Are all 7 irons created equal? The answer is yes.

Morning WRX. I had some time on my break on Sunday to try a test I have been wanting to do for a long time. A lot of people here, on other sites, and in the golf media are becoming more and more disgruntled with "strong lofted" irons and how it is cheating the consumer into believing they are hitting it farther. I have even had some customers coming to me recently with this very same view point. I had to test it out myself and see if this is true. My research question: are stronger lofted irons TRULY longer than traditional lofted irons? Many believe the answer is flatly yes so it is worth exploration.

Methods:

The test involved hitting balls on a Foresight GC2 launch monitor, using a 7i from various manufacturers with varied lofts from 28.5* to 34*. This spread is 5.5* and is roughly equal to 2 clubs in loft spread, which typically are 3* in separation, especially in the long irons. I used a KBS Tour 120 stiff in 4 different fitting irons from 2 different manufacturers to get the loft spread I was looking for. While this may have skewed the results slightly due to changing the flex of the shaft because of the weights of the adapters and bore depth etc., I feel as if this is marginal and will not influence the data significantly. The clubs are a 2017 M2 (iron1), a Ping GMax (iron2), a Ping i200 (iron3), and a Ping iBlade (iron4). The respective lofts of each 7i are 28.5* (iron1), 30.5* (iron2), 33* (iron3), and 34* (iron4). A single Taylormade TP5 ball was used for the test to constrain the variables. A total of 3 shots were kept for each club that were struck in the middle and verified with masking tape on the face.

Results:

Iron1 - 79.7 swing speed, 108.4 ball speed, 20.3* launch, 6156 back spin, 149 carry.

Iron2 - 80.1 swing speed, 109 ball speed, 18.9* launch, 6336 back spin, 149 carry.

Iron3 - 80.5 swing speed, 109.5 ball speed, 21.7* launch, 7500 back spin, 146 carry.

Iron4 - 79.5 swing speed, 108.1 ball speed, 21.5* launch, 7000 back spin, 145 carry.

I redid the test again for the purpose of validity on a second day. I also included descent angle as I had forgotten to note that on day 1, especially given the piece on here about a week or so ago.

Results 2 (re-done yesterday with a Chrome Soft ball. Same clubs, same heads, same shaft)

iron1 - 81.1 swing speed, 110.3 ball speed, 19.5* launch, 5198 back spin, 155 total carry, 45* descent angle

iron2 - 82.6 swing speed, 112.3 ball speed, 20.4* launch, 5830 back spin, 156 total carry, 47* descent angle

iron3 - 82 swing speed, 111.6 ball speed, 22.9* launch, 6336 back spin,152 total carry, 50* descent angle

iron4 - 81.9 swing speed, 111.4 ball speed, 22* launch, 6126 back spin, 153 total carry, 49* descent angle

Discussion:

If we take 3* loft separation as normal for clubs, then we can all agree that there should have been roughly 1.5-2 clubs difference in distance between the strongest lofted iron1 and the weakest lofted iron4. Even if we relax our constraints and assume a 4* or even 5* separation between each club, we should see at minimum a 10 yard difference in the total carry between iron1 and iron4. As you can see, the data does not support this conclusion. There is only a 4 yard difference in the shortest carry of 145 versus the longest carry at 149, and between 156 and 152 on Day 2, both days seemed to not be influenced by loft as the longest shots and shortest shots over both days did not correlate to the strongest/weakest lofted irons. The swing and ball speeds are all within 1.5-2mph of each other as well. 1mph faster ball speed is equal to 3 yards of carry distance. So despite the fastest ball speed coming from iron3 (i200) on day 1, I still saw 3 yards less carry than the two stronger lofted irons. I believe this can be attributed solely to the loft of the club, as launch and spin shot up at least 1.5* and 1350 RPMs, respectively. On day 2, the numbers made a bit more sense as the fastest ball speed gave the furthest distance, despite higher spin and launch, and a 2* weaker loft. Thus, I can surmise that loft will affect distance marginally, and should be used as a factor to control launch and spin, not to hit it farther. It just goes to show you that, yes, a 7i is a 7i is a 7i. One club will NOT cause you to hit it longer instantaneously, despite up to roughly a 5.5-6* difference in loft. Any large increase is likely due to a better performing shaft for your needs that happens to be partnered with a correct lie angle, length, and loft setting. For example, I present iron5, my own Mizuno JPX900 forged 7i with a C-Taper Lite Stiff. It is 1/2 long of Mizuno's standard (checked myself), 1* flat of Mizuno standard (checked myself), and has a loft of 30* (verified by myself). The data:

iron5 - 85.5 swing speed, 116.3 ball speed, 20.6* launch, 5327 back spin, 165 total carry, 48* descent angle.

As you can see, a properly fit golf club that is tailored to an individual's own unique swing can have a much more impressive change than just loft alone.

Conclusion:

In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false. This is in agreement with my own thoughts on golf club design. I should have seen at minimum 10 yards of carry distance between the strongest lofted iron and the weakest lofted iron at the weakest level, and up to 20 yards in total carry difference in the strongest loft separation scenario. Both of these scenarios failed to prove true. Therefore, the loft on a golf club should be used to primarily control the launch and spin of a player's shot and only secondarily should it be used to help hit it farther, as we do not see a large enough difference in the carry to warrant a significant change. This follows my own thinking that manufacturers have designed stronger-lofted clubs due to necessity out of larger club heads with very low CG placement. If the 28.5* 7i is launching at 19.5-20.3* with 5200-6150 spin, can you imagine the number if this large headed iron was weakened to 34*, when we see 21.5-22* and 6100-7000 spin out of a thin, tour-trajectory iron? The launch and spin would probably be equivalent to a 9-PW.

I guess this is a two-sided coin. The manufacturers made lofts stronger to help hit it further due to the large-headed clubs with weak lofts not going anywhere. While conversely, they designed irons that are so forgiving they will help a good deal of the population enjoy the game more, which is always a plus. They knew that if they had these mega-forgiving irons but they didn't go anywhere (i.e. the consumer lost a club in distance due to the launch and spin) they would not sell. So they needed to strengthen the lofts in order to get them to fly a "normal" distance while still maintaining the forgiveness the market demands.

We can now see that fitting irons is like fitting drivers. We need specific loft-windows in order to maximize a player's output potential. For some, weaker lofted clubs such as i200 or iBlade are going to be needed to help get their launch and spin up to optimal levels. Others may need lower lofted irons to help get their launch and spin down to optimal levels. However, as OEM R&D improves, we can see a best of both worlds scenario emerge, where we have larger headed irons that launch high with adequate spin but also have strong lofts to help maintain distance expectations. This is the same for drivers. We have tour heads that typically have lower lofts and more strategic weight placements to give more penetrating ball flights with less spin, while conversely, we have more forgiving drivers that launch higher with more spin to help the average player hit it higher, straighter, and further with less demand from their less-than-tour swings.

I see no reason why we all can't think of irons the same way now, knowing that even the strongest lofted club will still fly only marginally further than the weakest lofted club, when the variables are the same. We should all focus less on shaming those who have stronger lofted clubs as the sole reason they are hitting it further. Instead, we should look it simply as they found the club that gives them their optimal. Just like we all are looking to hit that 12*, 2500 RPM with a driver, we should all look towards 19.5* launch and 5500 spin with a 7i in order to get our maximal output. There are different ways to get there depending on the swing you have, some need less loft (i.e. me), while others need more loft (i.e. my manager). Again, at the end of the day, if we are happy, hitting it as far as possible and still holding greens, and shooting lower scores, isn't that all that matters besides what loft my 7i happens to have in relation to your 6i?

Thanks for reading and I hope this has cleared up some misconceptions about loft in an iron.

Chris

Morning WRX. I had some time on my break on Sunday to try a test I have been wanting to do for a long time. A lot of people here, on other sites, and in the golf media are becoming more and more disgruntled with "strong lofted" irons and how it is cheating the consumer into believing they are hitting it farther. I have even had some customers coming to me recently with this very same view point. I had to test it out myself and see if this is true. My research question: are stronger lofted irons TRULY longer than traditional lofted irons? Many believe the answer is flatly yes so it is worth exploration.

 

Methods:

 

The test involved hitting balls on a Foresight GC2 launch monitor, using a 7i from various manufacturers with varied lofts from 28.5* to 34*. This spread is 5.5* and is roughly equal to 2 clubs in loft spread, which typically are 3* in separation, especially in the long irons. I used a KBS Tour 120 stiff in 4 different fitting irons from 2 different manufacturers to get the loft spread I was looking for. While this may have skewed the results slightly due to changing the flex of the shaft because of the weights of the adapters and bore depth etc., I feel as if this is marginal and will not influence the data significantly. The clubs are a 2017 M2 (iron1), a Ping GMax (iron2), a Ping i200 (iron3), and a Ping iBlade (iron4). The respective lofts of each 7i are 28.5* (iron1), 30.5* (iron2), 33* (iron3), and 34* (iron4). A single Taylormade TP5 ball was used for the test to constrain the variables. A total of 3 shots were kept for each club that were struck in the middle and verified with masking tape on the face.

 

Results:

 

Iron1 - 79.7 swing speed, 108.4 ball speed, 20.3* launch, 6156 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron2 - 80.1 swing speed, 109 ball speed, 18.9* launch, 6336 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron3 - 80.5 swing speed, 109.5 ball speed, 21.7* launch, 7500 back spin, 146 carry.

 

Iron4 - 79.5 swing speed, 108.1 ball speed, 21.5* launch, 7000 back spin, 145 carry.

 

I redid the test again for the purpose of validity on a second day. I also included descent angle as I had forgotten to note that on day 1, especially given the piece on here about a week or so ago.

 

Results 2 (re-done yesterday with a Chrome Soft ball. Same clubs, same heads, same shaft)

 

iron1 - 81.1 swing speed, 110.3 ball speed, 19.5* launch, 5198 back spin, 155 total carry, 45* descent angle

 

iron2 - 82.6 swing speed, 112.3 ball speed, 20.4* launch, 5830 back spin, 156 total carry, 47* descent angle

 

iron3 - 82 swing speed, 111.6 ball speed, 22.9* launch, 6336 back spin,152 total carry, 50* descent angle

 

iron4 - 81.9 swing speed, 111.4 ball speed, 22* launch, 6126 back spin, 153 total carry, 49* descent angle

 

 

Discussion:

 

If we take 3* loft separation as normal for clubs, then we can all agree that there should have been roughly 1.5-2 clubs difference in distance between the strongest lofted iron1 and the weakest lofted iron4. Even if we relax our constraints and assume a 4* or even 5* separation between each club, we should see at minimum a 10 yard difference in the total carry between iron1 and iron4. As you can see, the data does not support this conclusion. There is only a 4 yard difference in the shortest carry of 145 versus the longest carry at 149, and between 156 and 152 on Day 2, both days seemed to not be influenced by loft as the longest shots and shortest shots over both days did not correlate to the strongest/weakest lofted irons. The swing and ball speeds are all within 1.5-2mph of each other as well. 1mph faster ball speed is equal to 3 yards of carry distance. So despite the fastest ball speed coming from iron3 (i200) on day 1, I still saw 3 yards less carry than the two stronger lofted irons. I believe this can be attributed solely to the loft of the club, as launch and spin shot up at least 1.5* and 1350 RPMs, respectively. On day 2, the numbers made a bit more sense as the fastest ball speed gave the furthest distance, despite higher spin and launch, and a 2* weaker loft. Thus, I can surmise that loft will affect distance marginally, and should be used as a factor to control launch and spin, not to hit it farther. It just goes to show you that, yes, a 7i is a 7i is a 7i. One club will NOT cause you to hit it longer instantaneously, despite up to roughly a 5.5-6* difference in loft. Any large increase is likely due to a better performing shaft for your needs that happens to be partnered with a correct lie angle, length, and loft setting. For example, I present iron5, my own Mizuno JPX900 forged 7i with a C-Taper Lite Stiff. It is 1/2 long of Mizuno's standard (checked myself), 1* flat of Mizuno standard (checked myself), and has a loft of 30* (verified by myself). The data:

 

iron5 - 85.5 swing speed, 116.3 ball speed, 20.6* launch, 5327 back spin, 165 total carry, 48* descent angle.

 

As you can see, a properly fit golf club that is tailored to an individual's own unique swing can have a much more impressive change than just loft alone.

 

Conclusion:

 

In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false. This is in agreement with my own thoughts on golf club design. I should have seen at minimum 10 yards of carry distance between the strongest lofted iron and the weakest lofted iron at the weakest level, and up to 20 yards in total carry difference in the strongest loft separation scenario. Both of these scenarios failed to prove true. Therefore, the loft on a golf club should be used to primarily control the launch and spin of a player's shot and only secondarily should it be used to help hit it farther, as we do not see a large enough difference in the carry to warrant a significant change. This follows my own thinking that manufacturers have designed stronger-lofted clubs due to necessity out of larger club heads with very low CG placement. If the 28.5* 7i is launching at 20.3* with 6156 spin, can you imagine the number if this large headed iron was weakened to 34*, when we see 21.5* and 7000 spin out of a thin, tour-trajectory iron? The launch and spin would probably be equivalent to a 9-PW.

 

I guess this is a two-sided coin. The manufacturers made lofts stronger to help hit it further due to the large-headed clubs with weak lofts not going anywhere. While conversely, they designed irons that are so forgiving they will help a good deal of the population enjoy the game more, which is always a plus. They knew that if they had these mega-forgiving irons but they didn't go anywhere (i.e. the consumer lost a club in distance due to the launch and spin) they would not sell. So they needed to strengthen the lofts in order to get them to fly a "normal" distance while still maintaining the forgiveness the market demands.

 

We can now see that fitting irons is like fitting drivers. We need specific loft-windows in order to maximize a player's output potential. For some, weaker lofted clubs such as i200 or iBlade are going to be needed to help get their launch and spin up to optimal levels. Others may need lower lofted irons to help get their launch and spin down to optimal levels. However, as OEM R&D improves, we can see a best of both world scenario where we have larger headed irons that launch high with lots of spin but also have strong lofts to help maintain distance expectations. This is the same for drivers. We have tour heads that typically have lower lofts and more strategic weight placements to give more penetrating ball flights with less spin, while conversely, we have more forgiving drivers that launch higher with more spin to help the average player hit it higher, straighter, and further with less demand from their less-than-tour swings.

 

I see no reason why we all can't think of irons the same way now, knowing that even the strongest lofted club will still fly only marginally further than the weakest lofted club, when the variables are the same. We should all focus less on shaming those who have stronger lofted clubs as the sole reason they are hitting it further. Instead, we should look it simply as they found the club that gives them their optimal. Just like we all are looking to hit that 12*, 2500 RPM with a driver, we should all look towards 19.5* launch and 5500 spin with a 7i in order to get our maximal output. There are different ways to get there depending on the swing you have, some need less loft (i.e. me), while others need more loft (i.e. my manager). Again, at the end of the day, if we are happy, hitting it as far as possible and still holding greens, and shooting lower scores, isn't that all that matters besides what loft my 7i happens to have in relation to your 6i?

 

Thanks for reading and I hope this has cleared up some misconceptions about loft in an iron.

 

Chris

How many players were involved in hitting balls during the test? Did they know which club they were hitting when they swung it?

Sure.... carry distances are similar between clubs because you're using a 7i, but once you factor in the total distance, you'll see the m2 probably ends 10 or 12 yards past where the iblade is, purely because of spin and a lower LA. So the SGI/GI irons are longer, but it's mainly due to roll out. Great job on a scientifically controlled test, but this isn't anything that we don't already know here.

Additionally, the GI iron may be better suited to beginners in general, not due to finding optimal spin or launch, but simply because miss-struck shots will end up closer to intended targets on fat shots via the lower launch and spin.

Then there's always the non scientific data that players look at, such as looks, sound and feel. A better player, regardless of finding his "optimal" set up will almost never pick an m1/m2 type of iron because to their eye, it looks huge, sounds too loud, and doesn't feel forged. If a good player struggles with high spin.... His answer is not to go play M2's, it's to bend the lofts of the player's club stronger.

Morning WRX. I had some time on my break on Sunday to try a test I have been wanting to do for a long time. A lot of people here, on other sites, and in the golf media are becoming more and more disgruntled with "strong lofted" irons and how it is cheating the consumer into believing they are hitting it farther. I have even had some customers coming to me recently with this very same view point. I had to test it out myself and see if this is true. My research question: are stronger lofted irons TRULY longer than traditional lofted irons? Many believe the answer is flatly yes so it is worth exploration.

 

Methods:

 

The test involved hitting balls on a Foresight GC2 launch monitor, using a 7i from various manufacturers with varied lofts from 28.5* to 34*. This spread is 5.5* and is roughly equal to 2 clubs in loft spread, which typically are 3* in separation, especially in the long irons. I used a KBS Tour 120 stiff in 4 different fitting irons from 2 different manufacturers to get the loft spread I was looking for. While this may have skewed the results slightly due to changing the flex of the shaft because of the weights of the adapters and bore depth etc., I feel as if this is marginal and will not influence the data significantly. The clubs are a 2017 M2 (iron1), a Ping GMax (iron2), a Ping i200 (iron3), and a Ping iBlade (iron4). The respective lofts of each 7i are 28.5* (iron1), 30.5* (iron2), 33* (iron3), and 34* (iron4). A single Taylormade TP5 ball was used for the test to constrain the variables. A total of 3 shots were kept for each club that were struck in the middle and verified with masking tape on the face.

 

Results:

 

Iron1 - 79.7 swing speed, 108.4 ball speed, 20.3* launch, 6156 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron2 - 80.1 swing speed, 109 ball speed, 18.9* launch, 6336 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron3 - 80.5 swing speed, 109.5 ball speed, 21.7* launch, 7500 back spin, 146 carry.

 

Iron4 - 79.5 swing speed, 108.1 ball speed, 21.5* launch, 7000 back spin, 145 carry.

 

I redid the test again for the purpose of validity on a second day. I also included descent angle as I had forgotten to note that on day 1, especially given the piece on here about a week or so ago.

 

Results 2 (re-done yesterday with a Chrome Soft ball. Same clubs, same heads, same shaft)

 

iron1 - 81.1 swing speed, 110.3 ball speed, 19.5* launch, 5198 back spin, 155 total carry, 45* descent angle

 

iron2 - 82.6 swing speed, 112.3 ball speed, 20.4* launch, 5830 back spin, 156 total carry, 47* descent angle

 

iron3 - 82 swing speed, 111.6 ball speed, 22.9* launch, 6336 back spin,152 total carry, 50* descent angle

 

iron4 - 81.9 swing speed, 111.4 ball speed, 22* launch, 6126 back spin, 153 total carry, 49* descent angle

 

 

Discussion:

 

If we take 3* loft separation as normal for clubs, then we can all agree that there should have been roughly 1.5-2 clubs difference in distance between the strongest lofted iron1 and the weakest lofted iron4. Even if we relax our constraints and assume a 4* or even 5* separation between each club, we should see at minimum a 10 yard difference in the total carry between iron1 and iron4. As you can see, the data does not support this conclusion. There is only a 4 yard difference in the shortest carry of 145 versus the longest carry at 149, and between 156 and 152 on Day 2, both days seemed to not be influenced by loft as the longest shots and shortest shots over both days did not correlate to the strongest/weakest lofted irons. The swing and ball speeds are all within 1.5-2mph of each other as well. 1mph faster ball speed is equal to 3 yards of carry distance. So despite the fastest ball speed coming from iron3 (i200) on day 1, I still saw 3 yards less carry than the two stronger lofted irons. I believe this can be attributed solely to the loft of the club, as launch and spin shot up at least 1.5* and 1350 RPMs, respectively. On day 2, the numbers made a bit more sense as the fastest ball speed gave the furthest distance, despite higher spin and launch, and a 2* weaker loft. Thus, I can surmise that loft will affect distance marginally, and should be used as a factor to control launch and spin, not to hit it farther. It just goes to show you that, yes, a 7i is a 7i is a 7i. One club will NOT cause you to hit it longer instantaneously, despite up to roughly a 5.5-6* difference in loft. Any large increase is likely due to a better performing shaft for your needs that happens to be partnered with a correct lie angle, length, and loft setting. For example, I present iron5, my own Mizuno JPX900 forged 7i with a C-Taper Lite Stiff. It is 1/2 long of Mizuno's standard (checked myself), 1* flat of Mizuno standard (checked myself), and has a loft of 30* (verified by myself). The data:

 

iron5 - 85.5 swing speed, 116.3 ball speed, 20.6* launch, 5327 back spin, 165 total carry, 48* descent angle.

 

As you can see, a properly fit golf club that is tailored to an individual's own unique swing can have a much more impressive change than just loft alone.

 

Conclusion:

 

In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false. This is in agreement with my own thoughts on golf club design. I should have seen at minimum 10 yards of carry distance between the strongest lofted iron and the weakest lofted iron at the weakest level, and up to 20 yards in total carry difference in the strongest loft separation scenario. Both of these scenarios failed to prove true. Therefore, the loft on a golf club should be used to primarily control the launch and spin of a player's shot and only secondarily should it be used to help hit it farther, as we do not see a large enough difference in the carry to warrant a significant change. This follows my own thinking that manufacturers have designed stronger-lofted clubs due to necessity out of larger club heads with very low CG placement. If the 28.5* 7i is launching at 20.3* with 6156 spin, can you imagine the number if this large headed iron was weakened to 34*, when we see 21.5* and 7000 spin out of a thin, tour-trajectory iron? The launch and spin would probably be equivalent to a 9-PW.

 

I guess this is a two-sided coin. The manufacturers made lofts stronger to help hit it further due to the large-headed clubs with weak lofts not going anywhere. While conversely, they designed irons that are so forgiving they will help a good deal of the population enjoy the game more, which is always a plus. They knew that if they had these mega-forgiving irons but they didn't go anywhere (i.e. the consumer lost a club in distance due to the launch and spin) they would not sell. So they needed to strengthen the lofts in order to get them to fly a "normal" distance while still maintaining the forgiveness the market demands.

 

We can now see that fitting irons is like fitting drivers. We need specific loft-windows in order to maximize a player's output potential. For some, weaker lofted clubs such as i200 or iBlade are going to be needed to help get their launch and spin up to optimal levels. Others may need lower lofted irons to help get their launch and spin down to optimal levels. However, as OEM R&D improves, we can see a best of both world scenario where we have larger headed irons that launch high with lots of spin but also have strong lofts to help maintain distance expectations. This is the same for drivers. We have tour heads that typically have lower lofts and more strategic weight placements to give more penetrating ball flights with less spin, while conversely, we have more forgiving drivers that launch higher with more spin to help the average player hit it higher, straighter, and further with less demand from their less-than-tour swings.

 

I see no reason why we all can't think of irons the same way now, knowing that even the strongest lofted club will still fly only marginally further than the weakest lofted club, when the variables are the same. We should all focus less on shaming those who have stronger lofted clubs as the sole reason they are hitting it further. Instead, we should look it simply as they found the club that gives them their optimal. Just like we all are looking to hit that 12*, 2500 RPM with a driver, we should all look towards 19.5* launch and 5500 spin with a 7i in order to get our maximal output. There are different ways to get there depending on the swing you have, some need less loft (i.e. me), while others need more loft (i.e. my manager). Again, at the end of the day, if we are happy, hitting it as far as possible and still holding greens, and shooting lower scores, isn't that all that matters besides what loft my 7i happens to have in relation to your 6i?

 

Thanks for reading and I hope this has cleared up some misconceptions about loft in an iron.

 

Chris

 

How many players were involved in hitting balls during the test? Did they know which club they were hitting when they swung it?

Just me and yes I knew which club was which. You may call foul on that as maybe I was subconsciously swinging differently, but the swing and ball speed numbers are not drastically different between each iron, and even between both days. The only dramatic spike seen is in my own fitted iron.

Sure.... carry distances are similar between clubs because you're using a 7i, but once you factor in the total distance, you'll see the m2 probably ends 10 or 12 yards past where the iblade is, purely because of spin and a lower LA. So the SGI/GI irons are longer, but it's mainly due to roll out. Great job on a scientifically controlled test, but this isn't anything that we don't already know here.

 

Additionally, the GI iron may be better suited to beginners in general, not due to finding optimal spin or launch, but simply because miss-struck shots will end up closer to intended targets on fat shots via the lower launch and spin.

 

Then there's always the non scientific data that players look at, such as looks, sound and feel. A better player, regardless of finding his "optimal" set up will almost never pick an m1/m2 type of iron because to their eye, it looks huge, sounds too loud, and doesn't feel forged. If a good player struggles with high spin.... His answer is not to go play M2's, it's to bend the lofts of the player's club stronger.

I didn't post the pictures of the data, but I can if you like. M2 ended up at 159 total, and the iBlade was 154 total on the day 1 trial and 168 for M2 and 163 for iBlade on Day 2. I figured most would be more interested in carry since it was a simulated run-out on a hard-pan simulated driving range, as I don't have access to an outdoor monitor to do a real-grass test. So the distance spread stayed roughly the same, at approximately 4-5 yards even run out, despite the 5.5* loft difference. I absolutely agree on the human factor of appeal, that's why I threw in my own iron as an example to show that they can make a difference once all things are finely tuned.

Sure, they would all be similar in a sterile test environment, however, I'd venture a guess that results would be quite different off of actual grass, especially out of rough where you're going to get fliers and the lower spin of the stronger lofted irons really rears its head to generate some obnoxious long carry distances. Put those in the average, and your result changes. A lot.

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

I know from own testing on cg2 hmt, that at around 90mph club head speed, the ball speed differences and carry were significant. I'll see if I can find the PDF. Of course this is anecdotal and quite far from scientific. My hypothesis is that the faster the swing, the more dramatic the difference (this seems pretty obvious, really, since at higher speeds, each degree of loft increase will increase yardage more than at slower speeds [actual distance, not necessarily percentage])

Sure, they would all be similar in a sterile test environment, however, I'd venture a guess that results would be quite different off of actual grass, especially out of rough where you're going to get fliers and the lower spin of the stronger lofted irons really rears its head to generate some obnoxious long carry distances. Put those in the average, and your result changes. A lot.

I just plugged your scenario into the flightscope trajectory optimizer, and based on the data from day 1 (ball speed, launch the same, but spin cut to 50% as an example as I'm not sure how much a flier actually cuts spin) we see the M2 carry to 164 to 182 roll out and the iBlade carry 161 to 178 roll out. The ball speed and launch of Day 2 followed by a 50% reduction in spin yields m2 carry of 169.8 and 192.1 roll out and iBlade at actually more carry of 171.4 and roll out to 189.1. So even in a real playing test out of wonky lies the flight dynamics appear to hold true, always netting roughly 4 yards difference in carry and total distance, and in some scenarios the iBlade would actually perform slightly worse in terms of control.

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

How does masking tape instantly skew the data? My store uses this and has used this method forever. I was down at the Callaway fitting head office in Carlsbad with their tour van fitters at the end of May and they actively encouraged us to use face tape, masking tape, etc. to show us strike point. Someone even asked if using masking tape would be an issue and if we should solely use face tape and they responded that it made no difference.

Tell me how this skews the data at all if it was done across all irons. So even if it did, it would skew them all the same.

It seems in general, your high level hypothesis is that irons, regardless of category, should be picked based on optimizing spin and launch. However, IMO you seem to disprove yourself in a way, because this data essentially shows that the end result between all irons is the same (Carry between all irons is within a few %, total distance just a fraction more). Therefore, I could probably postulate that in fact optimizing based on type of iron (GI/Players) is completely pointless. What matters is you find an iron that sounds, feels, and looks nice, then you tweak that particular iron's loft or shaft, to achieve desired launch characteristics.

It's really cool you did this test and it shows people that, hey, maybe your M2 isn't massively longer than my iBlade, all else equal. But it does show that since none of the initial launch conditions make a huge difference in the end result, one should simply pick based on non tangible attributes, and then go from there. So, nice work, although I'm not sure that's what your intensions were.

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

Edit; am I getting trolled?

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

 

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

 

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

 

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

By tweaking CG locations, and COR values.

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

 

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

 

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

 

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

By tweaking CG locations, and COR values.

Lol

Not sure I get why the Lol ...I'm guessing your question was rhetorical, but... not sure I understand what it has to do with the subject?

 

Just me and yes I knew which club was which. You may call foul on that as maybe I was subconsciously swinging differently, but the swing and ball speed numbers are not drastically different between each iron, and even between both days. The only dramatic spike seen is in my own fitted iron.

 

I don't think it makes it irrelevant. It colors it a bit, but it doesn't disqualify the conclusion necessarily. Its just that you are stating a truth about irons in the hands of all players and you didn't test that. Your hypothesis doesn't specify a particular player or a particular player's characteristics so I'm not sure you can apply these results to all players. Note I said "not sure" not "can't". I think you have proven that irons in your hands behave a certain way. I'm struggling to see how that extrapolates to everyone. Is it that impact condition is impact condition once you get there so the player doesn't matter?

I know from own testing on cg2 hmt, that at around 90mph club head speed, the ball speed differences and carry were significant. I'll see if I can find the PDF. Of course this is anecdotal and quite far from scientific. My hypothesis is that the faster the swing, the more dramatic the difference (this seems pretty obvious, really, since at higher speeds, each degree of loft increase will increase yardage more than at slower speeds [actual distance, not necessarily percentage])

This is true, but again, using the flightscope optimizer , and boost ball speed to the equivalent of 95mph 7i swing (roughly tour player average, if not slightly moreso), and 1000 RPMs more spin per iron, as more speed = more spin, and tour players do spin the ball more anyways (roughly 7000 with a 7i). We see 191.2 carry and 200.2 total with the M2 and 186.9 carry and 194.5 total with the iBlade. Just for fun, I'll throw it down to the extreme other end, for a very slow swinger (equivalent to 50mph swing speed), and I will reduce spin by 1000 RPMs from my number as slower swingers have trouble generating spin typically. I get 71.5 carry and 92.3 total with the M2 and 74.7 carry and 90.6 total with the iBlade.

This again confirms my findings that they are within 4-5 yards of one another. As I said in my initial post, if you have trouble with launch and spin (as slower swingers do tend to have) a weaker loft club is going to help them hit it further in the air and help them hold a green. My findings seem to hold up across a wide variety of swing speeds and environments at least in the simulation stage.

So I will say it again. LOFT DOES NOT EQUAL DISTANCE. We need to target specific launch and spin windows, and even with roughly 1.5 clubs difference in loft there is no more than 4-5y carry distance and total distance between them. This is especially shocking when we would expect 12-15y of total carry AT LEAST given the loft differential. Loft does not equal distance. Find the club that gives you what you need, regardless of loft, and you will play better. Loft doesn't matter much in the overall picture, as I believe I have shown.

It seems in general, your high level hypothesis is that irons, regardless of category, should be picked based on optimizing spin and launch. However, IMO you seem to disprove yourself in a way, because this data essentially shows that the end result between all irons is the same (Carry between all irons is within a few %, total distance just a fraction more). Therefore, I could probably postulate that in fact optimizing based on type of iron (GI/Players) is completely pointless. What matters is you find an iron that sounds, feels, and looks nice, then you tweak that particular iron's loft or shaft, to achieve desired launch characteristics.

 

It's really cool you did this test and it shows people that, hey, maybe your M2 isn't massively longer than my iBlade, all else equal. But it does show that since none of the initial launch conditions make a huge difference in the end result, one should simply pick based on non tangible attributes, and then go from there. So, nice work, although I'm not sure that's what your intensions were.

That wasn't my end goal but it did come out that way, given the massive difference in my properly fit iron vs. the controls. So I think this should be the star conclusion. Play what you like the look of the best, and is still feasible given the desired end-result and then tweak from there. If you hate the look of an M2 but it gives you good numbers, maybe just bend an Apex or an i200 or whatever a couple degrees strong and have fun, and find a shaft that seems to assist.

Not sure I get why the Lol ...I'm guessing your question was rhetorical, but... not sure I understand what it has to do with the subject?

Yeah I'm lost too. It's not exactly a secret that SL clubs use all kinds of CG placement changes and modified COR in the long irons to achieve the distance spread they should expect. Maybe they're the troll after all? Considering he says he can get roughly 20 yards of carry difference in the same iron. Maybe we should tell them that strike location matters and not all shots hit on the face are equal and really blow their mind?

Just me and yes I knew which club was which. You may call foul on that as maybe I was subconsciously swinging differently, but the swing and ball speed numbers are not drastically different between each iron, and even between both days. The only dramatic spike seen is in my own fitted iron.

 

 

I don't think it makes it irrelevant. It colors it a bit, but it doesn't disqualify the conclusion necessarily. Its just that you are stating a truth about irons in the hands of all players and you didn't test that. Your hypothesis doesn't specify a particular player or a particular player's characteristics so I'm not sure you can apply these results to all players. Note I said "not sure" not "can't". I think you have proven that irons in your hands behave a certain way. I'm struggling to see how that extrapolates to everyone. Is it that impact condition is impact condition once you get there so the player doesn't matter?

Yeah, to say it's universal would be a stretch. But in using simulations on the FLightscope software, it seems to hold across a wide variety of environment changes and swing speeds. It is true that mis-hits will cause launch and spin changes both positive and negative, so I think even if let's say 30 shots with each iron were kept with no deletions, and a variety of handicaps and swing speeds and environments were tested, the end result would be the same. My end result is exactly what you said in your last sentence, that a perfect strike that flies with optimal or close-to-optimal numbers makes loft almost irrelevant. That yes, there is roughly 1/2 a club in total distance seen, but that is far, far less than expected given the spread in lofts (5.5*).

Anectdotally, I disagree with the "findings" of this test. When I switched from my 845Us to Rocketbladez about 2.5 years ago I saw my 7 iron distance increase by about 10 yards instantly. I'm pretty sure my 7i swing didn't get 10 yards better overnight.

Anectdotally, I disagree with the "findings" of this test. When I switched from my 845Us to Rocketbladez about 2.5 years ago I saw my 7 iron distance increase by about 10 yards instantly. I'm pretty sure my 7i swing didn't get 10 yards better overnight.

Did you keep the exact same shafts in both? What was your spin and launch with the 845U vs. the Rocketbladez. As I said initially, we need to use loft to target optimal windows, just like we do in a driver. So if your spin and launch was too high with the 845, combined with a shaft that was much heavier (I'd assume some sort of Rifle or Dynamic Gold as those were the standards for the time) and you went down to the stock REAX, for example, you could have saved close to 40g in weight which would have a massive impact on swing speed, and by extension, ball speed. Provided it allowed you to deliver the club back to the strike spot effectively, though.

There is a window of diminishing returns as we work into high lofts. I do believe you would see a much greater separation (%) in carry if this test was duplicated within a lower loft range of a 3 iron. Club length variation does play a large role in carry distance as mentioned.

I know from own testing on cg2 hmt, that at around 90mph club head speed, the ball speed differences and carry were significant. I'll see if I can find the PDF. Of course this is anecdotal and quite far from scientific. My hypothesis is that the faster the swing, the more dramatic the difference (this seems pretty obvious, really, since at higher speeds, each degree of loft increase will increase yardage more than at slower speeds [actual distance, not necessarily percentage])

 

This is true, but again, using the flightscope optimizer , and boost ball speed to the equivalent of 95mph 7i swing (roughly tour player average, if not slightly moreso), and 1000 RPMs more spin per iron, as more speed = more spin, and tour players do spin the ball more anyways (roughly 7000 with a 7i). We see 191.2 carry and 200.2 total with the M2 and 186.9 carry and 194.5 total with the iBlade. Just for fun, I'll throw it down to the extreme other end, for a very slow swinger (equivalent to 50mph swing speed), and I will reduce spin by 1000 RPMs from my number as slower swingers have trouble generating spin typically. I get 71.5 carry and 92.3 total with the M2 and 74.7 carry and 90.6 total with the iBlade.

 

This again confirms my findings that they are within 4-5 yards of one another. As I said in my initial post, if you have trouble with launch and spin (as slower swingers do tend to have) a weaker loft club is going to help them hit it further in the air and help them hold a green. My findings seem to hold up across a wide variety of swing speeds and environments at least in the simulation stage.

 

So I will say it again. LOFT DOES NOT EQUAL DISTANCE. We need to target specific launch and spin windows, and even with roughly 1.5 clubs difference in loft there is no more than 4-5y carry distance and total distance between them. This is especially shocking when we would expect 12-15y of total carry AT LEAST given the loft differential. Loft does not equal distance. Find the club that gives you what you need, regardless of loft, and you will play better. Loft doesn't matter much in the overall picture, as I believe I have shown.

But with less loft, you get less spin and more ball speed. Plus, 5 yards carry is significant. Therefore, loft does equal distance, in this case 5 yards. Using the optimize assuming ballspeed goes up mph from 120 to 123, launch stays the same and spin decrease by 1000' that is 9 yards carry.

There is a window of diminishing returns as we work into high lofts. I do believe you would see a much greater separation (%) in carry if this test was duplicated within a lower loft range of a 3 iron. Club length variation does play a large role in carry distance as mentioned.

I could probably replicate this using a 4i. I'll use a Cobra King Forged Tour (as it coincidentally has a KBS Tour FLTD in it that is as close as possible to the KBS Tour I used here), and I'll bend it 2* strong to 21*, keep it at 23*, and then bend it 25*. 4* of separation of SHOULD give us a club (10y) in total carry difference, so I'll report back as soon as I do it and see if there is a difference.

Ball speed is/always will be king.

A degree or two of launch will not vary that very much, nor will 500 RPM on spin. It's not abnormal to vary lofts on irons 2* either way to help with decent angles, been done for a long time, distance does not change that much as long as the launch window is not way off to begin with. Iron COR is going to be where the larger differences are made. Faces that have higher COR numbers are going to increase ball speed, and that's where the differences are mainly going to come from.

Lofts are not that much of an issue until we talk gapping on either side of the set. We've hit 30* clubs for 100s of years, whether that is a 6 iron or 7 iron is not really that much of a topic. It's when the 3 iron is 17* and the highest wedge is 45* that it creates a problem.

There is a window of diminishing returns as we work into high lofts. I do believe you would see a much greater separation (%) in carry if this test was duplicated within a lower loft range of a 3 iron. Club length variation does play a large role in carry distance as mentioned.

 

I could probably replicate this using a 4i. I'll use a Cobra King Forged Tour (as it coincidentally has a KBS Tour FLTD in it that is as close as possible to the KBS Tour I used here), and I'll bend it 2* strong to 21*, keep it at 23*, and then bend it 25*. 4* of separation of SHOULD give us a club (10y) in total carry difference, so I'll report back as soon as I do it and see if there is a difference.

Are you able to track how open the club face is before/after bending? The effective loft at impact could be changed. It would be nice to replicate this test using a Trackman 4 in order to monitor additional variables.

I would like to see someone like Rick Shiels duplicate your testing. This seems to be right in his wheelhouse.

By the way, thank you for sharing your test and results! I'm not trying to knock you down at all and I'm very curious to see the results :)

Shiels did something like this with PXG, Mizuno, and I think Cally. Built out to the same spec, I think the PXG may have edged out the comp by about 5 yds on avg.

Are you able to track how open the club face is before/after bending? The effective loft at impact could be changed.

That's not really a "thing" when we talk irons. Irons are not soled at address or in a measurement device when bending. Iron loft is strictly based on the iron face/hosel relationship. Nothing to do with the sole of the club.

Funny because my Apex Pro 7 iron carries 162 and I've hit the 2016 M2 7 iron on a launch monitor and it carried 185+.

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

 

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

 

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

 

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

By tweaking CG locations, and COR values.

That´s incorrect. Most SL clubs have the same COR value.

Morning WRX. I had some time on my break on Sunday to try a test I have been wanting to do for a long time. A lot of people here, on other sites, and in the golf media are becoming more and more disgruntled with "strong lofted" irons and how it is cheating the consumer into believing they are hitting it farther. I have even had some customers coming to me recently with this very same view point. I had to test it out myself and see if this is true. My research question: are stronger lofted irons TRULY longer than traditional lofted irons? Many believe the answer is flatly yes so it is worth exploration.

 

Methods:

 

The test involved hitting balls on a Foresight GC2 launch monitor, using a 7i from various manufacturers with varied lofts from 28.5* to 34*. This spread is 5.5* and is roughly equal to 2 clubs in loft spread, which typically are 3* in separation, especially in the long irons. I used a KBS Tour 120 stiff in 4 different fitting irons from 2 different manufacturers to get the loft spread I was looking for. While this may have skewed the results slightly due to changing the flex of the shaft because of the weights of the adapters and bore depth etc., I feel as if this is marginal and will not influence the data significantly. The clubs are a 2017 M2 (iron1), a Ping GMax (iron2), a Ping i200 (iron3), and a Ping iBlade (iron4). The respective lofts of each 7i are 28.5* (iron1), 30.5* (iron2), 33* (iron3), and 34* (iron4). A single Taylormade TP5 ball was used for the test to constrain the variables. A total of 3 shots were kept for each club that were struck in the middle and verified with masking tape on the face.

 

Results:

 

Iron1 - 79.7 swing speed, 108.4 ball speed, 20.3* launch, 6156 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron2 - 80.1 swing speed, 109 ball speed, 18.9* launch, 6336 back spin, 149 carry.

 

Iron3 - 80.5 swing speed, 109.5 ball speed, 21.7* launch, 7500 back spin, 146 carry.

 

Iron4 - 79.5 swing speed, 108.1 ball speed, 21.5* launch, 7000 back spin, 145 carry.

 

I redid the test again for the purpose of validity on a second day. I also included descent angle as I had forgotten to note that on day 1, especially given the piece on here about a week or so ago.

 

Results 2 (re-done yesterday with a Chrome Soft ball. Same clubs, same heads, same shaft)

 

iron1 - 81.1 swing speed, 110.3 ball speed, 19.5* launch, 5198 back spin, 155 total carry, 45* descent angle

 

iron2 - 82.6 swing speed, 112.3 ball speed, 20.4* launch, 5830 back spin, 156 total carry, 47* descent angle

 

iron3 - 82 swing speed, 111.6 ball speed, 22.9* launch, 6336 back spin,152 total carry, 50* descent angle

 

iron4 - 81.9 swing speed, 111.4 ball speed, 22* launch, 6126 back spin, 153 total carry, 49* descent angle

 

 

Discussion:

 

If we take 3* loft separation as normal for clubs, then we can all agree that there should have been roughly 1.5-2 clubs difference in distance between the strongest lofted iron1 and the weakest lofted iron4. Even if we relax our constraints and assume a 4* or even 5* separation between each club, we should see at minimum a 10 yard difference in the total carry between iron1 and iron4. As you can see, the data does not support this conclusion. There is only a 4 yard difference in the shortest carry of 145 versus the longest carry at 149, and between 156 and 152 on Day 2, both days seemed to not be influenced by loft as the longest shots and shortest shots over both days did not correlate to the strongest/weakest lofted irons. The swing and ball speeds are all within 1.5-2mph of each other as well. 1mph faster ball speed is equal to 3 yards of carry distance. So despite the fastest ball speed coming from iron3 (i200) on day 1, I still saw 3 yards less carry than the two stronger lofted irons. I believe this can be attributed solely to the loft of the club, as launch and spin shot up at least 1.5* and 1350 RPMs, respectively. On day 2, the numbers made a bit more sense as the fastest ball speed gave the furthest distance, despite higher spin and launch, and a 2* weaker loft. Thus, I can surmise that loft will affect distance marginally, and should be used as a factor to control launch and spin, not to hit it farther. It just goes to show you that, yes, a 7i is a 7i is a 7i. One club will NOT cause you to hit it longer instantaneously, despite up to roughly a 5.5-6* difference in loft. Any large increase is likely due to a better performing shaft for your needs that happens to be partnered with a correct lie angle, length, and loft setting. For example, I present iron5, my own Mizuno JPX900 forged 7i with a C-Taper Lite Stiff. It is 1/2 long of Mizuno's standard (checked myself), 1* flat of Mizuno standard (checked myself), and has a loft of 30* (verified by myself). The data:

 

iron5 - 85.5 swing speed, 116.3 ball speed, 20.6* launch, 5327 back spin, 165 total carry, 48* descent angle.

 

As you can see, a properly fit golf club that is tailored to an individual's own unique swing can have a much more impressive change than just loft alone.

 

Conclusion:

 

In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false. This is in agreement with my own thoughts on golf club design. I should have seen at minimum 10 yards of carry distance between the strongest lofted iron and the weakest lofted iron at the weakest level, and up to 20 yards in total carry difference in the strongest loft separation scenario. Both of these scenarios failed to prove true. Therefore, the loft on a golf club should be used to primarily control the launch and spin of a player's shot and only secondarily should it be used to help hit it farther, as we do not see a large enough difference in the carry to warrant a significant change. This follows my own thinking that manufacturers have designed stronger-lofted clubs due to necessity out of larger club heads with very low CG placement. If the 28.5* 7i is launching at 19.5-20.3* with 5200-6150 spin, can you imagine the number if this large headed iron was weakened to 34*, when we see 21.5-22* and 6100-7000 spin out of a thin, tour-trajectory iron? The launch and spin would probably be equivalent to a 9-PW.

 

I guess this is a two-sided coin. The manufacturers made lofts stronger to help hit it further due to the large-headed clubs with weak lofts not going anywhere. While conversely, they designed irons that are so forgiving they will help a good deal of the population enjoy the game more, which is always a plus. They knew that if they had these mega-forgiving irons but they didn't go anywhere (i.e. the consumer lost a club in distance due to the launch and spin) they would not sell. So they needed to strengthen the lofts in order to get them to fly a "normal" distance while still maintaining the forgiveness the market demands.

 

We can now see that fitting irons is like fitting drivers. We need specific loft-windows in order to maximize a player's output potential. For some, weaker lofted clubs such as i200 or iBlade are going to be needed to help get their launch and spin up to optimal levels. Others may need lower lofted irons to help get their launch and spin down to optimal levels. However, as OEM R&D improves, we can see a best of both worlds scenario emerge, where we have larger headed irons that launch high with adequate spin but also have strong lofts to help maintain distance expectations. This is the same for drivers. We have tour heads that typically have lower lofts and more strategic weight placements to give more penetrating ball flights with less spin, while conversely, we have more forgiving drivers that launch higher with more spin to help the average player hit it higher, straighter, and further with less demand from their less-than-tour swings.

 

I see no reason why we all can't think of irons the same way now, knowing that even the strongest lofted club will still fly only marginally further than the weakest lofted club, when the variables are the same. We should all focus less on shaming those who have stronger lofted clubs as the sole reason they are hitting it further. Instead, we should look it simply as they found the club that gives them their optimal. Just like we all are looking to hit that 12*, 2500 RPM with a driver, we should all look towards 19.5* launch and 5500 spin with a 7i in order to get our maximal output. There are different ways to get there depending on the swing you have, some need less loft (i.e. me), while others need more loft (i.e. my manager). Again, at the end of the day, if we are happy, hitting it as far as possible and still holding greens, and shooting lower scores, isn't that all that matters besides what loft my 7i happens to have in relation to your 6i?

 

Thanks for reading and I hope this has cleared up some misconceptions about loft in an iron.

 

Chris

This is false. It's just physics. You don´t need to hit any shots for this conclusion.

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

 

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

 

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

 

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

By tweaking CG locations, and COR values.

 

That´s incorrect. Most SL clubs have the same COR value.

Same COR within the SL set, yes, but I meant.. a SL 5i likely has a higher COR than a traditional set 5i. So therefore, club makers are changing COR values to keep gaps and over all distance the same as traditional sets. That's what I was getting at.