Myths Un-Plugged: Are GI Irons Really Easier To Hit?

[TimV]

Interesting short article...

 

http://pluggedingolf.com/game-improvement-irons-easier-hit-golf-myths-unplugged/

[scomac2002]

It's tough to argue with the data. Perhaps the one figure that caught my attention most was that the SGI had the closest average proximity to the hole in the test across the group which is really what it's all about.

 

I looked at two individuals that closest approximated my swing speed and one was clearly further ahead with the SGI club while for the other that was clearly the worst choice, so I guess all you can conclude is that it depends.

 

I suspect in my own situation that I would be golfer number one generating better numbers with the most helpful club because I'm going to top one, hit one off the toe and then centre up three of the five shots. That's just the way it is. Statistically I should be using the SGI type of club, but I have found that they don't help me to a lower score and I don't hit more good shots with them either. The one thing that SGI does do is provide for a drastically different feel because of the weight distribution and turf interaction of the heads compared to the rest of my set. On the range that doesn't come into play, but over the course of a round where you use a different club for each shot I have found that it can reign havoc with my swing. Not every time, but it happens. Consistency of feel is important to a player who relies on that even if you aren't particularly capable. I think that the article was alluding to that when the author stated that the testers could adapt to the clubs over time, but I would think that would depend upon how well matched the rest of the set was.

[NRJyzr]

My first thought is it's what I like to call "Small Sample Size Theatre." There's nowhere near enough of a test population to reduce the statistical noise to where any solid conclusions would be drawn.

 

My second thought is that human error will further cloud the statistical noise.

[oxtail]

Agree, sample size is ridiculously small, insignificant results. Just presenting averages is not good analysis. Was there an acclimation time for each different iron or did the golfers hit each test cold, from one iron to the next? Did the clubs fit them? Hitting 2 yards offline and then 150 yards offline looks inconclusive to me. So I guess the test did support their findings: they learned next to nothing.

[Sean2]

I had a set of the most forgiving clubs on the planet...couldn't hit them worth a darn...a lot of low hooks. I found my friend's Nike VR Pro blades easier to hit, straighter, and longer.

 

When I posted something about this a couple of years ago I was hammered, trolled, and what not. I was told that I was a liar, that "science" says what I experienced was not possible, and the like. I was surprised at how offended some people were that I found a blade easier to hit than an ultra game improvement iron.

 

I wonder if I will get any apologies after folks read the un-plugged myths. lol

[Nessism]

As someone that played blades more than a decade then slowly transitioned to players CB's over another decade, I can still remember the giddy epiphany of my first range session with a set of Ping G10's. I was floored by how easy they were to hit. High and straight was the order of the day. I've been in the GI camp ever since, although not without a detour from time to time.

 

I truly believe that GI clubs offer a huge advantage for guys with can accept the visuals. Some guys just can't though, I know because when I was younger I was that way. Mind you I'm not talking about someone that's hitting the center of the club face every time, although guys like this certainty can play GI clubs too if they choose. I'm talking about the typical guy, even a better player, but guys that hit there share of mishits. That's where GI clubs shine.

[BrianMcG]

I was hoping for some Iron Byron testing.

[Kirasdad]

This test doesn't prove much of anything. Small sample size in terms of testers, number of shots, etc. just not very well thought through it seems.

 

However...and this may not be popular on here, but oh well...

 

It's obvious to me that GI clubs are simply put, easier to strike solidly over time, i.e. a large number of rounds, say over a golf season, than any sort of blade, even a modern one. I can get round the course successfully with almost anything, when I am on, but I have to be honest about the reality of amateur golf for a guy like me. I practice when I can and play maybe three times a month, a little more in the summer, but with kid, work and so on thrown into the mix, it's hard to get in the reps you need to be sharp. That in mind, I can use all the help I can get. I don't own any modern GI clubs, but I have some old school GI irons, TA 845s, Maxfli cavity backs, some PINGs and all of those clubs are easier to play than my Apex IIs and the other blades that are in my garage. I can only imagine what it would be like to play a fitted set of Callaway, Ping, Cobra, you name it. I just don't want to shell out the dough. If I did it would help my ball strking, especially from 150-200 yards. Throw in some traditional looking Vokeys to score with, and you're in business. You have to like the look of the thing, I'll grant you that, and some of these models are hard for a traditionalist to look at, but some aren't too bad and the results would make them more attractive as well.

 

We like to say different (persimmon is straighter, blades more accurate) but sometimes I think we just like to BE different.

 

I have said this before in other threads, I play old stuff because it's fun, not because I think I am going to play better. That, in my opinion, just isn't true.

 

I have my shield ready for the slings and arrows.

[DM70]

 

I have said this before in other threads, I play old stuff because it's fun, not because I think I am going to play better. That, in my opinion, just isn't true.

 

 

Fully agree!

[scruffynick]

I think it depends on who's hitting the irons.....a decent ball striker won't think sgi will help them but to a high handicaper the sgi in truth help. Not sure on actually hitting the middle but sgi will help get the ball up in the air easier. For me, I find there's not much difference between an old ping make iron and a modern say mizuno mx iron, but that's just me.

[scruffynick]

 

I have said this before in other threads, I play old stuff because it's fun, not because I think I am going to play better. That, in my opinion, just isn't true.

 

 

Fully agree!

My pro said to me last week 'am I going to join the 21st century' to which I said no and I've played ping eye 2s for best 25 years! It's more fun!

[NRJyzr]

This test doesn't prove much of anything. Small sample size in terms of testers, number of shots, etc. just not very well thought through it seems.

 

However...and this may not be popular on here, but oh well...

 

It's obvious to me that GI clubs are simply put, easier to strike solidly over time, i.e. a large number of rounds, say over a golf season, than any sort of blade, even a modern one. I can get round the course successfully with almost anything, when I am on, but I have to be honest about the reality of amateur golf for a guy like me. I practice when I can and play maybe three times a month, a little more in the summer, but with kid, work and so on thrown into the mix, it's hard to get in the reps you need to be sharp. That in mind, I can use all the help I can get. I don't own any modern GI clubs, but I have some old school GI irons, TA 845s, Maxfli cavity backs, some PINGs and all of those clubs are easier to play than my Apex IIs and the other blades that are in my garage. I can only imagine what it would be like to play a fitted set of Callaway, Ping, Cobra, you name it. I just don't want to shell out the dough. If I did it would help my ball strking, especially from 150-200 yards. Throw in some traditional looking Vokeys to score with, and you're in business. You have to like the look of the thing, I'll grant you that, and some of these models are hard for a traditionalist to look at, but some aren't too bad and the results would make them more attractive as well.

 

We like to say different (persimmon is straighter, blades more accurate) but sometimes I think we just like to BE different.

 

I have said this before in other threads, I play old stuff because it's fun, not because I think I am going to play better. That, in my opinion, just isn't true.

 

I have my shield ready for the slings and arrows.

 

No shield needed. :)

 

It may be true for *you*, but my experience has been different. I play blades because I hit the ball better with them, and score better with them. It's the only reason I switched. I've tried to move away from them many, many times, but "blades working better for me" has always been the result.

 

The only CBs I've used that give me close to the same results are Eye2+. And I've had to work at it with those, due to the size. It seems I have a difficult time with larger iron clubheads, I feel I can't get the clubhead on the ball properly.

 

The human condition can be a funny thing. LOL

 

The Pings I own, Eye2+ and ISI, are great for those toe hits, when you're sloppy with your swing. And the weird irony, in spite of hitting them considerably higher, I get much better wind play, especially from the Eye2+, due to lower spin. Who would have thought my normal high trajectory and high spin was a bad combination in wind, LOL? I also love the durability; older Pings are so durable I think they have a half life.

 

It just doesn't translate into better scores for me. Except maybe in the rain; Eye2+ have given me the best rain scores.

 

edited to add: I don't wish to imply that what works for me will work for everyone else. Or even anyone else. Though, while I don't expect I'm in the fat part of the bell curve, I'd like to pretend I'm not alone in the universe. ;)

[raggal62]

An interesting topic for a long time, it's always fun to hear different opinions on this subject.

 

The club of choice for this testing was a 6 iron, which for me was always a transition club ... halfway between a short and long iron. And for the majority of golfers probably the right club for this particular evaluation. But if it was me, I'd have more consistent test results using a 7 or 8 iron. I would have a harder time recreating repeatable swings with the longer club, thus making a choice between blade and GI difficult.

 

But having said that, and after much self-evaluation time, my conclusion is that at some point loft takes over, and all the other design parameters are deemed insignificant. And the degree of loft where backspin overtakes sidespin is different for everyone. For me it's the 7 iron, or something around 35 degrees. It would be impossible to convince me that other than feel, a SGI 9 iron would outperform a blade 9 iron.

[NRJyzr]

But having said that, and after much self-evaluation time, my conclusion is that at some point loft takes over, and all the other design parameters are deemed insignificant. And the degree of loft where backspin overtakes sidespin is different for everyone. For me it's the 7 iron, or something around 35 degrees. It would be impossible to convince me that other than feel, a SGI 9 iron would outperform a blade 9 iron.

 

Tom Wishon has said a few times there's essentially no difference between anything starting around the 8 iron, maybe the 7 iron. Forgiveness is irrelevant at that point.

[TimV]

I've waited but will now add my 2c.

Golf is very much a mental game. Yes, there is a definite physical component, but all one needs to do is watch a Tour Pro splash 2 or 3 shots in a row into the water to understand that Golf is a mental game.

Blades fit my eye, my mind, my heart and my soul better than any SGI equipment ever can. When I'm playing blades I'm happier, I'm enjoying the game more. When I'm happier and having fun I feel better. When I feel better I Swing Better! Thus for me playing Blades is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. I enjoy playing them more so consequently I play better with them.

Play what gives you Joy and you will play better. Yes, I do believe it's that simple.

[scomac2002]

I've waited but will now add my 2c.

Golf is very much a mental game. Yes, there is a definite physical component, but all one needs to do is watch a Tour Pro splash 2 or 3 shots in a row into the water to understand that Golf is a mental game.

Blades fit my eye, my mind, my heart and my soul better than any SGI equipment ever can. When I'm playing blades I'm happier, I'm enjoying the game more. When I'm happier and having fun I feel better. When I feel better I Swing Better! Thus for me playing Blades is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. I enjoy playing them more so consequently I play better with them.

Play what gives you Joy and you will play better. Yes, I do believe it's that simple.

 

Yes, Tim, I think you're absolutely right! :good:

[birly-shirly]

Interesting test - which I think shows up something that probably wasn't intended.

 

7 golfers hit 10 shots with each of 3 clubs, all of which were set up with the same shaft, length, swingweight, loft and lie. So you have over 200 shots hit with, in many important respects, identical clubs. But you still see differences in clubhead speed, as well as all the other metrics.

 

I can't think of a plausible explanation for why you would swing a blade faster than an otherwise identical SGI iron - so the fact that on average the whole group did by almost 2 mph I would suggest says something about the natural variance in that sort of test.

 

I don't think it tells you that blades are FASTER - I think it's telling you that if you take 3 identical clubs and hit 70 shots with each, you'll find one of those clubs that on any given day APPEARS to have an advantage of close to 2mph.

 

Now whether or not you think this test represents a small sample size, 210 balls would be a lot to hit if you were going to get fitted.

 

It has always bothered me that a high tech club fitting might just tell you which club happened to be in your hands when you made your best swings.

 

Other than that, it does look to me as if the clubs are more or less similar. A couple of yards in overall distance, and much less in carry distance, suggests there's not much to get excited about.

 

Even the difference in lateral dispersion is in the region of 15 feet, which you can't assume isn't in large part down to the variance in swings rather than clubs.

 

Is there enough here to warrant a large cash outlay to "upgrade" clubs that you already love? Not for me.

 

As various people have said, play the clubs that make you smile. If that's one particular set of cherished blades, or Pings for that matter, then great. And if it's the wide variety of curiosities that seem to walk themselves out of thrifts and dumpsters and into our cars, then that's great too. I'm still waiting to be persuaded that any sort of material purchase is going to make a difference of more than a stroke or two over a round, for all the difference that'll make to most of us.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I'm sure, in a much larger sample size, blades would reign victorious.

[Shambles]

I have said this before in other threads, I play old stuff because it's fun, not because I think I am going to play better. That, in my opinion, just isn't true.

 

 

Fully agree!

 

Reasonably likewise.

 

I never found the clubs all that different, just images that I could live with and others that took a bit of mental work. I can't seem to stop looking at new clubs and sometimes even buy them and play them. So far I always seem to go back to my old tried and trues, not because they are better, but because I know them so very well that when I am considering a shot a bunch of different shots for getting to the target come to mind depending on how I want to approach it. Fact is, I think all clubs work but I prefer stainless simply because it never shows it's age. As fo0r the GI etc BS, they have no meaning to me other than I may have to do a bit of relearning for a few holes or a day or two. It's the shot images that come to mind when standing over a ball that matter.

 

 

 

Shambles

[BIG STU]

I will say this being a long time blade player it just depends. Now I switched to those 2013 forged Callys because they hit and feel good. I guess I am in the middle though. Some say they might as well be blades and some say they aint. I could care less. I know I can get away with some stuff with them but when I am pureing them they have a certain click to them. Now to be honest I still practice with one of my sets of blade Macs and play vintage golf. In fact we have a game at 1:00 tomorrow but I will be on the range at my course around 7:30 to warm up and I will have my warm up/vintage bag with me. The Muirfelds will more than likely be in it and the persimmons. If I can hit the Muirfields in the face then I will be ok with the Callys. And if I can hit my Penna persimmon in the face then I can surely hit that Homna in the face. If I was still playing comp and hitting balls every day and or playing I would keep one of the sets of old blades in the bag. But since I do not usually have time to practice during the week the CBs do give me a little lee way

[baloo]

I prefer blades. Don't need any data to back it up. I agree with Tim; play what you enjoy. The rest doesn't matter too much.

 

My handicap hasn't dropped at all switching from modern to completely vintage clubs...

[Kirasdad]

But having said that, and after much self-evaluation time, my conclusion is that at some point loft takes over, and all the other design parameters are deemed insignificant. And the degree of loft where backspin overtakes sidespin is different for everyone. For me it's the 7 iron, or something around 35 degrees. It would be impossible to convince me that other than feel, a SGI 9 iron would outperform a blade 9 iron.

 

Tom Wishon has said a few times there's essentially no difference between anything starting around the 8 iron, maybe the 7 iron. Forgiveness is irrelevant at that point.

 

Oh, agreed. That's why I mentioned the 150-200 yard range in my post. Unless you have a truly fundamentally flawed move at the ball a compact .8-PW would work for anyone.

[Kirasdad]

"7 golfers hit 10 shots with each of 3 clubs, all of which were set up with the same shaft, length, swingweight, loft and lie. So you have over 200 shots hit with, in many important respects, identical clubs. But you still see differences in clubhead speed, as well as all the other metrics."

 

Well, that's the problem with tests like this. It doesn't really measure what playing golf is actually like. Hitting ball after ball in range conditions is not golf. It's practice. I sometimes go pick up my daughter at her school which is near a nine hole track with a grass range. If I have 20 extra minutes I will buy a warmup bucket (35 balls) and grab a couple of irons from the lost and found locker. Once I am warmed up, I can get respectable results from a store line Doug Ford 5 iron from 1969. Hitting ball after ball in a row, one finds a rhythm that makes the tool in your hand work reasonably well, cavity back, blade, even ladies clubs.

 

Playing golf...different story entirely.

[Shambles]

But having said that, and after much self-evaluation time, my conclusion is that at some point loft takes over, and all the other design parameters are deemed insignificant. And the degree of loft where backspin overtakes sidespin is different for everyone. For me it's the 7 iron, or something around 35 degrees. It would be impossible to convince me that other than feel, a SGI 9 iron would outperform a blade 9 iron.

 

Tom Wishon has said a few times there's essentially no difference between anything starting around the 8 iron, maybe the 7 iron. Forgiveness is irrelevant at that point.

 

Oh, agreed. That's why I mentioned the 150-200 yard range in my post. Unless you have a truly fundamentally flawed move at the ball a compact .8-PW would work for anyone.

 

8-PW doesn't buy beans these days as too many OEM's have gone wandering into the wonderful world of lofts. Kind of shocked me to find that my old 8 Iron was almost the PW loft of today's irons. I understand their need to convince you that they are selling distance, but they do so cheating you of many great short game clubs and forcing you to adapt or buy more lofted clubs while discarding some others. That rule worked when clubs were reasonably equal in loft. Not necessarily the case today because the new necessary skill is knowing the lofts of the clubs you have.

 

 

 

Shambles

[wobgon]

Glad to see we finally have a blade vs game improvement thread here on the forum......Something that has been needed for quite some time....

[Itsjustagame]

Perimeter weighting makes a club more "forgiving" as a matter of science and engineering. Whether that has any bearing on your choice of clubs is up to you. Offset and sole design may have as big a role in your preference as perimeter weighting.

[Fade]

Oh well. The study yielded no results, but an article was produced anyway.

[Subsonic]

What a timeless debate from the Golfwrx libraries.

 

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but game improvement irons help better golfers more than hacks. I am a 20 to 23 handicap and my bad shots are bad. No amount of forgiveness is going to help my bad shot. A better player can better use the forgiveness since the misses are much smaller.

 

Years ago, a good friend of mine used to be scratch and his employment allowed him to play 4 to 5 times a week. He changed employment and went to around 4 to 5 rounds a season. With his blades, he got to a point where he was lucky to break 80. It really affected his morale. He went out and bought a set of Ping G5s and was back in the 70s and much happier.