron will be swung faster. But those
curves come from golfers skilled enough to hit a very wide range of
swingweights. We probably wouldn't be talking about making
a set like this for highly skilled golfers. (But we might. Bryson
DeChambeau on the PGA Tour plays a singlelength set of irons. He has a
lot of other things that are different about his game as well.)
More recently,
clubheads have been introduced with constant weights across the set 
specifically intended to be used in constantlength sets. I have repeated the study
with this assumption and a lot more detail.

Other LengthRelated
Effects
You can increase or decrease length, but not without affect the other
wholeclub characteristics. We'll see this in detail in the
following chapters, but here's a preview:

Swing Plane and Lie Angle
are affected directly, and in a big way. The angle of the club at
impact is necessarily related to the swing plane,
as we'll see in the next
section. For now, let's just say that the longer the club
relative to the golfer,
the flatter the swing plane and the flatter the lie angle.
This can be good or bad. Consider a few examples:

A very tall longtime golfer has learned to cope with "normal" clubs by
developing a very upright swing plane. He finally goes for custom
clubs,
and the clubmaker uses the "rule of thumb" to make him a set with
standard
lies and a correspondingly greater length. The golfer will have to
relearn the swing on a new plane. It
would have been better for the golfer, the clubmaker, and a good
teaching
pro to decide in advance what swing plane (and, by implication, what
length and lie)
would be a good compromise between "classic" and what he already knows.
This would probably result in a set somewhat longer and somewhat more
upright
than "standard".
 A relatively short, athletic woman with a strong swing
finds that clubs
sold as "women's clubs" are too short and light for her. She needs the
increased resistance of a higher swingweight, and can make use of it to
increase her distance. (She may also want a stiffer shaft, but we'll save
that for another chapter.) It's clear in this case that the clubmaker
wants
to go long, and make up for it with a flatter lie.
I chose a woman for the example, because on average
women are shorter
than men; that has led to some assumptions about "women's clubs" that
are
unwarranted except in the average. But anyone who has taken a good look
at Gary Player or Ian Woosnam (two short male pros) swing a club now
knows
where their distance comes from.
 Swingweight
increases by about 6 points for each inch of increased
length. We'll learn in a following chapter what this means. For the
time being,
let's just say it will make a big difference in the way the club hefts,
and something of a difference in the way it swings.
 Flex
may be effectively stiffened by shortening the club.
All other things being equal, the club will vibrate faster if
it is shorter. Whether you consider this stiffer depends on:
 How you lengthen the club, by trimming at the tip or
the butt.
 What theory you subscribe to relating frequency to
stiffness.
(There are several competing theories, as we shall see.)
So you can't select length in a vacuum.
It is important to fit the golfer with the correct length clubs,
but every change in length requires revisiting several other aspects
of the design.
Last modified May 8 2017
