Do categories matter? (players iron, game improvement, super game improvement)

I'd like an answer to the more general question posed in the title, but my specific question is as follows. Back in about 2006 or so, I got some Mizuno MX-17s from my boss. He'd only had them one season and got new clubs. They were nice cavity back clubs, and much nicer than I needed as someone who was new to golf and had never broke 100. I gamed those until about November of this year when I broke the head off my 9i hitting off a mat. I put my weight on the club to lean down and pick up a ball, and it just snapped. My dad had recently been fitted at club champion, and he had some old clubs I could use: Mizuno JPX900s. These are from maybe 2016-7, so they're about a decade newer than my old irons. I've hit them at the range and on a simulator, and the distances are similar for me. At first, I may have been hitting the new clubs about 5-10 yards shorter than my old clubs. Then I started finding the sweet spot on them, and now I'm probably hitting the new clubs as far if not farther than my old ones. I read that the JPX900 is categorized as a players iron. My dad shoots probably in the mid to high 70s on average (I don't actually know his handicap, just what he shoots when we go out), so those irons make sense to me for a player like him. I have improved recently, but I'm about a 20 handicap that shoots in the mid-90s usually. I would never have considered players irons, but I've been hitting the JPX900s pretty well.

Before my 9i broke and I found my way to my dad's old irons, I was thinking about getting fitted for clubs. I was most interested in trying out the 919 Hot Metals. I probably still will get fitted at some point. My driver is from 2012, and my hybrids are Ping G2s from over a decade ago. I'm pretty due save for putter and wedges which are pretty current.

My question is about categories. Should I focus on game improvement irons when I search for new clubs? My dad got fitted at club champion, and he pretty much just showed them his old clubs, made some swings, and open-mindedly took their suggestions on what worked best. I have some idea of heads I'd like to try, but maybe I shouldn't. Do categories matter? Whenever Not allowed because of spam comes out with a list, I only really look at game improvement, or maybe super game improvement. Are the differences between categories growing smaller with new technology? I guess I don't know exactly what I expected from trying to hit a players iron. They don't seem particularly forgiving. When I get slightly off plane and hit it a little fat, I may hit my 7i 140, vs 165 when I pure it. I think that playing a less forgiving club has helped me improve my swing though. With my old clubs, my 7i was more of a 145-150 club no matter how well I hit it. I also seemed to draw the ball more with the old clubs. With the new clubs, I put very little shape on the ball. I either hit it pretty straight, or pull it slightly (due to path), which seems to be pretty playable. To summarize, I'm really only noticing a little less distance consistency with the players irons. What is the difference between categories, and should I consider that when getting new clubs?

Go for a fitting and go with what works best for you...category doesn't matter.

Category doesn't matter...lessons do.

The ever changing questions.

Simple answer, Yes and No it could depend.

Best answers are the 2 above, NO it doesn't, Fitting matters.

Fun Long TL : DR answer

What is the difference between a

46* Super game improvement Iron

46* Game improvement iron

46* Players GI iron

46* Players CB iron

46* Muscle back blade iron?

Now add in the same exact shaft, S300 in stiff, Swing weights all equally measured at D2 and lengths all same length and lie.

What difference would these 5 irons have? the obvious would just be looks when looking down at the ball. The fact though is you would like to strike the ball with ALL the irons in the same spot, the sweet spot right?

Now the Technical differences?

1) Offset, visually and affects of face closure due to offset and players ability to control face closer.

2) Sole design, the thinner or wider sole affects turf interaction dependent on the players ability to control angle of attack and turf interaction.

3) Actual ball striking consistency. The Cavity back features the ability to maintain loss of ball speed on less then optimal strikes in comparison to the "less cavity back options" which may punish the player in a greater reduction of ball speed

3a) Increase of MOI (Moment of Inertia) , due to weight distribution, SGI's have increased MOI vs CBs/MB's meaning it has a higher probability to resist twist on less then optimal strikes. keeping the face angle at less then optimal impact.

4) CoG (Center of Gravity) While highly debatable, (I personally believe, loft, shaft profile affects launch) Supposed CG's have differnt CoG locations that aid in launch characteristics.

Anyone one else?

With that, let me say this.

if I have an 80mph PW swing speed, I am looking for a smash factor of 1.22 and 97.6mph of ball speed as an optimal number

I am looking for a peak height of 95ft and 9500 rpms of spin. Can I get this with a 46* SGI? Absolutely, can I get this with a 46* MB? Absolutely

I may need to pair a different shaft with each head to control launch characteristics. But the BIGGER and most critical factor, can I put a repetitive swing to quantify the launch window.

who says I cant stick a set of C-Taper 130x on an SGI head?

who says I cant stick a set of 55 gram graphites in R flex on a MB?

If it fits the flight window and gives me the MOST optimal result, dont let anyone dictate what iron heads you should play that gives you the most consistency and predictability.

OK getting off the soap box LOL!

Definitely catagories matter big difference in SGI irons when compared to Blades. The offset is different, the weighting is different, etc. A SGI Iron is without doubt more forgiving on mishits than a blade.

I plan to get fitted, and I may get some more lessons, but that doesn't really answer my question.

Is the biggest difference cavity back vs. muscle back/blades? I used to carry a Ping Gmax 5i. I replaced my MX-17 5i with it because it was substantially longer and seemed to be more consistent (though I don't have numbers or proof). But the GMax did seem significantly different from the MX-17. I've hit friends clubs, demos, rentals, and never really found any one club to be way better or worse than another, but I've also never hit anything other than a cavity back. The club I swing in my office is a Ping Eye2 7i I got off ebay, and I've hit it at the range and didn't see a whole lot of difference from my MX-17s. Of all the clubs I've ever hit, the Gmax is really the only club that looked (like a shovel) or felt (longer) different. That said, those two clubs have two degrees difference in loft, so it could just be that...

There is no exact answer, but it sounds like you are an inconsistent striker of the ball.

In theory, the game improvement and super game improvement irons are going to be larger, with thicker top lines, with wider soles, and with some sort of cavity or pocket in the back. The idea is to move more weight on towards the heel and toe and further back. This widens the sweet spot and launches the ball higher. The goal is to give you some distance and launch consistency and you strike the ball around the face. A little towards the toe and a little towards the heel, and you arent giving up too much ball speed and distance. So for a great number of players, these types or irons are beneficial.

Sounds great, why wouldn't everybody want some tech help? Multiple reasons. For some people the sole widths are too large and turf interaction is not ideal. You lose speed hitting the ground first. With a larger sweetspot, it's harder to work the ball and intentionally put side spin on it. So if you are a player that likes to work the ball, especially in both directions, than game improvements can sometimes hinder that ability. The feel of the strike is also dampened and its harder to know where on the face you hit it. Also, looks. Some people don't like the thick toplines, and maybe seeing some of the cavity sticking out of the back. Besides being an eyesore, some people actually have a harder time hitting the center of the face. For some people its aim small hit small. People with higher swing speeds might launch the ball too high with too much spin. Super strong lofted irons are sometimes difficult to gap. And usually there is more offset on game improvement clubs that cause better ball strikers to over draw the ball.

You bring up a point I don't think I understand. When we talk about working the ball, are we mostly talking about a draw vs a fade? If so, isn't that just face to path? I never understood what about blades specifically makes them more workable.

Nobody has really addressed my other question about cavity back clubs, and are they all more or less the same. I do recall looking at m.ygolfs.py test data, and within any given category, the numbers are all pretty similar. The difference between the worst and best club are never very extreme for carry, total, launch, spin, apex, etc. But those numbers are category specific. I guess I haven't compared across categories.

My initial thought is, not at all. As long as it fits your swing and instills confidence while your standing over it, who cares what category it it listed under in Golf Digest.

with the center of gravity deeper and lower the ball wants to get up quicker, so naturally it is harder to keep the flight low. a players iron is typically easier to flight low, under a tree limb, or to minimize the effect of wind.

the ball also wants to spin towards the center of gravity. Assuming slight misses here and not anything topped or thinned or chunked. if slightly above the centerline the ball will typically have less backspin as it wants to roll forward to the center of gravity. A low strike will result in increased backspin. as it rolls upwards to the center. Same goes for slight misses to the toe which imparts draw spin, and toward the heel which imparts fade spin. There are alot of other factors at work here, but when the MOI is higher and sweet spot is larger, you see less of these back and side spin variations.

Category of club will not matter,

Category of club will not change your score

Everyone's swing idiosyncrasies and skills are different

Find what you like, find what you feel confident in swinging

Get fit, and go play

This post was an enjoyable ride, appreciated even more with a cold beer. I want to see the 50g graphites on an MP4 or the new stunning Wilson blades.

To try and directly answer, are all cavity backs the same? Well its a simple answer and that is No.

An SGI *TM MCBG" with larger soles, larger offset, different CoG an different MOI is different from say a "Players Cavity" (Titlesist CBs)

but if you setup shaft for shaft, loft for loft, how much difference while STRIKING the Center would it be? not much possible a difference in spin and possible launch, but doubt it would earth shattering.

Now apply the same statement to a person that has issues with their swing. example someone that has a steep swing and takes large divots, the strike might be the same but the turf interaction can affect the face angle upon contact. the Players CB or Titleist CB's would react much differently than the TM MCBG's

Or if you hit the MCBG's on the toe in comparison to the CB's the MCB's may resist the twist affect and likely retains additional ball speed over the CB's how much is an unknown factor but the design can have positive or negative affects that is player to player.

The only way to know? Its putting them head to head to your swing profile. Seeing each benefit that each club has in relation to YOUR specific swing and profile.

as for work ability, due to the mass moved above from center the effects of spin placed on the ball can be so what negated. So its assumed if we take 2 identical swings paths (say in, to out- Draw) to the ball. One with an SGI and one with the MB, the MB due to mass would curve the ball more. How much is dependent on the amount of path and the ball that is used.

With that is it impossible to work an SGI no, just likely needs additional effort,

Same with flighting the ball up and down just effort. The LAST part that I caution is shaft profiles matched with Categories of Clubs.

most SGI's are paired with lightweight, mid to high launch shaft and mid to high spin shafts.

Most players irons are matched with mid to low launch and mid to low spin shafts.... So to compare apples to apples is important.

Is it wrong to have 50gram graphite shafts on an MP4 set? how about X100 on some SIM MAX OS? Are we committing some golf violation?

Enjoiy that cold beer for me as well! Cheers

Interesting about flight the ball high and low. I've heard of that, but hadn't considered it. I've tried with very limited success to draw or fade where it is appropriate, but my swing has always produced a fairly low ball flight, so I've basically always been trying to get the ball up more. I've made punch shots below trees, etc., but I've never played a lower shot to stay out of the wind or get more roll, etc. Makes sense though.Yeah I have multiple questions, you can handle it. Interesting what you said about offset. That's not something I had considered at all. I just thought it was a visual thing. I just googled, "least offset cavity back" and found out that my clubs, the JPX900s, are one of the sets people are saying have the least offset. Another quick google search says that my old mx-17s had a lot of offset. So that's at least one difference between the two sets that sounds pretty significant.

The cavity doesn't look much different between the two clubs. The MX-17s is slightly deeper, but visually, what I notice most is that the MX-17s have a wider sole. That may be why I had more consistent distance. My fat shots weren't punished as much. Does that follow?

I'll throw y'all another u-turn for fun. Do you think forgiving clubs slow improvement for high handicap golfers? With those MX-17s, if I swung hard enough, I could get about 150 out of my terrible OTT swing with a 7i. With the JPX900s, the OTT swing would cut my distance down to about 140 or less total. We're talking 130 or less carry with a 7i. It was less than I was used to, so I felt forced to make an adjustment. Now, with a better path, I'm seeing better distance than ever.

"I'll throw y'all another u-turn for fun. Do you think forgiving clubs slow improvement for high handicap golfers?.."

Have you ventured to read any of the blade users threads? :P

I am firmly in the 'no' camp on this. Does it give you more feedback in feels? Sure. But my eyes give me feedback too. That shot sucked. It was gonna suck no matter what club I used. Its a swing flaw. Some clubs make it suck less, but it still sucked. Blade ain't gonna fix my flaw any faster. Coach and practice yes.

Depends what you're looking for. I like feel. I like blades. Game improvement clubs feel dull to me. I tend to play solo or with friends, so playing my best against competition isn't really a concern for me.

Categories matter a lot if you're trying to sell golf clubs.

Not so much if you're just playing golf. Pick something that you're comfortable with mentally, physically and financially and then just get out there. Your set of irons is really not that important in the grand scheme of an afternoon's golf.

I haven't, are they discussing this?

I'm not sure I agree with you. With my old clubs, I was constantly trying to work on my path at the range, but when I was playing, I had a bit of a shortcut. Fat shots still went what I felt was an OK distance for me. A 150 yard 7i doesn't raise any eyebrows. And when I was hitting it particularly fat, I only only lost about 10 yards. My on course solution was to swing harder. If on the course you're swinging with about 80% power, it's not hard to really get on it and get a few more miles an hour to get those 10 yards back.

With my new clubs, That still seems to work on grass, but on the mat, I can't swing hard enough to cheat those 10 yards back. When I get over the plane and chunky, I'm carrying 130ish and rolling out to 140 or sometimes less with a 7i. I don't know if it's the mat we have at home or if the club has too narrow a sole, or what, but I cannot compensate for that bad plane. As a result, if I want to hit playable shots, I have to stay on plane. If I'm being honest, I think my improvement has primarily come from much more frequent practice recently. But I do think that losing the ability to swing harder to hit OK shots has forced me to swing better.

I play blades, and hit my 7i about 160. If I hit a fat shot, I'd be lucky if it goes 100. Fortunately, fat is not my miss.

So a GI or SGI with more bounce and wider soles can definitely help on fat shots.

So I realize I've strayed from the original post some, but this helps illustrate my new question. For a high handicapper like me, what matters most is probably sole width and having that cavity back (I'm also still curious about offset, but I still don't totally understand that EDIT: added a link for reference below). With that kind of forgiveness, you can just swing a little harder and get an OK result. With these JPX900s, they seem to dig more than my old clubs, which means I hit solid from the inside, or I chunk some from the outside and pay the price. I think that has forced me, or at the very least, incentivized me to improve my swing.

I think there is something to this. I mean if you learn on HB Launchers for instance, it would be so much harder to comprehend how much a bad path can penalize you. If you lose 20-30 yards like me, or 60 like Ger21, then you really have no option but to improve contact. I think people should play the easier clubs there are, but I also think there is a lot of value to having stronger feedback on bad shots when you're learning.

Golf Myths - Does Offset Matter?EDIT: I had more of a draw with my old mx-17s with more offset than the new JPX900s. I have very little shape at all with the JPX900s, so I hit just the babiest of draws, straight, or a pull without shape. I think I have a strong grip left over from when I had issues breaking my wrist at the top which leads to a square or closed face at impact. That article doesn't really address path much. If you're coming over the top with a high offset club, I'd think that would be double cross city unless you pair it with an open club face. With a face square or slight closed to path (which is how mine is typically), you're talking about pulls or worse. This is definitely something I'll know to ask about now when I get fitted. I was told I had too much shape to my shots with my old clubs. Good shots were big dramatic draws. Bad shots were low double crosses. With my new clubs, or maybe my improved swing or a combo of the two, I'm getting hardly any shape. Even when I try, I've struggled to add shape to my shots.

First you need to address the apples and oranges scenario

First are we comparing the same club setup equal?

Loft for loft of your MX-17 is 34* not sure what generation JPX900 (forged, Hot Metal, Tour etc) but it ranges between 34-31*

Second is shafts, Shaft plays a huge roll in delivering the club head to the ball, is the shaft weights the same along with flex etc.

Now you made the "statement" If I swung hard enough, Well do you swing hard enough with the JPX, I know that sounds stupid but you had to add that in in relevance to the MX-17's why?

With that, the OLDER Cavity Back designs, pushed discretionary weight to the exterior of the club head. This added in increasing MOI and trying to increase ball speed on less then optimal strikes due to additional mass further from center. NEWER Cavity backs both provide the weight moved to the outer portions of the head, But also have thinner faced inserts with rubber/material between the faces. This supposedly providing additional rebound effects while maintaining durability and consistency.

So I truly believe that newer generations of Cavity backs have potentially better ball speeds on less then optimal strikes than some of the older generations. SIMPLE exmple would be to compare

Titleist CB, Titlest AP2, Titleist AP1.

The CB's are traditional solid head design with increased weight to the edges. The AP2's are a pocket cut cavity design which is hollow in the main strike areas, with a more traditional head design. The AP1's are the full pocket cut cavities with the most aid in design (offset, wider soles etc)

While all 3 heads have "Cavity Backs" the Cavity backs by designs function slightly differently. They also react differently. I have played with the CB & AP2's quite a bit, I am currently gaming a set of MB's

take the 6iron specifically. Lofts being equal shafts being equal. If I hit all 3 (MB, CB, Players GI) I get about 172 yards consistently. If I miss though the reactions would differ.

As an example if I hit it about 1/8th on the toe side, the MB would likely lose close to 10-20 yards, and either snap left or block right depending on how my path was. THE CB's would likely lose about 5-15 yards but potentially resist twisting a little better and would potentially go a little straighter (not much). The AP2 would likely maintain most of its distance 5-10 yard loss but hold its line the best, allowing the ball to maintain a little more straighter result than the other 2.

Same with a heel strike, same with a high on the face or low on the face. The older design Cavity, where its a solid constructed club with weight moved outwards, compared to Pocket cavity Cavity backs and multi material and multi design heads have difference in reaction.

Here is the FINAL Fact point..... its all meaningless if you dont strike the center anyways. You need to strike the center of the MB, CB, Players GI, SGI clubs to have any consistency in your game and resulting shot.

Do you need demanding clubs to swing better? Thats up to you. I cannot justify it though, Some can I cant.

If you need or want something demanding, just do this

SGI, GI, Players GI.... if you need to focus better..... not sure why you need a Blade to Focus better or a more demanding club to focus better....

I think the biggest apples to oranges is skill set. You're talking about hitting the middle of club, I'm talking about hitting the little ball before the big ball. I think we probably have radically different ideas about what consistency means as well. I honestly don't know if the data exists that would differentiate between categories.

More specifically, what I was saying about sole width before was that with the MX-17s, when I hit it fat, the club would still slide some and give me about 150 with a 7i. If my swing was too far off plane and I was only hitting the ball about 140, I could just swing harder to get the ball out further. The chunk would slow the club down, but not excessively so. So instead of fixing the problem (my path), I'd just swing even harder and still chunk, which would give me another 10 yards, but at the cost of some control.

I can't do the same with the new clubs. The JPXs tend to dig (I think) which results in way less distance. 20 yards or more, which is significant by any measure. Now I could be wrong, and that 20 yards could be due to strike location on the face, but it doesn't seem that way given that I can just about predict the short shots that go left. I can feel my sequence being off. The hips go fast and early, I got off plane, OTT, and hit it slightly fat. I feel it, and then I look up and I see a pull short left. If my path is good, Im looking at 150-165 pretty straight. That 15 yard variance is probably location of strike on the face and swing speed differences, one would assume.

To summarize the above, off center hits are bad for anyone, but the real killer for me personally is fat shots. A wide sole just allowed me to keep my OTT swing and swing hard and still get it out 150, which seemed like an OK distance. But when you're swinging at nearly 100% power, control and consistency will suffer. Pair that with an already bad swing, and it's not a recipe for improvement. Think of it in terms of incentive. With that wide sole, the easily way to gain 10 years was to swing harder. With the JPXs, the ONLY way to gain 10 yards was to improve my path. There was no other option. If I wanted to hit a 7i over 140, I had to fix the path, so eventually I did improve it. With a wide enough sole, you can play OK golf with a bad swing. That is really my point. With a thinner sole, I don't think you can hit it fat and play OK golf. You have to adapt and bottom out in front of the ball, or you're just not going to see reasonable distances.

Also, out of curiosity, do you really practice with the post it cut out? What happens when the ball hits off center on the paper?

First and foremost, the contact is MILLISECONDS, to quantify the affects of the dig depends on how fat you hit the ball on reference to contact.

Second would be actual location of strike and ACTUAL ball-speed.

What I mean is yes the club head to turf interaction is huge, but the effects from the interaction would be concerning if you are hitting hitting a couple of inches behind the ball. the half inch, likely is not making a significant difference. (total guess)

Ok next is actual strike on the face, Just know where you hit on the face makes a big difference. Surely yes the wider soles on the MX17 could help you "drop kick" bounce the head back towards the ball, Difference from the JPX900 actually digging into the ground and striking high on the face. Comparing if you hit shots on a range mat vs grass. if you hit a fact shot with the JPX900 on mats does it HURT?

The thing is, should you be concerned about the sole when your swing is having major depth control issues in the first place? If you solved your depth control the sole width and design would basically be meaningless.

Next is again comparing apples to apples. Ball speed to ball speed. If the Irons are exactly alike (same weight, same flex, same swing weight, same length). Yet you lose 10 yards on less then optimal strikes. the question would be WHY? Either face contact with the ball is way off and having huge reductions in speed, Or you swing is changing between the 2 clubs. The "ball" never lies. That means ball speed and launch window.

Let me try it this way,

1) What shafts do you have in the MX-17?

2) What shafts do you have in the JPX900's (Also can you confrim what model of JPX900? tour, forged Hot metal etc)

I bet you have 2 different shaft profiles. Thats part 1.

Second part the fact you have depth control issues is not necessarily the clubs fault, the club can only save you so much, the rest is required by the golfer. Trying to quantify the sole as the justification of the club is where you will forever be stuck. AGAIN if you worked on your depth control of your swing, the sole would be meaningless as you should be hitting the ball FIRST before the ground anyways.

As for the taped face of the club. People say they need demanding clubs to focus better, You can see when you missed the club based on the tape, people say they need feed back that the MB/blades provide as the cavity backs dont provide feed back, well you will surely see on the tape where you missed. Thats a fact.

As for what happens to the ball on an off center hit? Why does it matter, it just edifies that you miss hit the ball right?

"The thing is, should you be concerned about the sole when your swing is having major depth control issues in the first place? If you solved your depth control the sole width and design would basically be meaningless."

I think you're just about getting my point. A wider sole mitigates the depth control issue to the point that I felt like I could compensate for it with a little more speed. A narrower sole does not allow that compensation.

To address some of your other comments: Yes, I often hit the mat so hard that it hurt. I'd feel sore from it. Yes, I was hitting way behind the ball. So yes, I think I'm on to something here. Also, I'm still not sure you answered my question about the post-it. When you strike the paper, it's visible that you did so? That's the purpose of the post-it? So it's like foot spray or tape?

I dont think you are understanding my point. Having a swing ISSUE that bad is NOT something you would like to have an Irons as an excuses to use it.

YES a wider sole can temporarily help your current swing issue. SURE you can play like that for the rest of your life but why would you choose to do that? Why not choose to fix your issue of depth control rather than relying on a wider sole to possible help your fat shots? Your fat shots should not be corrected by an Iron but corrected by better swing mechanics.

As for compensating with more speed... Why not hit it correctly with the same speed and get way more distance and consistency?? You theory is using a function of a club to make up for a error in your swing?

Finally.... I may have misunderstood your question but you stated "I think that playing a less forgiving club has helped me improve my swing though" , but what I thought what was implied is if you had more demanding club to focus better. Well, artificially create more focus by taping the face.

You have a MAJOR depth issue, and sounds like you also have strike issues.... You need a lesson or swing lesson.

The "categories" are features of OEM marketing. They can't make enough money selling a set of clubs to each golfer every few years, so they convince their customers that there is a bi difference in the categories which encourages more buying.

Here is the truth. Hit the ball in the middle and you get a good shot no matter what category your using. This and off the toe is the opposite.

Steve

Of course it matters. Hitting an SGI is not like hitting a blade. If you say otherwise I'd question if you've ever actually played golf or just sit around posting about it all day.

The flight characteristics will be different with different style heads, as will certain elements of forgiveness.

I feel like I'm saying this in every thread now but we have become so contrarian here. Everything is the opposite of what they tell you!