The Official Wishon Sterling single length iron discussion

sixtysevensixtyseven · January 22, 2016

Why not use stepped or flighted shafts for single length? The long and short iron would benefit from the launch characteristics and I'm sure the weighting could be sorted out. A butt trimmed set of taper tips wouldn't work because?

That would result in each club having a different frequency or flex so it wouldn't work.

TitlePured · January 22, 2016

Why not use stepped or flighted shafts for single length? The long and short iron would benefit from the launch characteristics and I'm sure the weighting could be sorted out. A butt trimmed set of taper tips wouldn't work because?

That would result in each club having a different frequency or flex so it wouldn't work.

Yes, with the same club head. If you kept the current model of varied club head weights, couldn't you make a set of irons weighted appropriately for same length and shaft stepping? Currently most iron heads have a progression of 7-8 grams between each head. If you made that weight difference 4-5 grams, you could have a set that has 1/4" length increments in the mid to long irons (same length in short irons/ wedges). This way you could still achieve proper flight and spin with a wider range.

By choosing one flex and one club head, you are keeping the frequency the same but results will vary with such big differences in loft. Which is why Tom's set stops at 5 iron. The mid/ short iron shaft doesn't spin enough for most players in the long irons.

Instead of same length, wouldn't custom length based on player comfort level be more appropriate? Same length may give you more similar clubs in the bag but there will still be different swings necessary from shot to shot. Take a par 5 for the average golfer using "single length set"... Driver of the tee (43-45"), fw wood or hybrid off the fairway (40-43"), iron or wedge into green (37"). You're still hitting three shots of varying length and setup on one hole.

PJ72 · January 22, 2016

Why not use stepped or flighted shafts for single length? The long and short iron would benefit from the launch characteristics and I'm sure the weighting could be sorted out. A butt trimmed set of taper tips wouldn't work because?

That would result in each club having a different frequency or flex so it wouldn't work.

Yes, with the same club head. If you kept the current model of varied club head weights, couldn't you make a set of irons weighted appropriately for same length and shaft stepping? Currently most iron heads have a progression of 7-8 grams between each head. If you made that weight difference 4-5 grams, you could have a set that has 1/4" length increments in the mid to long irons (same length in short irons/ wedges). This way you could still achieve proper flight and spin with a wider range.

By choosing one flex and one club head, you are keeping the frequency the same but results will vary with such big differences in loft. Which is why Tom's set stops at 5 iron. The mid/ short iron shaft doesn't spin enough for most players in the long irons.

Instead of same length, wouldn't custom length based on player comfort level be more appropriate? Same length may give you more similar clubs in the bag but there will still be different swings necessary from shot to shot. Take a par 5 for the average golfer using "single length set"... Driver of the tee (43-45"), fw wood or hybrid off the fairway (40-43"), iron or wedge into green (37"). You're still hitting three shots of varying length and setup on one hole.

Great discussion TP.

You got me thinking about using spinner shafts in the long irons. I'm not quite sure how these work exactly, but even if they aren't suitable there must be a selection of shafts that allow a higher flight. Again, I'd be amazed if Tom hasn't discounted this through his research. Or maybe it does work but only in a select few with right swing speed, transition, tempo ect.

TomWishon · January 22, 2016

This goes back to some of my early comments. I'd like the idea a lot more if there were a clear plan of what to do with the rest of my bag.

Tom is missing the boat big time because he's got the complimentary product to pull it off but he isn't communicating it properly. Without redesigning woods, hybrids, long irons and wedges he could recommend adding them.

He can LOL all he wants at my concept of him making a set that fits into what people will buy based on price and just simply the fact that enthusiasts don't buy full sets (woods irons and wedges) of clubs, he's either ill advised or letting his attitude against purist design work vs. business get the best of him. This is where he has an advantage over the large OEMs. He's got the product and flexibility that could allow him to offer complimentary clubs where a company like TM is just too big to sell individual 3 or 5 irons and it doesn't fit into their business model.

Like I said it's not for me at this point but once someone takes it to the next level and offers a complete plan I'll take a look.

I just got about 3/4's of the way through an explanation to your above comments and the thread crashed somehow and I lost it - so hopefully this second time around I can remember what I thought I was so coherently saying in response to your comments !!!

OK, let's look at a WHOLE set of clubs with a little different perspective to try to help you understand where I am coming from.

Woods and irons in a golfer's set have NEVER been matched to each other. Seriously that is true no matter how much we might try or think we can do that. Woods and Irons are two totally separate segments of the bag with very little in the way of elements that really tie them together for the golfer.

First off, there has always been a huge length difference between the woods as a group and the irons as a group. Even in the old traditional 3x8 set of 1,3,5 woods and 3-PW irons, there was 3" in length between the shortest wood and longest iron. In terms of swing feel for the clubs, that is HUGE - we can express swing feel with MOI of the clubs. And in the calculation of MOI for assembled clubs, length is a squared property so this length jump between the woods and irons is very significant.

Even when clubmakers do MOI matching of clubs in a full set, they can never use the same exact MOI to build all the woods and irons to be because it doesn't work to make the golfer be consistent with both the woods and irons at the same exact MOI. Clubmakers have found that the right MOI for the golfer in the woods is higher than the right MOI for the same golfer in his irons - because of this huge length difference that has always existed between woods and irons in sets.

Now why has that been? If you go back to the 1980s, Spalding tried to do something about that with a model they marketed for two years called the Spalding Continuous Set. In the set, from driver to PW, the length increment between all clubs was the same. There was no big 2" or 3" jump from the shortest wood to the longest iron. And in such a set, one MOI could be found in fitting that could work for a golfer because the increment of length remains the same all the way from driver to wedge.

But the Continuous Set fell by the wayside because of one big thing - to get the same length increment from PW up to Driver they either had to make the irons longer than before so as to keep the woods all the length golfers were used to - or they had to make the woods shorter than before so as to keep the irons the length golfers were used to. They chose the latter which meant golfers were hitting shorter length woods, which meant for many, lower clubhead speed, and loss of distance.

If you want to guarantee the death of a model, create it so most golfers lose distance compared to what they achieved before in their previous set.

So the woods as a group have to be longer because we golfers want to hit the ball as far as we can. After all, that is the golfer's main focus with the woods - distance. While the main focus for most with the irons is - accuracy. Here's yet another difference in these two segments in the bag.

Even the fitting of the woods vs the irons addresses different elements to ensure these two parts of the bag are so different from each other.

We fit wood length on the basis of golfer ability - how long of a length can the golfer control consistently. Where in the irons we fit iron length on the basis of golfer stature/posture vs comfort, not golfer ability. Shafts in the woods actually bend twice as much in actual bending amount than do the shafts in the irons. Total weight that fits a golfer well for best tempo and timing is almost always completely different in the woods vs in the irons, it is not the same. Balance point on the woods is in a different position relative to the golfer's hands on the grip than it is in the irons, within a well fit set.

Woods and Irons are DIFFERENT ANIMALS and they shall always be as long as we golfers prefer to play our woods at lengths that are far longer than our irons. And we will continue to always do that because we have to have that wood length be longer to ensure we get the longest distance we can hit the woods.

So when looking at Single Length irons and asking "what do you do about the other part of the set" - the answer is you fit the other part of the set, the woods, just like you always do - as a separate animal still analyzing everything about the golfer's size, strength, ability and swing characteristics. And you make the spec decisions based on that without really paying any attention to what you did in the irons - other than 1) if they did well with a lighter iron shaft and lighter swingweight, you start looking there with the wood shaft and wood swingweight, 2) the grip size is almost always the same for both woods and irons for every golfer.

There is no possible way that single length can work in the woods. it's a been there, done that, and it failed miserably. Why?

Because - what single length are you going to choose for all the woods? You can't do it shorter like it is done with single length irons because you have no way of making up the distance loss that will happen in the driver, as can be done in the single length irons. With this Sterling set, when we chose an 8 iron or 7 iron length, we knew we could design the low loft irons to be a high COR face with a little lower loft and that would return the distance that would have ordinarily been lost due to using an 8 iron or 7 iron short length.

Can't do that with the driver if you choose a 5 wood length to get more control and more on center hits with the driver. Because drivers have already been at the top of the COR limit since 1998. And you can't lower a driver loft to help all golfers hit it longer because in the driver, loft has to be matched to clubhead speed and angle of attack to maximize every golfer's distance. Not that way in the irons where lower loft hits it farther for pretty much everyone - at least down to a point of low loft around 20* or so.

So the woods cannot be a single length to be able to make up a nice package to market to the golfer. The woods have to be separately fit for each spec to maximize distance while hopefully improving shot consistency and direction at the same time. And it is done all the time by all sorts of really experienced and well trained clubfitters.

So anyone well fit with a single length iron set just has to go out and find a good clubfitter to be fit correctly with the driver, woods and any other clubs that might be needed to bridge the distance between the lowest loft iron in the single length iron set.

Hope this helps, and glad the computer did not crash before I got that done !!

TOM

TomWishon · January 22, 2016

You got me thinking about using spinner shafts in the long irons. I'm not quite sure how these work exactly, but even if they aren't suitable there must be a selection of shafts that allow a higher flight. Again, I'd be amazed if Tom hasn't discounted this through his research. Or maybe it does work but only in a select few with right swing speed, transition, tempo ect.

I can't wait for the shaft fanatics to read this comment to this post above in the quote, but I guarantee you this is the truth, based on the ton of research we did in this single length design project.

In a single length iron set built to either 8 or 7 iron length, the shaft flex and bend profile is not going to matter very much for 98% of the golfers. The shaft WEIGHT will for sure be important in the fitting for 98% of all golfers though, and with it for sure the swingweight, AKA headweight feel.

Not very many golfers have the sensitivity or perception to actually and clearly FEEL the shaft flex and bend in their 7, 8, and higher loft irons. The length is so short, the shafts are so much more stiff from their shorter tip section for these shorter length clubs. Those who do feel the shaft's stiffness design in a 7 or 8 iron length are typically, 1) higher speed players with a very late release and very aggressive downswing, 2) players just born with a very refined sense of feel who have hit lots of shots with lots of different clubs and learned a feel perception for the shaft.

Not very many golfers in other words.

One of the most interesting things we learned in our research in single length is the fact that single length low loft irons are tough to hit high in the air for players of average to below average clubhead speed. One of the posters in this thread related his experience with a single length set in which he found in time he could not hit the lower loft irons in his set as high as he hit the same club in his incremental length set. And it isn't a loft thing that causes this.

It happens because of the drop in ball speed that comes from the drop in clubhead speed that comes when using a single length that is shorter than what those low loft irons had in the normal incremental length set. And shaft flex cannot make up for that.

On average, on average, a player with an 80mph clubhead speed with a 38 1/2" long #4 iron will show a clubhead speed of @ 73mph with his 36.5" # 8 iron. That's what a 2" drop in length typically does for most golfers. For some it is more, for some a little less, depending on their point of wrist hinge release in the downswing as well as a few other fitting related factors. With that 7mph average drop in clubhead speed comes a significant drop in the ball speed.

With lower loft irons, our launch angle is not very high. And keep in mind, launch angle has nothing to do with clubhead speed. Shot height does though. In case you hadn't known this, launch angle is dependent on angle of attack, loft at the point of impact, CG location in the head, slightly on shaft stiffness design, and the COR of the face. Launch angle has nothing to do with clubhead speed.

So let's say we have two golfers with the same A of A, hitting the same club in the same exact way - but golfer one has an 80mph clubhead speed, golfer two has a 73mph speed. Both hit the club and achieve the same launch angle, but golfer one's shot height will be @ 24 feet higher than golfer two because that 80mph clubhead speed generated a higher ball speed which kept the ball flying up and up on the same launch angle to a higher trajectory. Golfer two's lower clubhead speed brought about a lower ball speed so the ball took off on the same launch angle, but with lower ball speed it could not keep going up and up so it peaked at a lower height before falling down to the ground.

That's why average to slower swing speed players using normal single length irons have to be careful about what is the lowest number/lowest loft iron they use in the single length set. There is a loft to clubhead speed relationship for being able to achieve proper, decent, preferred shot height with a single length set.

In our testing, we did golfer hit test with every shaft from L to X, with wood shafts in the irons and iron shafts in the irons, to investigate this matter of the lower trajectory seen with the lower lofts for slower swing speeds at the 36.5" length. We also tested at longer and longer lengths to see that effect. Interestingly, at longer lengths, the X flex hit the ball higher than did the L at the short length. That was when we knew this was related to clubhead speed and that the shaft's stiffness would not affect it.

And that right there is why I designed the Sterling low loft irons of 5, 6, 7 with a high COR thin face. So that 1) the high COR face delivers more ball speed for the average clubhead speeds to help with keeping the ball going up on its launch angle to get to a decent shot height, 2) high COR thin faces do launch the ball higher for any given loft because of the way the ball comes off the face after flexing the face inward more than on a rigid, low COR face.

This was one of THE most interesting things that I learned in this work - had never dawned on me in the beginning of the project but in testing when we saw lower trajectory with avg to slower speed players at first this did not light the bulb. But eventually it did and from that we did what we could to bring back more ball speed and a higher launch to help overcome this tendency.

JCAG · January 22, 2016

As Tom said:

In a single length iron set built to either 8 or 7 iron length, the shaft flex and bend profile is not going to matter very much for 98% of the golfers.

That is heresy.........LOL

Mr Fade · January 28, 2016

And how about blade length, sole width and offset on the Sterling irons vs the 560MC?

5hort5tuff · January 28, 2016

I wonder why people bother to argue with Tom or his ideas. He has proven time and time again that he knows more than 99.99% of us on here. His videos debunk myths and explain how things work...can't say the same for all companies.

tourbillon · January 28, 2016

I like the idea of single length irons partially. I really trust my shortgame and my woods, but for the mid irons? This thread is very inspiring.

How about this: I realize a partial SL set with 8,7,6 and 5 iron. Hollow body components that are brought to the same head weight. Starting with the 8 – all the others get some extra weight (screw or hot melt). I get these heads bent to a loft gapping of 5 degrees. Same Lie angle as my starting 8. I use my standard 8 iron shaft in all heads.

Would this work?

Largechris1 · January 28, 2016

Very nice looking clubs. I've posted a few times about trying single length clubs, the iron concept absolutely makes sense, and progressive CoR sounds exactly right.

I just can't yet get it working for me. What I've found is a struggle to make the mental leap, my swing speed is varying, increasing by about 10mph from PW to 5 iron (with pinhawk SL clubs). So I've never achieved the consistency of strike that should be possible. I will keep coming back to trying them periodically though.

My suggestion for those able to try these out is specifically have your fitter check your swing speed of the 5 iron compared to the PW. If you can get those numbers pretty close I would think SL has a good chance of working for you.

The other point as some have asked is concerning the sand iron - yes that was too long even bent very flat. I ended up taking 1 inch off (so still +1 inch to standard) the sand iron (56 degrees) to get the playability around the greens back.

TomWishon · January 28, 2016

I like the idea of single length irons partially. I really trust my shortgame and my woods, but for the mid irons? This thread is very inspiring.

How about this: I realize a partial SL set with 8,7,6 and 5 iron. Hollow body components that are brought to the same head weight. Starting with the 8 – all the others get some extra weight (screw or hot melt). I get these heads bent to a loft gapping of 5 degrees. Same Lie angle as my starting 8. I use my standard 8 iron shaft in all heads.

Would this work?

In truth, there are many different options for handling the length of irons for golfers that can work ok if tweaked and massaged for each golfer's swing characteristics and sense of feel. Half inch increments, quarter inch increments, 3/8" increments, half the set one length/half the other, every three clubs the same length, etc and so on and on. This is true because so much, SO MUCH of iron fitting has to do with making sure the golfer is comfortable over the ball with all the clubs - and then making sure the weight elements of shaft weight/total weight/swingweight(headweight feel) are all well fit to the golfer's sense of tempo, timing, and personal weight feel preference.

Proof of this is in several points - no question there are tons of golfers who play very well with normal half inch increments in their irons, same for those who may on their own have started their own tweak of their iron lengths and kept massaging it until they were comfortable.

One of the two primary potential benefits of single length is the fact that it stands as the ONLY way to perfectly duplicate every possible element in all the clubs in the set that controls the swing feel of a golf club. That can only be accomplished when you are same length, same shaft weight, same flex, same total weight, same head weight, same balance point.

And the ONLY way you can duplicate ALL of those elements is in a single length assembly. Once you start to deviate from that by tweaking some lengths through the set, all this potential factor of SAME SWING FEEL PRECISELY goes out the window and no longer can be related to a single length concept.

but the point is still this - there are many ways to try to achieve better shot consistency in a set through the various elements of clubfitting that have a direct bearing on fitting the weight feel, weight distribution of clubs to the golfer.

Single length just happens to stand as the only concept that can perfectly duplicate every possible element that has anything to do with swing feel of the clubs. But in taking advantage of that to see if it does bring about better consistency, one does have to overcome the possible mental disjoint of each club being the same length when the golfer may be so used to each club being a different length.

I hear that too, loud and clear. Because in our hit testing, I saw golfers who had this mental block about all the irons being the same length. That's why in our communication with clubmakers about this, we are advising them to let the golfer try for a while before he buys, especially if they feel the golfer is struggling a little with this mental side of such a change.

TomWishon · January 28, 2016

And how about blade length, sole width and offset on the Sterling irons vs the 560MC?

Sterling blade length is the same as the 560. Sterling sole width is ever so slightly wider, like 1mm to not more than 2mm. Small amount. Offset is progressive in the Sterling, starting at 4.5mm with the 5 and gradually progressing down to 2.5mm on the PW, GW, SW. That's really not much offset - when you look at a substantially offset iron, you're seeing 9-10mm of offset.

ValueGolf · January 28, 2016

Very nice looking clubs. I've posted a few times about trying single length clubs, the iron concept absolutely makes sense, and progressive CoR sounds exactly right.
I just can't yet get it working for me. What I've found is a struggle to make the mental leap, my swing speed is varying, increasing by about 10mph from PW to 5 iron (with pinhawk SL clubs). So I've never achieved the consistency of strike that should be possible. I will keep coming back to trying them periodically though.

My suggestion for those able to try these out is specifically have your fitter check your swing speed of the 5 iron compared to the PW. If you can get those numbers pretty close I would think SL has a good chance of working for you.

The other point as some have asked is concerning the sand iron - yes that was too long even bent very flat. I ended up taking 1 inch off (so still +1 inch to standard) the sand iron (56 degrees) to get the playability around the greens back.

Chris - Just so I understand, are you saying your SS increases progressively from the PW to the 5 iron? If I'm understanding that correctly that is almost physically impossible if they are the same length. We've sold a ton of Pinhawk clubs with very happy customers and I can honestly say I've never heard that. What shafts do you have installed? Just curious.

Congratulations to Tom/Jaacob for coming out with the Sterlings. I'm SURE they will be very successful for you. Look forward to trying them out myself and doing a comparison with ours. Competition is a good thing! This industry needs a spark.

Largechris1 · January 28, 2016

Very nice looking clubs. I've posted a few times about trying single length clubs, the iron concept absolutely makes sense, and progressive CoR sounds exactly right.
I just can't yet get it working for me. What I've found is a struggle to make the mental leap, my swing speed is varying, increasing by about 10mph from PW to 5 iron (with pinhawk SL clubs). So I've never achieved the consistency of strike that should be possible. I will keep coming back to trying them periodically though.

My suggestion for those able to try these out is specifically have your fitter check your swing speed of the 5 iron compared to the PW. If you can get those numbers pretty close I would think SL has a good chance of working for you.

The other point as some have asked is concerning the sand iron - yes that was too long even bent very flat. I ended up taking 1 inch off (so still +1 inch to standard) the sand iron (56 degrees) to get the playability around the greens back.

Chris - Just so I understand, are you saying your SS increases progressively from the PW to the 5 iron? If I'm understanding that correctly that is almost physically impossible if they are the same length. We've sold a ton of Pinhawk clubs with very happy customers and I can honestly say I've never heard that. What shafts do you have installed? Just curious.

Congratulations to Tom/Jaacob for coming out with the Sterlings. I'm SURE they will be very successful for you. Look forward to trying them out myself and doing a comparison with ours. Competition is a good thing! This industry needs a spark.

Yep my swing speed goes up progressively. I have always tried to 'step on' the long irons, and mentally I struggle to break that with SL. They are the X stiff steel shafts you offered.

If I had a kid starting golf, I would definitely try single length on them, no question.

vangator1 · January 28, 2016

I've been playing SL irons for two years now. Absolutely improved my game. The biggest advantage is now I have confidence with my "long" irons. Having the other clubs different lengths is not a problem for me. The driver is a completely different swing for me. I only hit maybe 2 or 3 FW per round. The rest are irons. Helps to have the same swing plane.

My old set didn't have SL wedges, so I had conventional (shorter) lengths. No problem because those are more partial swings for me. Different than full swings with SL irons. The 5 - PW are SL and are money.

I just built a second set 4 - LW, all SL. No problem with the wedges. In fact I like them better because I can get more height and distance from them. That helps on shots I really need height on, like over a tree, but I want some distance too. With my old wedges I had to swinger harder which invites problems. Partial shots with longer wedges has not been a problem. I can always choke up on them for shots as well.

Go Bryson! Leader after day 1 at Abu Dhabi!

I think this is the crux of the matter for me, and that is I do swing differently with my d and fwy woods vs. The irons, so it wouldnt make a diff.

? For you on the second set is how you adjusted to chipping and pitching and bunker play with the longer wedge (s).....i have moved to 3/8" spread and this has helped on full shots with the wedges being slightly longer and not as much crouching over, but I could not get used to the chip/pitch/bunker shots with my gw and sw at pw length....which i thought would simplify my wedge game, full shots were great, but those shots around the green i could not get used to. Do you choke up? Or have you adjusted to the longer length wedges for touch shots around the green?

I don't have a problem with chipping and the short game because I have always choked down on my wedges even with a conventional set of irons. So, my hand position with respect to the ground for chipping and short shots is the same for any club. I've always been a very good chipper. Strongest part of my game. I can chip closer and more accurately than I can putt from similar distances.

I've read the whole thread, and I agree that I hit my 4 and 5 iron lower than my conventional irons. I don't have a problem with this because I also hit it straighter and more consistently. And to sort of confirm Tom's assertion about clubhead speed and height, I can swing harder than normal and achieve a higher, farther ball flight. With my previous set of Pinhawks that only went to the 5 iron, I would normally hit it 180 yards. But, for a 200 yard par 3, I just swing harder. That's when I noticed a higher ball flight.

There's a couple of par 4's I used to hit a hybrid or 5 wood off the tee. I just can't hit those as straight as an iron, so it was always bothersome. Now I use the 4 iron and hit it about 210 with just a nice firm swing. Best part is that I aim for the 150 post and almost hit it quite often. Never had that accuracy with my old irons or any hybrid or wood.

OpgForce · February 10, 2016

Tom, can these heads accept tapered tip shafts? ie.) Dynamic Gold 0.355"

Also, I have a favorite 8 iron at D4 swingweight. Can I just have my local Wishon dealer build all the irons to this spec?

Mr Fade · February 11, 2016

And how about blade length, sole width and offset on the Sterling irons vs the 560MC?

Sterling blade length is the same as the 560. Sterling sole width is ever so slightly wider, like 1mm to not more than 2mm. Small amount. Offset is progressive in the Sterling, starting at 4.5mm with the 5 and gradually progressing down to 2.5mm on the PW, GW, SW. That's really not much offset - when you look at a substantially offset iron, you're seeing 9-10mm of offset.

That is good news, because the size of the 560s is just about perfect! I don´t mind that progressive offset either. Really looking forward to play these Sterling irons!

TomWishon · February 11, 2016

Tom, can these heads accept tapered tip shafts? ie.) Dynamic Gold 0.355"

Also, I have a favorite 8 iron at D4 swingweight. Can I just have my local Wishon dealer build all the irons to this spec?

They would have to be shimmed because the production bore diam on the heads is 0.370. But any experienced clubmaker can do that. It's just like building any other iron from an assembly procedure standpoint with the exception that you're building all 8 irons in the set with regard to shaft trim and length.

benniebuf · February 12, 2016

Hi Tom - question about the specs on the Sterling 5 hybrid, which brings up a more general question about face progression.

I'm confused as to whether a lot of face progression in a hybrid helps to raise the ball flight. I read a post by Jim Yachinich here that seems to contradict part of an article you wrote here. You mention in that article: "Less face progression/more offset as well as a lower CG can generate a slightly higher ball flight with more spin..... Conversely, more face progression/less offset as well as a higher CG can generate a slightly lower ball flight with less spin". While Jim says: "The constant measurement that gets over looked that has the biggest effect on ball flight is face progression. Face progression is the measurement from the center line of the shaft to the leading edge of the face. The more face progression the higher the ball flight."

So I'm confused as to which is it? Does a lot of face progression raise ball flight typically like Jim (and also this book) says, or lower it like you say? The face progression on the Sterling hybrid is 16mm which seems high for a club that you are looking to raise the ball flight of which further confuses me.

I'm sure I'm the problem here, not you haha, I'm just trying to understand because I respect Jim's thoughts as well as yours.

benniebuf · February 15, 2016

Heard these were sold out until June - wow!

trhode · February 16, 2016

Just put my pre-order in!

sloswingspeed · March 30, 2016

As Tom said:

In a single length iron set built to either 8 or 7 iron length, the shaft flex and bend profile is not going to matter very much for 98% of the golfers.

That is heresy.........LOL

...been away....but let me jump in....It all depends on the intended target audience. I use Steel Fibers a lot....and Wishon Graphites and KBS steel for the rest. Most golfers I see...are trying to play with off the rack stuff that is so far wrong.....wrong length, wrong total weight, wrong shaft stiffness..it is an easy 'incremental improvement' approach.....and the SLs should make it even easier. ..I happen to agree with Tom's SL approach, and his 98% comment. For those who don't have a clue what the development costs are for each individual head....or any idea about mass production.....think of it this way....How many of the 98% out there....can hit a 3i or a 4i ??...with disappearing lofts ??....So....why have either in the bag...when Tom's 5i or 5Hybrid is ~~ 23* !....a used to be, almost...4i !....So....how many will benefit from swinging the same length, same weight, same MOI, same stiffness set of irons ??......Most everyone I know who is 10 h/c and above....including me, and maybe lower h/c's as well. If you are a club head purist.....the SL may not be for you....but.....if you want to have more fun playing......and not struggle with a 39" 4i and a 35.5" SW....well....SLs may just be the route to take. 98% of the golfers out there....are at least 10 h/c and above....so....if you were going to try and create a new 'process'.....would you intro new heads with no shaft talk, every 4-6months...or move in a totally different direction....and innovate. When the Wishon hosel weights comes into play, there are ,000s of shaft/head weights and lengths available. Laugh at Tom if you wish.....I think he'll have the last one !

ChaosTheory · March 30, 2016

I have made about 3 sets of SL irons. My current one is the best so far. I used Wishon 752TC irons, all at 272 grams. I drilled (ported) the 9-AW to get them down to weight. This removed weight down low, which I hoped would help keep shots down. The 8i was the right weight already. I added lead tape to the 7 and 6 irons, putting it down low to help with launch. I have not done the 5 iron yet. The irons are 37" long, with DG SL shafts tipped to 7 iron specs. IIRC they swingweight at D1. Lies are all 62*. I have tweaked the lofts somewhat. I am a sweeper with a mid-70s swing speed and decent mechanics.

My problem with most conventional iron sets is that either the short irons feel good and the longer irons feel heavy, or the longer irons feel good and the short irons feel light. This is due to shaft weights. With an SL set, all of that goes out the window. Find the right shaft weight and flex for you, the right lie angle, and go.

I am developing a love hate relationship with my SL irons.

On the good side, I have never hit the ball so square and solid. I've got more lag and I'm loving the impact feeling. My mechanics have improved, and at least some of the credit has to go to the confidence that comes with having all the irons be one well-fit iron. Confidence with leads to better swings. Every iron is my favorite iron. That is a big deal!

On the bad side, I'm having trouble with distance control. And with side to side imprecision on the 9 and wedges.

I think the distance control comes from the fact that I am now crushing some of my shots. But not all of them. And, the short irons fly very high so if there is a head or tail wind, the wind has more influence on the distance. I have realized that I used shafts that are too soft. Shots are ballooning, I can see it in the shape of the trajectory, and in the feel of the shaft. I'm going to reshaft stiffer and see what happens. The funny thing is, this shaft was not too soft in the past. But by playing "one" well-fit iron over and over, my mechanics have gotten stronger. I've gained about 1 club in distance.

I think the side to side scatter just has to do with the longer, lighter wedges. I have a normal 58* wedge with a DG wedge shaft, and it's much more precise. My 52* SL AW is going to have a dogfight with a 52* normal wedge. I will probably port and build a SL 58* wedge for snicks, but I don't think it will be better than my normal one. Regarding chipping and pitching, I don't have a problem with the SL irons.

I have tried all sorts of lesser swings, knockdowns, etc. I moved the ball up for higher shots, and back for lower. I'm not that skilled but they can be done, there is no reason they can't just because the clubs are SL. It's another aspect of having the one feeling for all irons, it will carry over when I want to move the ball up or back to flight the shot. Learn it with one iron and it will apply to all of them. I don't buy the one ball position thinking for SL. Well, yeah, it's fine for starters. But eventually you are going to want to hit a shot lower or higher or a few yards shorter or whatever. I also choked down on a couple, no big deal. I think the whole benefit is not so much about a well-matched posture, it's about a well-matched club. For me anyway.

I use hybrids above the SL irons.

I will probably build a set of the Sterlings when they become readily available. I do have a Wishon 771 high COR 5 iron and might put that into play with my current set. I just am not sure where to apply the lead tape!

PHLHacker · March 31, 2016

I'm very eager to jump on the SL Bandwagon -- but I need some advice on finding a club fitter near Philadelphia that sells Tom Wishon equipment. In the Philadelphia area, we are blessed with some amazing club fitters including Izett with Jim Morrison and Club Champion with Jim Yenser. Unfortunately, neither sell or fit Wishon clubs as far as I know.

I was surprised when I used the Tom Wishon Find a Clubfitter page that the closest fitter was over 25 miles away (Pottstown, Bethlehem, etc) at a shop and fitter that I didn't recognize. I don't mind going a bit out of my way, but I'd like to visit an experienced fitter who is knowledgable and can adapt to this newer technology.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Golfrnut · March 31, 2016

I'm very eager to jump on the SL Bandwagon -- but I need some advice on finding a club fitter near Philadelphia that sells Tom Wishon equipment. In the Philadelphia area, we are blessed with some amazing club fitters including Izett with Jim Morrison and Club Champion with Jim Yenser. Unfortunately, neither sell or fit Wishon clubs as far as I know. I was surprised when I used the Tom Wishon Find a Clubfitter page that the closest fitter was over 25 miles away (Pottstown, Bethlehem, etc) at a shop and fitter that I didn't recognize. I don't mind going a bit out of my way, but I'd like to visit an experienced fitter who is knowledgable and can adapt to this newer technology. Any suggestions? Thanks!

To make that list and be advertised on Tom's site, they are going to be in the top tier of competent fitters and have his approval. If you notice, when Tom speaks about most people on that list, he knows them by name and usually has a story to go along with them. You don't just get on that list by having an account with him. It might now be someone you know, but if it's in that list, I would feel pretty comfortable making a trip to see them.

Worst case scenario, you drive 25 miles, check out his shop and have a conversation with him and realize you are not that comfortable. Would hurt to do that with anyone anyway before committing to a fitting.

TomWishon · March 31, 2016

I'm very eager to jump on the SL Bandwagon -- but I need some advice on finding a club fitter near Philadelphia that sells Tom Wishon equipment. In the Philadelphia area, we are blessed with some amazing club fitters including Izett with Jim Morrison and Club Champion with Jim Yenser. Unfortunately, neither sell or fit Wishon clubs as far as I know.

I was surprised when I used the Tom Wishon Find a Clubfitter page that the closest fitter was over 25 miles away (Pottstown, Bethlehem, etc) at a shop and fitter that I didn't recognize. I don't mind going a bit out of my way, but I'd like to visit an experienced fitter who is knowledgable and can adapt to this newer technology.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

You know, anytime I make a recommendation of a fitter when there are a couple in the same general area is that I risk angering the one I don't recommend !! but I saw your post and your dilemma so I thought I would "take the chance" and tell you to visit/talk to and evaluate Frank Stranick at FS Golf in Gilbertsville, PA.

I have known Frank for decades, literally, in this side of the business, going all the way back into the late 80s. He's been to a couple of schools I taught back when I used to do that, he's also been to numerous clubmaker conventions at which I have taught and spoken for clubmaker educational conferences. He's even bent my ear for hours at various PGA Merchandise shows when I used to go to every one. And i still get the occasional technical question from him since he and I have corresponded for a long time about this stuff. Not as many questions as before because he knows a whole lot now from all the years he's been doing this and been close to me for my advice and mentoring. He has experience few have because he's been doing it for so long and still with a strong level of passion.

Frank Stranick

610-564-3465

[email protected]

TomWishon · March 31, 2016

I have made about 3 sets of SL irons. My current one is the best so far. I used Wishon 752TC irons, all at 272 grams.

The irons are 37" long, with DG SL shafts tipped to 7 iron specs.

My problem with most conventional iron sets is that either the short irons feel good and the longer irons feel heavy, or the longer irons feel good and the short irons feel light.

On the bad side, I'm having trouble with distance control. And with side to side imprecision on the 9 and wedges.

My 52* SL AW is going to have a dogfight with a 52* normal wedge. I will probably port and build a SL 58* wedge for snicks, but I don't think it will be better than my normal one. Regarding chipping and pitching, I don't have a problem with the SL irons.

I will probably build a set of the Sterlings when they become readily available. I do have a Wishon 771 high COR 5 iron and might put that into play with my current set. I just am not sure where to apply the lead tape!

Interesting and thanks for sharing your experiences. First off may I complement your bench skills for being able to take a conventional lie and weight set of iron heads and get them all to the same head weight and lie to do this !!!! Few have the skill, equipment and patience to do that because there is a lot of work in terms of the weight removal on the higher number heads as well as with the bending of the lower number heads. (Good thing I do a little different heat treat on the 431 stainless irons I have made so they could be bent that much !! HA ! )

Since you are into experimenting with SL, I am going to recommend that if you do try out a Sterling SL set, go with the 36.5" length, not the 37" you have on this prototype set you made. Half inch isn;t much, granted. But when you talk about sideways dispersion problems with the 9 and wedges, the 36.5 gets you closer to what these clubs are in typical incremental length iron sets so you might have a little more control. And the lower loft irons will still be ok as long as your 8 iron clubhead speed is 70 or higher because of the high COR face with lofts.

TomWishon · March 31, 2016

Hi Tom - question about the specs on the Sterling 5 hybrid, which brings up a more general question about face progression.

I'm confused as to whether a lot of face progression in a hybrid helps to raise the ball flight. I read a post by Jim Yachinich here that seems to contradict part of an article you wrote here. You mention in that article: "Less face progression/more offset as well as a lower CG can generate a slightly higher ball flight with more spin..... Conversely, more face progression/less offset as well as a higher CG can generate a slightly lower ball flight with less spin". While Jim says: "The constant measurement that gets over looked that has the biggest effect on ball flight is face progression. Face progression is the measurement from the center line of the shaft to the leading edge of the face. The more face progression the higher the ball flight."

So I'm confused as to which is it? Does a lot of face progression raise ball flight typically like Jim (and also this book) says, or lower it like you say? The face progression on the Sterling hybrid is 16mm which seems high for a club that you are looking to raise the ball flight of which further confuses me.

I'm sure I'm the problem here, not you haha, I'm just trying to understand because I respect Jim's thoughts as well as yours.

Sorry that I haven't been back to this thread since you posted this on Feb 12. Things have been a little more busy in my work this year and I haven't had that much extra time to see what people are talking about here. Since this thread just found its way back on the first page of the Tech forum, I saw some posts which allowed me to check in and see your question. Again, sorry for the delay in responding.

This would be a lot easier to explain in person so I could use my hands and a sketch on paper, so bear with me as I try to use words only to explain this matter of face progression.

It is not possible for more face progression to always bring about a higher flight, and it is also not possible for less FP to bring about a lower flight as both Jim and the author of that book want you to believe. First of all, in your post, you never said why Jim thinks this is true of offered his explanation for why he things more FP = higher and less FP = lower. My guess is he is just echoing what Ralph thought from his original 1974 book.

In the case of the author of the book for which you sent the link, he is saying more FP = higher and less FP = lower because of the effect that FP has on the dynamic loft of the head at impact which is related to FP affecting the "timing" of when the face gets to the ball. This means he is saying that differences in FP cause different launch angles and shot height because of how the FP relates to the golfer's angle of attack. that is the ONLY possible way that more or less FP could possibly have any effect on dynamic loft.

Now if every single golfer had the same exact angle of attack into the ball, such a statement could be true, but only if the arc of every golfer's angle of attack AND the direction of every golfer's A of A is the same. There is not question A of A and swing arc shape at the bottom of the swing is not the same for every golfer, not even close. You have everything from 8* deg downward to 5-6* upward in the basic range of A of A, and the arc shape of the bottom of the swing ranges from shallow to steep and everywhere in between.

So there is no way that more FP could always add dynamic loft to result in a higher launch or less FP to always result in a lower dynamic loft to cause a lower shot height. it's going to be different for different golfer swing types. and what's more, if you do the radius geometry, a difference of 4mm, which is a BIG difference in FP between models of the same head number, that is so small in its effect on timing of when the face gets to the ball that it just cannot be significant as these guys want to say.

This is old school thinking from before anyone understood how the CG of the head relates to the bending of the shaft when the golfer releases the club. Ralph wrote what he wrote in wrong assumptions in the 1970s when his first book came out. Realization of how offset/FP affects the distance that the CG is from the centerline of the bore and how that affects the forward bending of the shaft upon release is a concept that wasn't discovered and revealed until the early 2000s.

But that's the scientific explanation for how FP could, not does, but could, affect shot height.

When the golfer unhinges the wrist hinge angle on the downswing, the arms begin to slow down as the clubhead begins to speed up. This action causes the shaft to bend forward because the accelerating clubhead pushes against the slowing arms/hands which in turn causes the shaft to bow forward slightly.

HOW MUCH the shaft can bend forward is a matter of how far the CG of the head is back from the centerline of the hosel bore, which is the centerline of the shaft as it is in the head. This is a point of physics - the MAX amount the shaft could bend forward IF the golfer has a late release and IF the golfer's acceleration of the head is enough to push the shaft forward its max amount, is the distance between the CG and the centerline of the bore. Not much. This is why a 2* increase in launch angle from a change of shaft flex or tip stiffness is a very large change from a shaft for the shot. You can't make the shaft bend forward more than this distance that the shaft is back from the bore centerline.

So when you have MORE FP, this puts the CG of the head closer to the shaft centerline, so the amount of forward bending can't be as much as if you have less FP moving all the way to being more offset. With more offset, the CG is farther back from the shaft so the forward bending amount to possibly change and increase dynamic loft is a little more.

But again, whether this really happens or not and how much for a golfer depends on several things - 1) golfer's point of release. The earlier the release, the sooner the shaft goes into a forward bend,which then gives it more time to rebound back to straight before impact. Thus only with the latest of late releases can the shaft even begin to achieve its max forward bending. For all releases less late in the downswing, the amount of forward bend is less and less progressively.

2) Even for a very late release player, then you have the matter of how stiff is the shaft, how tip stiff is it also, and how much can the golfer accelerate the clubhead to cause it to push the shaft forward to increase dynamic loft. 3) wood shafts bend twice as much as the same flex of an iron shaft in terms of the actual bending amount that is possible upon the release. so no matter what, it becomes more difficult to see bigger changes in shot height from IRON shafts than it does from WOOD shafts. And likewise, when you have a much more offset iron vs a much less offset iron, this effect on the CG to centerline distance is negated because of iron shafts being twice as stiff in actual bending.

Pant pant. . this is a tough one to follow, but I hope this helps a little. Bottom line, really, for the vast majority of golfers, the differences seen in FP and offset among all heads a golfer would potentially want to play is visible but it has very little real effect on shot height. More for very late, very high speed players. Far less for us others.

Guia · April 1, 2016

Tom has done his homework on these irons. The weight problem has been worked out and making the lower irons with a hotter face is close to genius. I am going to buy a set just looking around for the best price. Price is dependent upon what club maker you choose, I have been quoted anywhere from $900 to $1450. I have never been a consistent iron player and hoping this will cure my erratic 5 and 6 iron play.

PHLHacker · April 1, 2016

You know, anytime I make a recommendation of a fitter when there are a couple in the same general area is that I risk angering the one I don't recommend !! but I saw your post and your dilemma so I thought I would "take the chance" and tell you to visit/talk to and evaluate Frank Stranick at FS Golf in Gilbertsville, PA.

Tom - I really appreciate your recommendation! I'll give Frank a call. Can't wait to try these out!

Bill