Fitting comparisons
Comparing Two Builds: What Changed Besides the Club?
A fitting comparison should establish which tested build better serves the player’s objective. It should also make clear what changed, what stayed consistent, and what the session cannot prove.
By FORJ
Source-backed educational guide. Fitting suggestions are editorial guidance, not FORJ test results or an expert-approved fitting protocol.
Build B carries farther. Its dispersion looks tighter. The player likes it.
That may be enough to justify further testing. Before declaring a winner, however, ask whether A and B were tested on sufficiently comparable terms.
The question is not whether the session resembled a laboratory experiment. It is whether the evidence supports the recommendation being made.
Decide what the comparison is for
There are two different questions:
Which complete build works better for this player?
The head, shaft, length, and weighting may differ. The result informs a choice between those complete configurations.
What happens when we change one specification?
The other specifications should remain as consistent as practical. Otherwise, attribution becomes difficult.
Neither question is inherently better. Problems arise when a complete-build comparison is described as proof that one component caused the improvement.
If head, loft, shaft, and length changed together, the session can support a recommendation for that tested combination. It cannot independently identify which change produced the result.
Establish the baseline
Begin with the player’s objective and current equipment. Record the baseline rather than relying on the player’s longest remembered shot.
A useful comparison record includes:
| Record | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Intended shot and target | Establishes what success means |
| Build specifications | Identifies the actual equipment comparison |
| Ball and hitting surface | Documents test conditions |
| Monitor settings and normalization status | Makes the reporting basis explicit |
| Test order and breaks | Records when each sample was collected |
| Included and excluded shots | Makes the summaries interpretable |
If needed, scroll this table horizontally. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
This is a recommended documentation framework—not a scientifically validated FORJ protocol.
Check whether the player changed
The golfer is part of the test.
A later group may follow more warm-up, a new swing intention, or fatigue. In Trackman’s published discussion with fitter Tom Davies, session structure and fatigue are practical concerns—not background details.
Our recommendation is to note meaningful changes and revisit the baseline or leading candidate when useful. A return test can reveal that the earlier pattern no longer holds. It does not automatically eliminate order effects or prove causation.
Preserve the evidence behind the summary
Trackman’s documentation makes an important point: the selected shots determine the displayed average.
Keep valid misses relevant to the player’s game. Separate them from confirmed measurement failures or deliberately different shot types. Record exclusions and their reasons rather than applying different standards to the preferred candidate.
Then inspect carry variation, lateral pattern, flight, strike, and golfer feedback alongside the averages.
There is no universal shot count established by this guide. If the apparent advantage depends on one exceptional shot or disappears when the baseline is retested, collect more evidence or describe the result as unresolved.
The next test
Ask three questions before recommending:
- Did the candidate improve the outcome the player actually wanted?
- Does the observed pattern hold up on retest?
- Can we explain the decision without claiming more than the comparison established?
“Keep the current club” and “test again” are legitimate conclusions.
Choose the better-supported build—not the better-looking summary.
Sources & editorial note
- Trackman: Shot Analysis—Standard Deviation and Shot Selection
- Trackman Talks: Tour-Level Fitting with Tom Davies
The checklist and retesting recommendations are editorial guidance. They do not establish statistical significance or guarantee on-course improvement.
Source-backed educational guide. Fitting suggestions are editorial guidance, not FORJ test results or an expert-approved fitting protocol. Links identify the original publishers and do not imply their endorsement.