How Fitting Golf Clubs Got Me Into UX

Growing up I was OBSESSED with golf. For a long while working full time as a UX designer, I also worked as a golf club fitter and club-smith. Outside of repairing broken clubs, I would help players optimize their current equipment.

The process of a fitter is not very different from a UX designer. Starting with understanding what the player's goals are. Understanding their constraints (financial & physical). An evaluation of their current equipment, reviewing performance data of the clubs, their current scores, and their swing.

Here are the top 5 things that fitting golf clubs for players taught me that I apply to UX:

Lesson 1

What people say, do and think are vastly different things

The start of every fit and build begins with a player interview. For the majority of interviews, players would tell you about the longest drive they hit, the lowest score they shot.

Put simply, it's really about ego and confidence. Players I interviewed never wanted to be told they're bad golfers (or hacks), they wanted to buy into an experience that would help improve their game.

The goal was always the same: don't tell the player "The physics of what you are telling me doesn't line up..." or "The flex on your golf shaft should be lower than what you want..." but help them build the confidence needed to play.

Applying this in UX practices means trying to understand what stakeholders and customers are trying to do. Being able to ask the right questions and abstract what they want to achieve so you can come up with clever solutions when you understand the full picture.

Key learning: Turn your WHY questions into What or How questions - they're much easier to answer and feel less accusatory.

Lesson 2

Negative testing is a good thing

Sometimes the best way to show a golfer what works is to first show them what doesn't. I'd often start with a shaft that was way too stiff or a club head that was completely wrong for their swing. After a few terrible shots, we'd move to the right equipment and suddenly they could feel the difference immediately.

The contrast made the solution obvious. They weren't just taking my word for it - they experienced the problem firsthand.

In UX, I do the same thing with prototypes and user testing. Sometimes showing stakeholders a deliberately bad flow or confusing interface helps them understand why the good solution works. It's not about being manipulative - it's about creating that "aha moment" through comparison.

Key learning: Sometimes you need to show the wrong way to help people understand the right way.

Lesson 3

Numbers don't lie

Every fitting session was backed by data. Launch monitors tracked ball speed, spin rate, launch angle, carry distance. Players might feel like they hit a great shot, but the numbers would tell the real story.

I learned to present data in a way that supported the narrative, not contradicted the player's experience. "That felt great, and look - your ball speed increased by 8 mph with this setup."

In UX, metrics are everything. Users might say they love a feature, but if the data shows they're not using it or it's causing drop-offs, that's the truth we need to design around. The trick is presenting insights in a way that doesn't make stakeholders feel defensive.

Key learning: Let data guide decisions, but present it in a way that builds confidence rather than tears it down.

Lesson 4

Shut up, listen and watch

The best insights came from watching players hit balls, not from what they told me in interviews. How they addressed the ball, their tempo, what shots they gravitated toward - their behavior revealed more than their words ever could.

I'd watch for subtle things: did they take practice swings? How did they react to mishits? Did they adjust their stance between shots? These micro-behaviors told me about their confidence level, their natural tendencies, and what they actually needed (versus what they thought they needed).

UX is the same. User interviews are valuable, but watching people actually use your product reveals the truth. The hesitation before clicking, the places they scroll back up to reread, the features they avoid - behavior trumps opinions every time.

Key learning: Observe first, ask questions second. What people do is more honest than what they say.

Lesson 5

Don't underestimate the impact of little things

The final step of every fitting was the details that made players fall in love with their clubs. The grip texture that felt perfect in their hands. The paint fill color that matched their bag. The shaft graphics that looked just right.

These weren't performance improvements - they were emotional ones. But they mattered just as much because confidence affects performance. A player who loved how their clubs looked and felt would swing with more conviction.

In digital products, these are the micro-interactions, the perfect animation timing, the color that feels just right. They don't show up in A/B tests, but they create the emotional connection that turns users into advocates.

Key learning: Polish isn't vanity - it's the difference between a product people use and a product people love.

Really similar processes, just different outcomes. Both are about understanding people's goals, testing solutions, and optimizing for performance. The main difference? In golf fitting, you're optimizing for confidence and distance. In UX, you're optimizing for clarity and conversion.

But the human psychology? That stays exactly the same.