The Effects of Custom-Fitted Clubs versus “Placebo” Clubs on Golf-Swing Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the use of custom-fitted equipment is on the rise in the game of golf, empirical data as to its benefits and/or pitfalls is lacking. The current study sought to determine the effectiveness of custom-fitted clubs in the golf swing performance of both novice and experienced golfers. A launch monitor system was used to obtain measures of clubhead speed, clubface angle, and tempo to quantify baseline performance and any subsequent change in performance following the experimental procedures. Following a pre-test, which involved recording 12 swings with a standard 6-iron, participants were custom fit for club length, shaft flex, and lie angle according to the Henry-Griffitts TotalTest® system. Post-tests were administered following a 10-minute break. During the post-test, participants unknowingly used either a properly fitted club, a purposely ill-fitted (i.e., ‘placebo’ club), or the same standard club used in the pre-test. Our data suggest that custom club fitting does improve the characteristics of the golf swing, although often in different ways depending upon the skill level of the player.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".