The technology is getting so much better

[WristySwing]

You were the one that provided no data. I did provide data. You based your entire argument on a single MPF on a 20 year old iron. I provided data from modern heads, showed launch monitor data from Trackman and GCQuad that included launch, spin, ball speed, etc. You got upset and called everyone "clueless" who didn't agree with you. Yet I am the one who buried my head? Sure....

[Red4282]

Look i could go through and list each data point to the best of my ability, and list all data points, come up with an average to compare, but why should i waste my time when minds are made up and the ideology is rigid? Clear cut is an opinion. A clear difference. In my opinion there is a clear difference in launch, approximately half a degree (my estimation) on average based on those plots- and that is a noticeable difference. In my opinion total peak height is hard to say, or not as clear cut.

 

[brew4eagle]

Opinions are usually not subject to right/wrong, but in this instance it's a fact that you're wrong about the "clear cut" difference. The data proves it.

[Red4282]

Oh no no. I listed very specific statements regarding clubhead design and Physics pertaining to ball flight. You said you were dropping out of this thread because i called you a fraud a good few days before. Convenient of you to drop out of the conversation then.

 

Its becoming very clear to me: those who are selling clubs or have drank the manufacturers cool aid, completely bow out when confronted with hard data and facts. I even called out TXG recently on one of their videos and they did the same. Nothing. No response. Shame cause i really liked some of the stuff they did.

Crossfield and i have very similar thoughts on the subject. His thoughts stem from his vast experience with every club you can imagine. Mine stems from a pure physics perspective. You cant argue the physics and hard data. You just cant.

Your arguments actually contradict what physics say. Thats why its complete BS.

You dont think its odd the manufacturers dont do these kinds of test and let the whole world know there are benefits to these clubs? Nope...what do we get....Just extremely watered down general terms like “lower cg for higher launch”.... ok compared to what??? Thats an important question. Or “perimeter weighting to maximize forgiveness” again... compared to what, and how about we see that on a iron byron please. They water down and generalize their statements because (1) hard to hold them accountable, (2) It lets peoples imagination and placebos run wild.

 

[Red4282]

ok in your opinion, what determines a clear cut difference?

[brew4eagle]

I'd choose the phrase "statistically significant" difference (vs. clear cut). There are various tests for this, but those data sets clearly are not different, period. And I don't care about the different types of clubs, whether marketing or not, I just got involved due to the erroneous data interpretation. I'm done on the topic.

[Red4282]

semantics, cool. And you still didnt determine what is a “clear cut” difference is according to you... hmm?

[brew4eagle]

Done feeding the troll

[Red4282]

Call me whatever you want, you failed to answer the question because....??? ?‍♂️You were incorrect. Typical tho, expect nothing less, when wrong leave the thread and call people names and insult them. Waiting...

[brew4eagle]

Edit- Nevermind, I'm done banging my head into the wall, mods should lock this up

[WristySwing]

You do realize TXG isn't a sponsor here, right? So how on Earth are they supposed to respond?

Your total physics argument, mr. engineer was along the lines of that VCOG has not changed in 20 years and you could prove it. You then cited a MPF number...a single number. I then gave you data from the best fitters in the world, a person who fits tour pros on the regular, and you dismissed that and called it wrong. But I guess you know more than everyone. You win. I give up. I don't even know why I came back in this thread. Talk to me when you actually have some launch monitor data with hundreds of customers to back it up.

I have access to a pile of Arccos data to show you how much more forgiving modern clubs are from their entire Arccos data pool...but I'd be wasting my time because you still would find something to nitpick and say it is a biased test or placebo.

[Red4282]

I didnt reply on here... on their youtube channel and on twitter.

i posted an example of an mpf vcog from 20 years ago yes. You posted a bunch of launch monitor data. I explained how the txg ping iron test was skewed in the fact the baseline irons cg was incredibly high, one of the highest in the industry. Id like to see a launch monitor test, loft to loft, from 20 years ago with this super low cg. Would you be willing to do so?

also, this isnt even what i was referring to, this is what id like you to address:

 

Would you agree with these statements?

(a) If we take as many variables outside of the club design out (player delivery is same everytime-dynamic loft, lie and AOA- same balls and shafts) launch angle is dictated primarily by vertical center of gravity placement of the club head. The lower the cg, the higher the launch and vice versa. 

(B) Ball speed dictates the potential for peak height given the launch angle and spin is constant. The higher the ball speed, the higher the peak height.

© Spin is primarily determined by spin loft and by strike location in relation to cg. A lower lofted club that results in lower dynamic loft will produce lower spin. A ball struck below the cg will have Increase in total spin. A ball struck above the cg will produce a lower spin. Generally speaking, clubs with lower cgs will produce lower spin rates and vice versa.

(D) Compression. The more the ball compresses, the lower the launch angle, and lower the spin.

 

[WristySwing]

Your A-D is exactly what I have been saying throughout this whole thread. So yes, I agree with them. Spin is also extremely driven by golf ball. I have seen 1000 RPMs more spin in my fits just by changing a ball.

[Red4282]

Great then we will be in agreement with this too:

in regards to (a) its is a MYTH that Technology has created cgs that are lower than they were 15-20 years ago. Here is proof. If you want to offer counter evidence Id be happy to look.

This is the lowest cg iron made by callaway in the last 5 years: (.748)

Here is pings- (.776)

Here is from 2002, callaway tu/ti- a shocking (.525)

Thats almost a full 1/4 inch lower than anything today. I think what is happening, and part of the bridge to our divide is: The claim “these have the loft of a 6 but launch like a 7” are true in the sense that when you compare them to most other irons today, they absolutely do. Nobody is comparing that to a 2002 tu/ti iron, and obviously if you did, it wouldn't even be close(the tu/ti would launch higher).There Is only one logical conclusion you could make from this: The golf manufactuers actually have been RAISING the cg over years (and it kind of makes Sense) and the cgs arent lower than irons from 20 years ago or you just dont believe the the MPF data and they are a fraud. And how come manufacturers dont release similar data like measured cg, bladelength and moi? Or again do comparison testson iron byrons. They have the capabilities. They have this data. They choose not to release it. It’s detrimental to their cause of selling product.

(B), ©, and (D) Since these two relate to hot faced irons, we know a hot face iron gives us a higher potential height because its increased in ball speed. However because its transferring more energy to the ball (compression), if anything it may LOWER launch a tad bit over a non hot faced iron. Now, i believe that this would be minimal cause we are talking 1-4 mph more, and the additional peak height will outweigh that, or at least offset. The higher compression of the ball will also lead to Lower spin rates.

Unfortunately, the only recent real gains in technology came in the ball.

when manufacturers make claims like “more forgiveness” “lower cg” “more ball speed” or any general claims, its important to ask COMPARED TO WHAT....?

 

[Red4282]

Its things like this that just drive me bonkers... GEAR INSIDER: Surprising impact of blade length and accuracy w/ Dr Paul Wood“During the conception of their Blueprint iron for better players, PING looked to testing on the golf course in game-like conditions. The testing they came up with was a skills challenge where players hit different shots, like high cuts or low draws, provided feedback on what a successful shot looked like. 

While numbers like ball speed, launch angle and shot curve were part of the equation, players’ opinions were taken into consideration as well. This allowed PING to see if what a player perceived a good shot to be, was actually reflected in the data. 

Based on the results, PING was able to see if there was a distinct mechanical advantage to the Blueprint style of head. Their findings showed that the smaller head design of the Blueprint iron helped better players. Even though they sacrificed some forgiveness, they were able to have greater face control and hit different types of shots with increased precision.”

They gave us ZERO data. They took it upon themselves to interpret the “data” for us. Funny when people like crossfield or MYGS do independent tests and release their data they often get different results than what manufacturers claim. RELEASE THE DATA!!

[brew4eagle]

Vast majority of people don't understand data, so from a marketing strategy perspective they choose to keep it simple. I'd guess that most people would be turned off/overwhelmed by a data driven marketing approach and just dismiss it as 'snake oil'.

[Red4282]

ahhh the people are dumb so why bother. Very convenient. Cant definitively say its snake oil. It may not be. But if your going to just blindly believe them, well, thats an issue too. Can i get a “clear cut” answer? ✂️

[WristySwing]

Just to play devil's advocate, MG$ also "tells us" what to believe as well. They purposely post inflammatory comments on their Instagram and Podcasts to incite clicks and then get all defensive when someone doesn't respond and fawn over them. For instance, when they showed a clip of the Kirkland Putter and very clearly one of the hosts says "to me this looks like an Odyssey". Sean Toulon, head of design for Odyssey and owner of Toulon putters, came on and made a comment saying "As director/head of design for Odyssey, I can tell you for a fact these are not Odyssey putters." All the MG$ social media team did was respond "Listening is important," as if to imply he somehow misheard what they said and was confused. No, you clearly said this looked like an Odyssey and suggested Odyssey made it for them. While their tests are a bit more transparent than others, they still don't post everything. You can't see the data for each person except for the averages across all testers. And who knows how many swings they took to get there? They say 3-8 swings per player...but what if they were all shanks? Is that still included?

I'll stop now. I do agree they are better, but they are still not "good".

[Red4282]

oh im not defending MGsp as end all be all. They draw their own conclusions from their tests and force feed it to us. BUT, i can look at the data and how the test was done and draw a pretty good conclusion of my own. Like one of their recent fairway woods test, didnt have the mizuno in it... really? They arent perfect. But at least i can look at the data they provide and how the tests were conducted. Whats weird is both crossfield and MGs come across with attitudes at times, which i dont think helps their cause in educating.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

My Eye 2 still work. Too bad about the “grooves”.

The biggest achievements are custom fittings and shafts, then foam. The P790 seem unshank-able. Who needs “feel” Lol. Will pick mine up next week.