Do you hit irons above your handicap?

[DeNinny]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432230372' post='11602248']
For 30 years of CB design, no manufacturer has been able to prove they benefit any specific handicap level better than any other club. F[b]or all this time, golfers of any skill level have proven that any type of club is best for their game alone and again it varies and there is no correlation to handicap.[/b]

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is all fact.
[/quote]

Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it.

Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money".

Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory.
[/quote]
The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims?

You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point.

What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer.

Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years.

Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers.

[c7015]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432227924' post='11601932']
[quote name='c7015' timestamp='1432227209' post='11601854']
I think the only way to answer that is by pulling out the impact tape ... my tape says no
[/quote]

Or you could use on course experience. My on course experience says 1) SGI wide soled clubs are the worst for my swing, 2) I can shoot my personal bests with blades, and 3) playing a CB set back and forth with my blades results in the same average score and my index changes at the same rate of improvement.
[/quote]
sure you can , it brings in more external factors ...

the only reason to not play blades would be if you have trouble hitting the sweet spot of the club ... so take all the variables out of it.

[Pepperturbo]

Regardless of the prevailing blow in many threads, I will never believe anyone actually plays clubs they don't really want to play. Because of that belief, its silly to repeatedly say "play what you want to play"'; as if approval is necessary for healthy people to feel good about their choice. But, if you are fragile about your choice of club or belief, best not post.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='c7015' timestamp='1432232462' post='11602566']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432227924' post='11601932']
[quote name='c7015' timestamp='1432227209' post='11601854']
I think the only way to answer that is by pulling out the impact tape ... my tape says no
[/quote]

Or you could use on course experience. My on course experience says 1) SGI wide soled clubs are the worst for my swing, 2) I can shoot my personal bests with blades, and 3) playing a CB set back and forth with my blades results in the same average score and my index changes at the same rate of improvement.
[/quote]
sure you can , it brings in more external factors ...

the only reason to not play blades would be if you have trouble hitting the sweet spot of the club ... so take all the variables out of it.
[/quote]
Understood but impact tape doesn't always paint the entire picture and show how well you hit the sweetspot under course conditions. It most definitely plays into my decisions and I agree with you, but it also could mislead you to a wrong decision. For example I could hit my SGI hybrid 4i well on the range using impact tape, but on the course with that club it was a different story. All those other variables can play into what club is best.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432233326' post='11602704']
[quote name='c7015' timestamp='1432232462' post='11602566']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432227924' post='11601932']
[quote name='c7015' timestamp='1432227209' post='11601854']
I think the only way to answer that is by pulling out the impact tape ... my tape says no
[/quote]

Or you could use on course experience. My on course experience says 1) SGI wide soled clubs are the worst for my swing, 2) I can shoot my personal bests with blades, and 3) playing a CB set back and forth with my blades results in the same average score and my index changes at the same rate of improvement.
[/quote]
sure you can , it brings in more external factors ...

the only reason to not play blades would be if you have trouble hitting the sweet spot of the club ... so take all the variables out of it.
[/quote]
Understood but impact tape doesn't always paint the entire picture and show how well you hit the sweetspot under course conditions. It most definitely plays into my decisions and I agree with you, but it also could mislead you to a wrong decision. For example I could hit my SGI hybrid 4i well on the range using impact tape, but on the course with that club it was a different story. All those other variables can play into what club is best.
[/quote]

DeNinny - you bring up a valid point about impact tape and how it can be misleading. Recently a friend thinking the toe was up on his new clubs, put impact tape on them and we went off to play 18. He was just as perplexed and I was surprised watching him hit one ugly shot after another. He was mentally struggling with the thought they were toe up or maybe wrong.. therefore affecting his mechanics. Long about #7 I told him to take the tape off and forget about it for now, just play. He did and to his surprise, those ugly shots turned into straight ones, and he grinned the rest of the round.

[FlyPhish]

Maybe folks just like to play the irons that provide the highest percentage of sweet spot strikes. For some, the shovels increase that percentage, for others the added size decreases that percentage. A larger sweet spot does not necessarily mean it's easier to reliably return the club to a position where the ball contacts the sweet spot.

If you have to use shovels to accomplish this, more power to you. If blades do the trick, go with those. My consistency goes way up with a PCB or a blade, as an added bonus they feel much better/softer.

[cphrey]

[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1432234490' post='11602832']Maybe folks just like to play the irons that provide the highest percentage of sweet spot strikes. For some, the shovels increase that percentage, for others the added size decreases that percentage. A larger sweet spot does not necessarily mean it's easier to reliably return the club to a position where the ball contacts the sweet spot.

If you have to use shovels to accomplish this, more power to you. If blades do the trick, go with those. My consistency goes way up with a PCB or a blade, as an added bonus they feel much better/softer.[/quote]

Phishing this summer at all?

[FlyPhish]

[quote name='cphrey' timestamp='1432234930' post='11602898']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1432234490' post='11602832']Maybe folks just like to play the irons that provide the highest percentage of sweet spot strikes. For some, the shovels increase that percentage, for others the added size decreases that percentage. A larger sweet spot does not necessarily mean it's easier to reliably return the club to a position where the ball contacts the sweet spot.

If you have to use shovels to accomplish this, more power to you. If blades do the trick, go with those. My consistency goes way up with a PCB or a blade, as an added bonus they feel much better/softer.[/quote]

Phishing this summer at all?
[/quote]

Yes and yes.

[mahonie]

If the OEMs can claim 17 yards further than last year's driver, why can't they say that this year's GI club will hit the ball x yards closer on mishits than last year's version? The OEMs do a great job of masking what 'forgiveness' is all about, namely getting the ball closer to the hole on a mishit. I can't say that I have ever seen any empirical data to substantiate 'forgiveness.' I've said it elsewhere, I honestly believe perimeter weighted clubs will only help on mishits when the clubhead is travelling square to the target path and it is then only a real benefit when the length of the clubhead from heel to toe is longer than average. I think this is why lots of players rave about the Bridgestone J40 DPC.

[cphrey]

[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1432235205' post='11602928'][quote name='cphrey' timestamp='1432234930' post='11602898']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1432234490' post='11602832']Maybe folks just like to play the irons that provide the highest percentage of sweet spot strikes. For some, the shovels increase that percentage, for others the added size decreases that percentage. A larger sweet spot does not necessarily mean it's easier to reliably return the club to a position where the ball contacts the sweet spot.

If you have to use shovels to accomplish this, more power to you. If blades do the trick, go with those. My consistency goes way up with a PCB or a blade, as an added bonus they feel much better/softer.[/quote]

Phishing this summer at all?
[/quote]

Yes and yes.[/quote]

Good to hear. I'll be continuing my Labor Day tradition at Dicks. As for F ishing, I hope to do some of that as well!

[DeNinny]

[quote name='mahonie' timestamp='1432235325' post='11602944']
If the OEMs can claim 17 yards further than last year's driver, why can't they say that this year's GI club will hit the ball x yards closer on mishits than last year's version? The OEMs do a great job of masking what 'forgiveness' is all about, namely getting the ball closer to the hole on a mishit. I can't say that I have ever seen any empirical data to substantiate 'forgiveness.' I've said it elsewhere, I honestly believe perimeter weighted clubs will only help on mishits when the clubhead is travelling square to the target path and it is then only a real benefit when the length of the clubhead from heel to toe is longer than average. I think this is why lots of players rave about the Bridgestone J40 DPC.
[/quote]
To add, all those attempts at "engineering" square path forgiveness have detrimental effects in other areas. The cavity face dampens spin making it more difficult (but not impossible) to work the ball. The cavity face dampens feel making shot feedback more difficult. The cavity face has varying flex depending on how close the hit is to the center which leads to inconsistent dispersion. The wider soles and bigger heads make it harder to get the club through the rough. The wider soles increase the chance of hitting the ground first compared to a thin sole. For some golfers all of this is "worth it", but not for all.

And where is the mishit data when the ball is being worked?

And where is the mishit data based on a golfer's actual swing where his ability to keep the face square is a factor? A robot has a much better and stronger grip on the club. Your hands will give well before a low MOI club will twist.

Great post.

[Makuakane_Bear]

Not to take away from the discussion, but I don't think the OP is looking for blades in particular. While looking for new irons he simply found that he has more choices than he originally thought and because of this discovery he created this post to 1) see if others experienced something similar 2) what advice, if any, we could offer him towards his next equipment purchase. With that said, I think the general consensus that we ALL have said is to try as much as you can and simply see what works. At that point, I think the "proof will be in the pudding" and he can be comfortable that he made the best decision he could with his purchase.
As far as the handicap charts, I personally don't think there are any conspiracies by the OEMs. They are simply supplying us with choices (some supply us with A LOT more than others). If they think X will help someone, they release it. To help us make a choice they offer basic guidelines with handicap as a starting point. It's not right all the time, but it's just supposed to help the average person make a decision. Golf is hard and there are a lot of choices out there with the bold claims, the fancy colors, funny Tour Pro commercials, and Blair O'neal in a bikini, and etc.
I think this forum is filled with plenty of individuals who are passionate about the game and are willing to put all equipment through it's paces. I think that it is great that we have all these choices to choose from. Those of us who do have the opportunity to try as many of them as we can/might be pleasantly surprised by what we end up with. Besides, no matter what anyone says, the moment of truth will be at impact.
At the end of the day, if it works for you, it simply works for you.
Good luck again to the OP. I hope you find something that works for you.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432232182' post='11602526'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432230372' post='11602248'] For 30 years of CB design, no manufacturer has been able to prove they benefit any specific handicap level better than any other club. F[b]or all this time, golfers of any skill level have proven that any type of club is best for their game alone and again it varies and there is no correlation to handicap.[/b] This is not a conspiracy theory. It is all fact. [/quote] Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it. Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money". Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory. [/quote] The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims? You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point. What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer. Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years. Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers. [/quote]

Haha seriously? You want me to believe that self-reporting from random strangers on an internet message board is conclusive proof that GI clubs don't work?? Lack of proof isn't the same as proof against. You can make the claim that there may not be a correlation to handicap and club type, but when you start saying that it's a fact and has been proven, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about with OEMs. It's a big difference, though its clear through past discussions that you have an extremely strict criteria for proof in favor of GI clubs, but those standards disappear when you start passing things off as fact.

I ask again: Do you 1.) have evidence that OEMs intentionally mislead customers regarding the benefits of GI irons, or 2.) have a reasonable explanation for WHY they would even consider doing this? Unless you can provide an answer to either of those, your "facts" are nothing more than conspiracy theory - plain and simple.

For the record, I don't blindly follow OEM chart recommendations. I have a significant amount of experience between my trials, and those of people I know personally, all of which support the OEMs claims. Literally, 100% of it.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='mahonie' timestamp='1432235325' post='11602944'] If the OEMs can claim 17 yards further than last year's driver, why can't they say that this year's GI club will hit the ball x yards closer on mishits than last year's version? The OEMs do a great job of masking what 'forgiveness' is all about, namely getting the ball closer to the hole on a mishit. I can't say that I have ever seen any empirical data to substantiate 'forgiveness.' I've said it elsewhere, I honestly believe perimeter weighted clubs will only help on mishits when the clubhead is travelling square to the target path and it is then only a real benefit when the length of the clubhead from heel to toe is longer than average. I think this is why lots of players rave about the Bridgestone J40 DPC. [/quote]

True, but to be fair, there is a clear motivation for OEMs claiming better performance from last years club - they want you to buy the latest and greatest. There is no clear motivation for OEMs claiming their GI set is better for a 15 handicap than their blades if it's not the case.

[mahonie]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237459' post='11603156']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432232182' post='11602526'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432230372' post='11602248'] For 30 years of CB design, no manufacturer has been able to prove they benefit any specific handicap level better than any other club. F[b]or all this time, golfers of any skill level have proven that any type of club is best for their game alone and again it varies and there is no correlation to handicap.[/b] This is not a conspiracy theory. It is all fact. [/quote] Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it. Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money". Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory. [/quote] The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims? You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point. What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer. Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years. Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers. [/quote]

Haha seriously? You want me to believe that self-reporting from random strangers on an internet message board is conclusive proof that GI clubs don't work?? Lack of proof isn't the same as proof against. You can make the claim that there may not be a correlation to handicap and club type, but when you start saying that it's a fact and has been proven, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about with OEMs. It's a big difference, though its clear through past discussions that you have an extremely strict criteria for proof in favor of GI clubs, but those standards disappear when you start passing things off as fact.

I ask again: Do you 1.) have evidence that OEMs intentionally mislead customers regarding the benefits of GI irons, or 2.) have a reasonable explanation for WHY they would even consider doing this? Unless you can provide an answer to either of those, your "facts" are nothing more than conspiracy theory - plain and simple.

For the record, I don't blindly follow OEM chart recommendations. I have a significant amount of experience between my trials, and those of people I know personally, all of which support the OEMs claims. Literally, 100% of it.
[/quote]


Callaway was recently called out for claiming that it's Big Bertha iron was 'two clubs longer' and misleading consumers. Interesting article on the other site that can't be linked here.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237459' post='11603156']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432232182' post='11602526'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432230372' post='11602248'] For 30 years of CB design, no manufacturer has been able to prove they benefit any specific handicap level better than any other club. F[b]or all this time, golfers of any skill level have proven that any type of club is best for their game alone and again it varies and there is no correlation to handicap.[/b] This is not a conspiracy theory. It is all fact. [/quote] Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it. Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money". Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory. [/quote] The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims? You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point. What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer. Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years. Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers. [/quote]

Haha seriously? You want me to believe that self-reporting from random strangers on an internet message board is conclusive proof that GI clubs don't work?? Lack of proof isn't the same as proof against. You can make the claim that there may not be a correlation to handicap and club type, but when you start saying that it's a fact and has been proven, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about with OEMs. It's a big difference, though its clear through past discussions that you have an extremely strict criteria for proof in favor of GI clubs, but those standards disappear when you start passing things off as fact.

I ask again: Do you 1.) have evidence that OEMs intentionally mislead customers regarding the benefits of GI irons, or 2.) have a reasonable explanation for WHY they would even consider doing this? Unless you can provide an answer to either of those, your "facts" are nothing more than conspiracy theory - plain and simple.

For the record, I don't blindly follow OEM chart recommendations. I have a significant amount of experience between my trials, and those of people I know personally, all of which support the OEMs claims. Literally, 100% of it.
[/quote]
Good for you and your friends. You proved you are aligned to the OEM recommendations in your own minds and only applicable to said own minds. I play with guys that use clubs all over the map and are not always aligned (some are, some aren't). For every person aligned to the advertising charts, there is an exception in either direction.

My evidence that an OEM is misleading is them stating, for example, that a 2 index or better is the proper handicap to play their blade offering. Yet MANY golfers at higher index than this, using the exact same experience and logic that you and your friends use, prove that they in fact can score the best with those blades, making the manufacturer claim simply untrue.

The manufacturers want golfers to believe in this class system because it enables (not guarantee) potential future sales. It is as simpke as that. So long as they don't sell something completely awful, they can get away with this without losing customers. A golfer is likely going to get better regardless of the club so as they do this the manufacturers have set up that golfer to buy a next set.

It is all based on the false assumption that there is a correlation with iron type and handicap.

It is not a conspiracy theory. It is simply advertising to the masses that are ignorant of the fact that no scoring and handicap data was used to create such charts.

30 years has been enough time for proof. The fact that no proof can be provided, yet there would be countless golfers to support a study says enough to me. There is such a thing as lie by omission.

You may also want to consider holding what you say as fact or 'not true' to a similar standard. Just because you and your friends agree also doesn't make anything absolutely true.

[Nessism]

This thread is vectoring straight into the toilet, just like all other "blade vs CB" threads that have come before it.

Same people making the same old arguments.

Remember: the definition of insanity is doing the same old thing expecting different results.

[martinbns]

[quote name='richard t' timestamp='1432119883' post='11592284']
Reading all of the above makes me think ( not a good idea-for me). Nonetheless, I would never tell anyone what this or that club to buy. It's your money. Get what you like and feel comfortable swinging.
That said I'd off that if you want to be a low teen or single you must consider the following and DISTANCE IS NOT a part of it.
1. You MUST practice- a lot- all aspects of your game. [color=#ff0000]I have bad knees, hit half a bucket and roll a few putts before a round, not true[/color]

2. You must hit the fairway off the tee. [color=#ff0000]For sure, since I have lost distance it's all about short grass, I hit about 65-70% of my fairways partly because I can't hit it far enough offline to lose balls and shots[/color]

3. You must hit at least 10/12 greens in regulation [color=#ff0000]I average about 7 GIR, decent short game and don't miss them by much usually[/color]

4. You have to reduce misses around the greens when chipping. Get the ball to one putt range. [color=#ff0000]True[/color]

5. 3 Putts are the bane of handicap issues. [color=#ff0000]Absolutely, 3 putts and penalty shots[/color]

What clubs YOU use is going to be dependent on how YOU can accomplish the above. If Miura Baby Blades, Ping G30s or something in between. As one OP said, "clubs don't hit the ball. YOU do.

Lastly, contrary to popular belief, NOONE else really cares what you use. ( Not meant to be mean just saying.

Work hard, practice, play enjoy.

Good Luck!
[/quote]

Keeping the ball between the navigational buoys and making some putts is the key to not making doubles very often.

[eldog-in-the-hizouse]

Handicap is more about overall scoring, not necessarily ball striking. I'm a pretty crappy iron player, but I can score. I wish I hit my irons better than I scored. But there's also a huge difference between driving range ball striking, and golf course ball striking. Hitting irons great on the range or in a store is not a given out on the course.

[beerpressure]

Yes, but only because I bought them at a time when I had little knowledge about golf clubs and they were on sale. They're made for low-mid caps and I am a high capper.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432238789' post='11603330'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237459' post='11603156'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432232182' post='11602526'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432230372' post='11602248'] For 30 years of CB design, no manufacturer has been able to prove they benefit any specific handicap level better than any other club. F[b]or all this time, golfers of any skill level have proven that any type of club is best for their game alone and again it varies and there is no correlation to handicap.[/b] This is not a conspiracy theory. It is all fact. [/quote] Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it. Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money". Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory. [/quote] The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims? You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point. What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer. Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years. Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers. [/quote] Haha seriously? You want me to believe that self-reporting from random strangers on an internet message board is conclusive proof that GI clubs don't work?? Lack of proof isn't the same as proof against. You can make the claim that there may not be a correlation to handicap and club type, but when you start saying that it's a fact and has been proven, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about with OEMs. It's a big difference, though its clear through past discussions that you have an extremely strict criteria for proof in favor of GI clubs, but those standards disappear when you start passing things off as fact. I ask again: Do you 1.) have evidence that OEMs intentionally mislead customers regarding the benefits of GI irons, or 2.) have a reasonable explanation for WHY they would even consider doing this? Unless you can provide an answer to either of those, your "facts" are nothing more than conspiracy theory - plain and simple. For the record, I don't blindly follow OEM chart recommendations. I have a significant amount of experience between my trials, and those of people I know personally, all of which support the OEMs claims. Literally, 100% of it. [/quote] The manufacturers want golfers to believe in this class system because it enables (not guarantee) potential future sales. It is as simpke as that. So long as they don't sell something completely awful, they can get away with this without losing customers. A golfer is likely going to get better regardless of the club so as they do this the manufacturers have set up that golfer to buy a next set. [/quote]

The quoted above is just shocking to me. No way OEMs pump massive amounts of money into developing and marketing multiple sets of irons every year so they can potentially "trick" a customer into buying a new set every time they jump a "class". The vast majority of the golfing public won't even reach the highest recommended level, many won't even get out of the first class.

Serious golfers buy irons more frequently than this. Casual golfers aren't going to improve enough, and if they do, aren't going to instantly shell out money for a new iron set when they hit a certain level. That is simply a terrible, money-bleeding strategy, and I'd be shocked if an OEM even considered it.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432240749' post='11603530']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432238789' post='11603330'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237459' post='11603156'] [quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1432232182' post='11602526'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432231293' post='11602400'] Do you have a link to this evidence? I would be very interested to see this, but if there is a large sample size of players of various handicaps using various iron types, with no impact on scores/how they hit their irons, I would be open to seeing it. Regardless, there is a difference between "OEMs think certain clubs are better for certain players but can't prove it", and "OEMs know its a crapshoot and are intentionally lying to customers because [hole in logic] which leads to more money". Edit: the "theory" that OEMs are "conspiring" to intentionally lie to their consumers while covering it up behind fake science is the definition of a conspiracy theory. When people claim this is a fact without any proof, or even logical reasoning, it is an insane conspiracy theory. [/quote] The info is all the threads on this topic. The lack of proof of ANYTHING is the proof. Sure, I assume most golfers in here are posting in sincerity but regardless where is the proof of the manufacturer's claims? You challenge me yet you blindly follow a manufacturer's handicap charts? That have been published for years without any statistically valid basis? This is my point. What you call conspiracy I simply call advertising that deludes the ignorant customer. Yes it is insane for people to believe there is a correlation of handicap to an iron type when the manufacturers cannot provide ANY proof. Your last point is actually making my point. Instead of focusing on me, you should focus on what manufacturers have never proven over 30 years. Nobody has any proof except what they proved in their own minds. If you ask me for proof, hold yourself to the same standard. And the manufacturers. [/quote] Haha seriously? You want me to believe that self-reporting from random strangers on an internet message board is conclusive proof that GI clubs don't work?? Lack of proof isn't the same as proof against. You can make the claim that there may not be a correlation to handicap and club type, but when you start saying that it's a fact and has been proven, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about with OEMs. It's a big difference, though its clear through past discussions that you have an extremely strict criteria for proof in favor of GI clubs, but those standards disappear when you start passing things off as fact. I ask again: Do you 1.) have evidence that OEMs intentionally mislead customers regarding the benefits of GI irons, or 2.) have a reasonable explanation for WHY they would even consider doing this? Unless you can provide an answer to either of those, your "facts" are nothing more than conspiracy theory - plain and simple. For the record, I don't blindly follow OEM chart recommendations. I have a significant amount of experience between my trials, and those of people I know personally, all of which support the OEMs claims. Literally, 100% of it. [/quote] The manufacturers want golfers to believe in this class system because it enables (not guarantee) potential future sales. It is as simpke as that. So long as they don't sell something completely awful, they can get away with this without losing customers. A golfer is likely going to get better regardless of the club so as they do this the manufacturers have set up that golfer to buy a next set. [/quote]

The quoted above is just shocking to me. No way OEMs pump massive amounts of money into developing and marketing multiple sets of irons every year so they can potentially "trick" a customer into buying a new set every time they jump a "class". The vast majority of the golfing public won't even reach the highest recommended level, many won't even get out of the first class.

Serious golfers buy irons more frequently than this. Casual golfers aren't going to improve enough, and if they do, aren't going to instantly shell out money for a new iron set when they hit a certain level. That is simply a terrible, money-bleeding strategy, and I'd be shocked if an OEM even considered it.
[/quote]
You've already bought into the fact that you fit their class system. Hook, line, and sinker by your own admission.

You may want to reread my words in detail lest you continue to argue out of context to what I specifically stated. It seems you missed some key words like "enables the POTENTIAL for future sales" and "set up the golfer to buy". This wording was intentional because I anticipated already that my points would be taken out of context.

[Exactice808]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432240749' post='11603530']
The quoted above is just shocking to me. No way OEMs pump massive amounts of money into developing and marketing multiple sets of irons every year so they can potentially "trick" a customer into[u][i][b] buying a new set every time they jump a "class[/b][/i][/u]". The vast majority of the golfing public won't even reach the highest recommended level, many won't even get out of the first class.

Serious golfers buy irons more frequently than this. Casual golfers aren't going to improve enough, and if they do, [u][i][b]aren't going to instantly shell out money for a new iron set [/b][/i][/u]when they hit a certain level. That is simply a terrible, money-bleeding strategy, and I'd be shocked if an OEM even considered it.
[/quote]


I hate to derail this thread.... but the tracks are !@#$% ahead any ways....



1) Every year they release a new Club and every year...people will buy into the new clubs for the X added benefits that the manufacture spew.
2) The Sunday hacker is probably what keeps the manufactures in the money as they DO BUY new crap every year. They probably have to pay Pros and convince them just to use new stuff.
3) We have a Club HOing problem and it is widely discussed here on GolfWRX
4) People sometimes dont buy clubs for the gaming aspect, they sometimes just like collecting
5) Manufactures do a pretty good job to convince people to buy new clubs for X handicap. Especially with the talk about distance. Many of the Hackers are looking for distance, guess what they sell distance in SGIs, GI's and hell even talking about distance in CB too.




So you say they wont instantly shell out the money, I disagree, people are shelling out the money and people are buying into the marketing BS..... and with the "Handicap" lvls people lie to themselves that they are good enough based on their own perceived handicaps not actually skill.


We see 100's of threads about blades because they "Feel" they got better and can play them. But in reality they are not asking WHY they should play as in needed benefits, But they are playing because someone set a "standard" to play them.


Marketing Marketing Marketing..... Did I mention Marketing........ TM, Nike, Callaway, Titleist etc..... They aint broke and why? Because people shell out the money.......if not they would not be releasing crap every year.....

[buzlin]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432240749' post='11603530']
Serious golfers buy irons more frequently than this. Casual golfers aren't going to improve enough, and if they do, aren't going to instantly shell out money for a new iron set when they hit a certain level. That is simply a terrible, money-bleeding strategy, and I'd be shocked if an OEM even considered it.
[/quote]

Sea,
For arguments sake, if you look at Mizunos website (I love Mizuno btw), you'll see that they assign a suggested handicap range. I believe they're marketing the JPX line as the baby sibling to the MP line. Notice they assign a low end of 0 for the entire MP line, but assign various low caps for the JPX line. As a players handicap changes, so does their perception of the equipment they should be playing, for better or worse. I believe this is to get loyal Mizuno players to repurchase MPs, or to look at playing MPs as a goal. But it's not consistent, Stacy Lewis plays 850 pros, yet they assign a low cap of 6. Large OEMs are in business to make money, this is done by getting the first purchase and then repeat purchases from customers. There are many ways to get this done, but it's a GOAL OF ALL OEMs.

[Bigmean]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237716' post='11603192']
[quote name='mahonie' timestamp='1432235325' post='11602944'] If the OEMs can claim 17 yards further than last year's driver, why can't they say that this year's GI club will hit the ball x yards closer on mishits than last year's version? The OEMs do a great job of masking what 'forgiveness' is all about, namely getting the ball closer to the hole on a mishit. I can't say that I have ever seen any empirical data to substantiate 'forgiveness.' I've said it elsewhere, I honestly believe perimeter weighted clubs will only help on mishits when the clubhead is travelling square to the target path and it is then only a real benefit when the length of the clubhead from heel to toe is longer than average. I think this is why lots of players rave about the Bridgestone J40 DPC. [/quote]

True, but to be fair, there is a clear motivation for OEMs claiming better performance from last years club - they want you to buy the latest and greatest. There is no clear motivation for OEMs claiming their GI set is better for a 15 handicap than their blades if it's not the case.
[/quote]

Yes, on the surface hat is reasonable, however (and I mean this as food for thought, please don't assume I am preaching it)

I think on some level the reality that oems know, is this: Good players (let's say most golfers shooting legit 84s and under) don't care about new equipment and DO NOT change equipment often at all. They wear out sets and wedges and have the same putter(s) for lifetimes. The lower their scores, the more true this becomes. They represent the vast minority of marketable demographic, and they are the most difficult to sell to, so why waste the effort and money even bothering. The majority of golfers that are changing clubs regularly are probably shooting 82 and up, and of those there is an inverse relationship where the higher the score the more likely they are to change equipment sooner until that score reaches a point of just don't care about golf and play a few times a year. So oems would never move these repeat buyers into clubs that didn't feel right for their 90 scoring swing. They will keep buying new tech, and keep shooting about the same scores. And to gophers point, that is great if they are having fun because that is the name of the game. But to my point, there is zero incentive for a manufacturer to promote a club that both emphasizes practice and is geared toward a minuscule market segment.

Now why does mizuno offer a handicap range? Becuase they have so many offerings I think they need to clarify who should look for what and the easiest way is to do that by handicap range, but doing that is like doing a shaft fitting and getting told R, S, or X based on SS and not looking at launch, spin and all the other crap. It is loose at best.

[J40]

Without quoting:


Well obviously the "class system" varies from person to person. Like you choose to go by score and handicap because you can beat it around the course in 90 shots with any given set....that's fine. But when choosing irons the most critical aspect should be your ball striking which you are quick to dismiss. Feel, trajectory, shot shape, etc mean nothing when playing a blade if you're not pounding the sweet spot far more often than not. (Heck it's optimal to do this with any club) You try and argue this time and time again but it's the undeniable truth. Then you try to debunk the forgiveness factor of clubs or build up the forgiveness of a club that isn't true. You actually said you lost 5 yards of intended carry with a 5 iron hit off the extreme toe....not even in the grooves! If your "real world experience" says you can shoot 90 with any set of clubs I'll believe that. If you tell me that blades are forgiving just for you or their optimal just for you hitting it all over the face then I'm not buying it.

[Bigmean]

Can you guys please just start your own 5 iron thread and take it there. How many times do we need to read about this?

This topic has nothing to do with the type of clubhead you play, why does that keep being interjected?

[mahonie]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1432237716' post='11603192']
[quote name='mahonie' timestamp='1432235325' post='11602944'] If the OEMs can claim 17 yards further than last year's driver, why can't they say that this year's GI club will hit the ball x yards closer on mishits than last year's version? The OEMs do a great job of masking what 'forgiveness' is all about, namely getting the ball closer to the hole on a mishit. I can't say that I have ever seen any empirical data to substantiate 'forgiveness.' I've said it elsewhere, I honestly believe perimeter weighted clubs will only help on mishits when the clubhead is travelling square to the target path and it is then only a real benefit when the length of the clubhead from heel to toe is longer than average. I think this is why lots of players rave about the Bridgestone J40 DPC. [/quote]

True, but to be fair, there is a clear motivation for OEMs claiming better performance from last years club - they want you to buy the latest and greatest. There is no clear motivation for OEMs claiming their GI set is better for a 15 handicap than their blades if it's not the case.
[/quote]

It's all to do with profit margins. GI clubs are generally cheaper to make, so the OEMs want to shift more of these clubs in order to maximise their profit. Blurring the lines between SGI or 'player's clubs' widens the market place allowing them the potential to sell more clubs and skewing the natural distribution curve in their favour. Before Ping came along the marketplace was less crowded with the size of OEM being significantly smaller than today's massive corporations. The result is that each OEM has to market its own USP to the same group of golfers. Eventually the general public will cotton on that the OEMs are all peddling the same story with different words. It's already happening in the UK where golf participation is falling rapidly because people are realising that you can't buy a game. TaylorMade's sales were down 28% last year...people are getting wise to them that their marketing claims will not directly lead to better golf.

[Little Ned]

[quote name='cphrey' timestamp='1432234930' post='11602898']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1432234490' post='11602832']Maybe folks just like to play the irons that provide the highest percentage of sweet spot strikes. For some, the shovels increase that percentage, for others the added size decreases that percentage. A larger sweet spot does not necessarily mean it's easier to reliably return the club to a position where the ball contacts the sweet spot.

If you have to use shovels to accomplish this, more power to you. If blades do the trick, go with those. My consistency goes way up with a PCB or a blade, as an added bonus they feel much better/softer.[/quote]

Phishing this summer at all?
[/quote]

With the baby on the way, I'm happy to just be doing ATL.

[J40]

[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1432242892' post='11603804']
Can you guys please just start your own 5 iron thread and take it there. How many times do we need to read about this?

This topic has nothing to do with the type of clubhead you play, why does that keep being interjected?
[/quote]

lol what? It has everything to do with the topic and he's posted pics of this more than once. It debunks his argument totally. Not only does it debunk his argument but it's hard to believe a 10 hc hits shots outside the grooves.