Are all 7 irons created equal? The answer is yes.

[SixSixGolf]

Well don't want to bust your bubble but it sounds like you are trying to say less loft doesn't go farther.

 

That's wrong. I'm not sure how you can argue that. But it appears you are trying. Good luck with that.

 

I can carry the same 7i 150-180 yds (on my gc2) just on poor strikes.

 

If all lofts go the same distance how do single length clubs work?

By tweaking CG locations, and COR values.

 

That´s incorrect. Most SL clubs have the same COR value.

Same COR within the SL set, yes, but I meant.. a SL 5i likely has a higher COR than a traditional set 5i. So therefore, club makers are changing COR values to keep gaps and over all distance the same as traditional sets. That's what I was getting at.

 

So why are they even changing lofts? Why aren't all irons 50 degrees?

[Z1ggy16]

Because the most effective way to make a club go further or shorter is to change the loft and length of the shaft. Essentially... physics. Sure you could make all your irons one loft, then mess with COR values, but there is a limit. There's no way you could make a legal iron that's 50* in loft, but it goes 200+ yards. Even if you could...I don't even know what it would have to look like to make the launch low enough for the average player with the right amount of spin to make that happen.

 

Typical club head speed of a PW on tour is ~83mph, so figure just shy of that for the 50 or 52* wedge. Smash is like 1.25 or so. Take it up to 1.5 and you still only get ball speeds of 125mph or so, which is like 6 or 7i speeds. How are you ever going to make a 50* go as far as your 4 or 5i? Lengthen the shaft so you can swing it as fast as a 5i (~95mph tour average) and you'd end up with a ball flight to the moon with a TON of spin. That's exactly what happens with SL sets right now... The clubs with higher loft tend to spin higher and flight higher than normal. It's not crazy excessive because they mess with CG's, but if you look at youtube videos of Rick Shiels testing the new One Lengths, this is exactly what happens.

[SixSixGolf]

Because the most effective way to make a club go further or shorter is to change the loft and length of the shaft.

 

So why would major manufacturers bother with the COG or COR nonsense that you are talking?

[rawdog]

If you took a 7 iron with a COR of .77 and another with a COR of .82, you would see a measurable increase in ball speed.

 

This fact alone makes it difficult to claim that all 7 irons are created equal. Add in loft and it's not even close.

 

Smash a 33* 7i with a . 77 COR into a ball at 85mph and then a 30* 7i with a .82 COR into a ball at 85mph.

 

The stronger, higher COR iron would have 6.06mph more ball speed, and likely lower spin.

 

3.53mph of that is due to the loft

 

2.53mph of that is due to the COR

 

Obviously, this assumes same shaft, same AoA, and clubhead speed. It's just math. I do it all the time when analyzing irons. I built an excel sheet that incorporates Tutelman's math. Anyone can have a copy if they want.

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php

[Llortamaisey]

I'm so confused. The OP tests stronger lofted 7 irons against weaker lofted 7 irons. The stronger lofted 7 irons end up going further than the weaker lofted 7 irons, but because they were not a minimum of 10 yards longer on average, the conclusion is that they're all the same? Do I have this correct?

[Z1ggy16]

Because the most effective way to make a club go further or shorter is to change the loft and length of the shaft.

 

So why would major manufacturers bother with the COG or COR nonsense that you are talking?

 

To alter the launch conditions to be optimal.

[phatchrisrules]

I'm so confused. The OP tests stronger lofted 7 irons against weaker lofted 7 irons. The stronger lofted 7 irons end up going further than the weaker lofted 7 irons, but because they were not a minimum of 10 yards longer on average, the conclusion is that they're all the same? Do I have this correct?

 

It's more of a misleading title than anything. If there is a way to edit it I will. I don't say anywhere in my post that they are all exactly the same. So you are correct, I do say that they are reasonably the same. We should expect at 5.5* of loft change, anywhere from 11.5-16 yards of extra carry given the loft change, which I have shown is not the case. Yes the M2 and the GMax go further, but they are also high ball speed irons. I was honestly expecting a bit more distance difference than just 4-5y. All I am trying to say is that there isn't as much difference in irons, solely based on loft, than what many people think. I can't count the amount of times I have read someone say someone else gained 10+ yards in an iron is because they went to a stronger lofted club. Sure, we will see a difference, but it isn't massively different that we could make this claim. Chances are, even at a worst case scenario of 5y difference, you would likely be hitting the same club still.

 

I just don't see the massive distance spikes reported solely attributed to loft, which I believe I have demonstrated.

[phatchrisrules]

There is a window of diminishing returns as we work into high lofts. I do believe you would see a much greater separation (%) in carry if this test was duplicated within a lower loft range of a 3 iron. Club length variation does play a large role in carry distance as mentioned.

 

I could probably replicate this using a 4i. I'll use a Cobra King Forged Tour (as it coincidentally has a KBS Tour FLTD in it that is as close as possible to the KBS Tour I used here), and I'll bend it 2* strong to 21*, keep it at 23*, and then bend it 25*. 4* of separation of SHOULD give us a club (10y) in total carry difference, so I'll report back as soon as I do it and see if there is a difference.

 

Are you able to track how open the club face is before/after bending? The effective loft at impact could be changed. It would be nice to replicate this test using a Trackman 4 in order to monitor additional variables.

 

I would like to see someone like Rick Shiels duplicate your testing. This seems to be right in his wheelhouse.

 

By the way, thank you for sharing your test and results! I'm not trying to knock you down at all and I'm very curious to see the results :)

 

Hey didn't sense any sort of knockdown at all. I did the replication using a Cobra King Forged Tour 4i (the new one for 2017 that comes in both traditional and SL). I used the traditional one, and used the KBS Tour FLTD stiff 120. The difference was 6y overall after manipulating the loft 4* (which is roughly 1.3 clubs of loft in this set) from 21* to 25*, with a starting point at 23* (standard). All the lofts were verified by me before beginning on a Mitchell lie/loft that was recently calibrated. I will say the results were not pretty, as I have not hit a 4i in several years, let alone one this tiny, but I made it work :blush2:

 

The standard loft provided me with 176 carry and 4600 spin. When bent 2* strong I got 178 carry out of it and roughly 4450 spin, and when bent 2* weak I got 172 carry and about 5200 spin. So again, even when we should expect 10+ yards difference in a club based solely on loft, it was still only 6y on perfect strikes. I hope this answers your question. So I would assume since we saw a marginal increase in the distance spread as we went down in loft, if we go the opposite towards the 9i, we would likely see even less difference in the loft. I think anyway, I can test this tomorrow if there is any interest.

[SixSixGolf]

Because the most effective way to make a club go further or shorter is to change the loft and length of the shaft.

 

So why would major manufacturers bother with the COG or COR nonsense that you are talking?

 

To alter the launch conditions to be optimal.

 

But it's easier to change launch conditions with loft?

[Dan Drake]

http://www.golfwrx.com/457964/the-most-overlooked-parameter-in-iron-fitting/

[phatchrisrules]

http://www.golfwrx.c...n-iron-fitting/

 

Yeah I read that and that's why I included the descent angles. The shallowest descent angle I had was 45*, the rest were varied up to 50*. Interesting article, and I think the author summarizes it well in the final paragraph, which I agree tremendously with, that it doesn't matter the loft as long as you are getting the ball to do what it is supposed to do.

[mwink822]

Sure, they would all be similar in a sterile test environment, however, I'd venture a guess that results would be quite different off of actual grass, especially out of rough where you're going to get fliers and the lower spin of the stronger lofted irons really rears its head to generate some obnoxious long carry distances. Put those in the average, and your result changes. A lot.

 

I just plugged your scenario into the flightscope trajectory optimizer, and based on the data from day 1 (ball speed, launch the same, but spin cut to 50% as an example as I'm not sure how much a flier actually cuts spin) we see the M2 carry to 164 to 182 roll out and the iBlade carry 161 to 178 roll out. The ball speed and launch of Day 2 followed by a 50% reduction in spin yields m2 carry of 169.8 and 192.1 roll out and iBlade at actually more carry of 171.4 and roll out to 189.1. So even in a real playing test out of wonky lies the flight dynamics appear to hold true, always netting roughly 4 yards difference in carry and total distance, and in some scenarios the iBlade would actually perform slightly worse in terms of control.

 

And still using totally sterile test methods.

[BirdieBob]

Here's another testing with the same # irons and it is very clear that low spin does produce more distance.

Low HC person hit these, but the # iron used is missing. Guessing 5 irons

 

Click pic to enlarge............

 

 

[phatchrisrules]

Here's another testing with the same # irons and it is very clear that low spin does produce more distance.

Low HC person hit these, but the # iron used is missing. Guessing 5 irons

 

Click pic to enlarge............

 

 

 

Do you know if they used the exact same shaft? Because I had two people I work with try it out as well (again in "sterile" conditions) and the difference in M2 vs iBlade with the same shaft (X100) was 2-5 yards carry with similar splits in launch and spin that I saw. One of them is a solid 7 hdcp, another a +1, and then there's me at like 13.

 

Again just to reiterate my point, as it seems to have been lost in the different posts and every time I log on someone else is fully denying what I saw. I am saying there is a difference, absolutely. But there is not as much difference as we should expect to see based on roughly the 1.5 club difference in lofts. We should see anywhere from about 12-17y or so difference in carry, and in both tests, and now with additional people USING THE EXACT SAME SHAFT in a 28.5* 7i vs a 34* 7i, there is at most 5 yards of carry difference. Which is enough to persuade someone to buy a club, absolutely, but not as much as we have been led to believe.

 

Further, as I have stated numerous times, we need to think of fitting 7i's like a driver. Use the loft of the club to get to those optimal launch windows. Do we as a collective look down on someone who uses a 11*+ driver if it gets them 12* and 2500 spin? Do we snub someone who uses a less than 9.5* driver if their swing requires such a change and they hit it a few yards passed us with a dry comment of "well you are using a lower loft so of course you hit it further"? All I am saying is loft doesn't make such a huge difference as we once thought, and provided the iron is giving you optimal numbers, who cares what the actual degree is? I just don't see why golf has gotten into such a mentality that optimal #s on a driver are amazing, but optimal #s on an iron (usually found with strengthened lofts) are seen as shameful. Nobody bats an eye when someone comes on here claiming they need an exact digitally lofted 8* head with a $600 shaft and they gained 15 yards of carry. If I said I gained 15 yards of carry by being properly fit for a set of M2s I'd be crucified the second I hit submit. When in reality, if I was properly fit, it wouldn't really matter what iron I was playing provided I had the optimal numbers to get me there, whether I'm using a 27* Epon 7i or a 35* Titleist MB 7i to get me roughly 19.5 launch and about 5500 spin means nothing at the end of the day. I'll hit them within a couple of yards of each other and be using the exact same club into greens.

[BirdieBob]

Here's another testing with the same # irons and it is very clear that low spin does produce more distance.

Low HC person hit these, but the # iron used is missing. Guessing 5 irons

 

Click pic to enlarge............

 

 

 

Do you know if they used the exact same shaft? Because I had two people I work with try it out as well (again in "sterile" conditions) and the difference in M2 vs iBlade with the same shaft (X100) was 2-5 yards carry with similar splits in launch and spin that I saw. One of them is a solid 7 hdcp, another a +1, and then there's me at like 13.

 

 

 

I do not know of the differences in shafts....BUT what will the shaft do differently?

- Higher launch shaft 1 vs shaft 2;

- More ball speed?

 

If we look at the Callaway irons in the table we see the club speed is much the same as well as launch angle....BUT the spin is lower and the carry is more with the CF16 vs CF16 Pro. The CF16 ball speed is higher even with the nearly the same club speed.

Perhaps the CF16 has a "hotter" face?

[DevilDog]

The mathematics don't hold for all lofts going the same distance. If the shafts are same length, weight, etc, by simple mathematics something with a stronger loft must go farther considering same launch conditions. Even if the lower lofted club launches at the same height as the higher lofted club it would have less spin and therefore fly farther.

[nbg352]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

Why? it's all apples to apples. All clubs will lose a bit of spin and thus gain a bit of distance so all data is skewed by the same factor. Results shown should still accurately reflect any real difference in clubs.

[bmaas03]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

 

How does masking tape instantly skew the data? My store uses this and has used this method forever. I was down at the Callaway fitting head office in Carlsbad with their tour van fitters at the end of May and they actively encouraged us to use face tape, masking tape, etc. to show us strike point. Someone even asked if using masking tape would be an issue and if we should solely use face tape and they responded that it made no difference.

 

Tell me how this skews the data at all if it was done across all irons. So even if it did, it would skew them all the same.

 

Because not all irons have the same design, including the grooves.They're designed to play a certain way with the loft, COG, and grooves working in harmony. It's also akin to playing with irons that have dirt in the grooves, which no one, minus the 14 year olds on the high school golf team, would ever do.

 

Masking/face tape is a great way to see where you're striking the ball on an iron face, but I'd be leery of being fitted for spin rates for a new set of irons with them on. None of my fitting sessions have used face tape beyond lie and length adjustment.

[bmaas03]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

Why? it's all apples to apples. All clubs will lose a bit of spin and thus gain a bit of distance so all data is skewed by the same factor. Results shown should still accurately reflect any real difference in clubs.

 

The only way to confirm this as true would be to do the test without the tape and see the results. I'll bet you 100 internet points that It isn't apples to apples.

[phatchrisrules]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

 

How does masking tape instantly skew the data? My store uses this and has used this method forever. I was down at the Callaway fitting head office in Carlsbad with their tour van fitters at the end of May and they actively encouraged us to use face tape, masking tape, etc. to show us strike point. Someone even asked if using masking tape would be an issue and if we should solely use face tape and they responded that it made no difference.

 

Tell me how this skews the data at all if it was done across all irons. So even if it did, it would skew them all the same.

 

Because not all irons have the same design, including the grooves.They're designed to play a certain way with the loft, COG, and grooves working in harmony. It's also akin to playing with irons that have dirt in the grooves, which no one, minus the 14 year olds on the high school golf team, would ever do.

 

Masking/face tape is a great way to see where you're striking the ball on an iron face, but I'd be leery of being fitted for spin rates for a new set of irons with them on. None of my fitting sessions have used face tape beyond lie and length adjustment.

 

Then I'm sorry but your fitters don't know what they are doing. Face tape changes nothing, it is thin enough that it will barely affect anything. How else are we supposed to gauge strike point if there isn't face tape? Maybe you're better than most, but a large majority of the people I fit will say "this feels great" and I'm looking at the marks and they are barely catching any groove. Then when I get them into a club that continually produces centre shots, the results are night and day between the "good shots" that felt like they were struck properly.

 

Face tape is very important in any fitting.

[phatchrisrules]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

Why? it's all apples to apples. All clubs will lose a bit of spin and thus gain a bit of distance so all data is skewed by the same factor. Results shown should still accurately reflect any real difference in clubs.

 

The only way to confirm this as true would be to do the test without the tape and see the results. I'll bet you 100 internet points that It isn't apples to apples.

 

You're right it might not be apples to apples, but would it be significant? I doubt it. I will do the test with 10 shots, no deletions, with each on my next shift and make another post about it either here or starting another thread. Even people seem to think it is worthy of exploration. I will raise you 200 internet points if the spin is more than 500 RPMs different, which I would deem significant for any club.

[phatchrisrules]

The mathematics don't hold for all lofts going the same distance. If the shafts are same length, weight, etc, by simple mathematics something with a stronger loft must go farther considering same launch conditions. Even if the lower lofted club launches at the same height as the higher lofted club it would have less spin and therefore fly farther.

 

But it's not though, they aren't designed to fly the same. A thin iron, like an iBlade, and everything of it's caliber is designed to fly flatter and give more of a piercing trajectory. While conversely, a bigger iron, like an M2 or GMax is designed to get the ball up in the air faster and higher. The loft of the club is tailored to help produce acceptable shots with each. Golf club designers aren't stupid, they use the design of the club to do the brunt of the work and then use the loft to help aid in what needs to be done.

 

I've said it about 10000 times on this board. Go find a Cleveland HiBore 7i (33* of loft) and then compare it to say the i200 that has a much smaller sole, or even your own roughly 33-34* 7i and I guarantee you the Hibore will fly at least 3* higher and with about 1500-2000 RPMs more spin. You would probably lose about a full club on this due to the CG location and whatnot. Irons these days spin too much due to perfect engineering, for most people. Stronger lofts are needed to get us to this optimal window.

[bmaas03]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

 

How does masking tape instantly skew the data? My store uses this and has used this method forever. I was down at the Callaway fitting head office in Carlsbad with their tour van fitters at the end of May and they actively encouraged us to use face tape, masking tape, etc. to show us strike point. Someone even asked if using masking tape would be an issue and if we should solely use face tape and they responded that it made no difference.

 

Tell me how this skews the data at all if it was done across all irons. So even if it did, it would skew them all the same.

 

Because not all irons have the same design, including the grooves.They're designed to play a certain way with the loft, COG, and grooves working in harmony. It's also akin to playing with irons that have dirt in the grooves, which no one, minus the 14 year olds on the high school golf team, would ever do.

 

Masking/face tape is a great way to see where you're striking the ball on an iron face, but I'd be leery of being fitted for spin rates for a new set of irons with them on. None of my fitting sessions have used face tape beyond lie and length adjustment.

 

Then I'm sorry but your fitters don't know what they are doing. Face tape changes nothing, it is thin enough that it will barely affect anything. How else are we supposed to gauge strike point if there isn't face tape? Maybe you're better than most, but a large majority of the people I fit will say "this feels great" and I'm looking at the marks and they are barely catching any groove. Then when I get them into a club that continually produces centre shots, the results are night and day between the "good shots" that felt like they were struck properly.

 

Face tape is very important in any fitting.

 

I'm not sure you read my previous message. I agreed with you and said that face tape is a great way to show impact for the sake of lie and length adjustments.

Where is completely disagree, is that masking tape "changes nothing" in fitting for the correct spin rates and thus distances to finish a proper fitting. Heck, you even indicated that there would be an effect, but that it would be the same across all irons in the test. So which is it? No effect, or perfectly equal effect?

I've been fitted at Club Champion and Totally Driven. I think they might have an idea what they're doing.

 

[nbg352]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

Why? it's all apples to apples. All clubs will lose a bit of spin and thus gain a bit of distance so all data is skewed by the same factor. Results shown should still accurately reflect any real difference in clubs.

 

The only way to confirm this as true would be to do the test without the tape and see the results. I'll bet you 100 internet points that It isn't apples to apples.

well, when you have used a flightscope for as long and often as I have, you get to see everything. Masking tape on clubs changes spin by approx. 150 rpms.

The fact that grooves are covered is nearly immaterial since their primary function is to channel moisture from the clubface, not to create spin.

Since only masking tape was used by OP, all clubs would be affected by it in a similar manner. So yes, apples to apples as we are treating all clubs under identical circumstances

[Z1ggy16]

FWIW:

 

Played yesterday with my GI irons. My carry distances did not change tremendously, I was still hitting the same iron into the green as I normally would per that given distance. 7i was carrying what looked like the same distance as normal, but I definitely saw more run out. Front flag 148, took a 7i which normally I see carry 150 and stop maybe 153-155, this time ended up toward the back of the green, but I saw it land on the front. Got maybe 10-12 yard run out instead of the typical 5-ish.

 

I'd be curious to do a "test" myself on trackman now, to see if using the same shaft this happens using dry ball data. This on course "Test" did not use same shaft so it's technically not scientifically accurate.

[phatchrisrules]

Lost me at masking tape on face. Data instantly skewed. Sad.

 

How does masking tape instantly skew the data? My store uses this and has used this method forever. I was down at the Callaway fitting head office in Carlsbad with their tour van fitters at the end of May and they actively encouraged us to use face tape, masking tape, etc. to show us strike point. Someone even asked if using masking tape would be an issue and if we should solely use face tape and they responded that it made no difference.

 

Tell me how this skews the data at all if it was done across all irons. So even if it did, it would skew them all the same.

 

Because not all irons have the same design, including the grooves.They're designed to play a certain way with the loft, COG, and grooves working in harmony. It's also akin to playing with irons that have dirt in the grooves, which no one, minus the 14 year olds on the high school golf team, would ever do.

 

Masking/face tape is a great way to see where you're striking the ball on an iron face, but I'd be leery of being fitted for spin rates for a new set of irons with them on. None of my fitting sessions have used face tape beyond lie and length adjustment.

 

Then I'm sorry but your fitters don't know what they are doing. Face tape changes nothing, it is thin enough that it will barely affect anything. How else are we supposed to gauge strike point if there isn't face tape? Maybe you're better than most, but a large majority of the people I fit will say "this feels great" and I'm looking at the marks and they are barely catching any groove. Then when I get them into a club that continually produces centre shots, the results are night and day between the "good shots" that felt like they were struck properly.

 

Face tape is very important in any fitting.

 

I'm not sure you read my previous message. I agreed with you and said that face tape is a great way to show impact for the sake of lie and length adjustments.

Where is completely disagree, is that masking tape "changes nothing" in fitting for the correct spin rates and thus distances to finish a proper fitting. Heck, you even indicated that there would be an effect, but that it would be the same across all irons in the test. So which is it? No effect, or perfectly equal effect?

I've been fitted at Club Champion and Totally Driven. I think they might have an idea what they're doing.

 

I am saying it might affect spin, it might not, and if it does, it will be insignificant. I don't fit at Club Champion, but we have three clones of them within an hour's drive of me and I have had to fix their fits about half a dozen times. Fitting a guy 2 degrees flat that slices the golf ball because their GCQuad told them too, watching people hit their $1200 drivers like absolute garbage (like 17* launch with >3000 RPMs of spin) and then giving them a driver that is dead stock and like magic they hit it exactly where they need to go.

 

Most of those places are absolutely overrated, from what I have seen. By the way, most of the people who are fitting you have little to no fitting experience when they get hired. I saw the job ads for the 3 places around me and all it required was that you had a bit of sales experience and preferably had worked in the golf industry before. Telling much?

[phatchrisrules]

FWIW:

 

Played yesterday with my GI irons. My carry distances did not change tremendously, I was still hitting the same iron into the green as I normally would per that given distance. 7i was carrying what looked like the same distance as normal, but I definitely saw more run out. Front flag 148, took a 7i which normally I see carry 150 and stop maybe 153-155, this time ended up toward the back of the green, but I saw it land on the front. Got maybe 10-12 yard run out instead of the typical 5-ish.

 

I'd be curious to do a "test" myself on trackman now, to see if using the same shaft this happens using dry ball data. This on course "Test" did not use same shaft so it's technically not scientifically accurate.

 

Please do, I'd like to see that. If you could, assuming you are renting the monitor from a fitting place, throw together a strong GI club and a weaker lofted player's club with the same shaft, preferably as close to what you play. It would be nice to have some of the deniers of this go do their own test. I have done two tests myself, and added tests from two other players with significantly higher SS than me and the results have been the same. Yes it is indoors, but I don't see much if any difference in my numbers inside vs. out so I believe them. I get about 163 carry with my 7i inside at about 1000ft elevation and at sea level on Trackman off a grass range I saw 161 carry. Whoopity doo dah.... :dntknw:

[MtlJeff]

I've tested a ton of 7 irons as that's the common demo club whenever an OEM comes to our club. I would say that total distance between all of them on an ideal day is probably only 5-7yds so would tentatively agree with the OP. However on days that are very windy for example, the delta would be more due to some clubs launching higher and spinning more.

 

There are some clubs I hit right away and know they will suck on anything but optimal days. In fact the i200 when I tested it even the Ping guy was like "you could not play these without the stronger lofts" because the higher loft with the 7 iron shaft length was giving me like 24 degrees or something even with a s300. I would need the stronger loft at 7 iron length to keep flight down

 

But with no wind the numbers are not crazy different beyond launch angle

[Z1ggy16]

FWIW:

 

Played yesterday with my GI irons. My carry distances did not change tremendously, I was still hitting the same iron into the green as I normally would per that given distance. 7i was carrying what looked like the same distance as normal, but I definitely saw more run out. Front flag 148, took a 7i which normally I see carry 150 and stop maybe 153-155, this time ended up toward the back of the green, but I saw it land on the front. Got maybe 10-12 yard run out instead of the typical 5-ish.

 

I'd be curious to do a "test" myself on trackman now, to see if using the same shaft this happens using dry ball data. This on course "Test" did not use same shaft so it's technically not scientifically accurate.

 

Please do, I'd like to see that. If you could, assuming you are renting the monitor from a fitting place, throw together a strong GI club and a weaker lofted player's club with the same shaft, preferably as close to what you play. It would be nice to have some of the deniers of this go do their own test. I have done two tests myself, and added tests from two other players with significantly higher SS than me and the results have been the same. Yes it is indoors, but I don't see much if any difference in my numbers inside vs. out so I believe them. I get about 163 carry with my 7i inside at about 1000ft elevation and at sea level on Trackman off a grass range I saw 161 carry. Whoopity doo dah.... :dntknw:

Well, I have done this in the past although is somewhat anecdotal. I did test M2 iron when it came out. It was massively longer than my current 7i, but I Was smart enough to realize that A) it's really a 6i, and B) it was a longer shaft, and spin was massively too low. It was carrying it around 175 or so, and getting run out to 190 or 192. Basically not playable for me. My MP 54's were fit for me specially, which is why I can get the 7i to stop within about 5 yards, whereas some low spinning monster like M2 will run off the green about 8/10 times for me. Even as a 6i, it was spinning way too low.

 

I also question the indoor sims at Golf Galaxy, etc. I've NEVER once carried my 7i >160 yards in a real game of golf, yet every time I go hit on those non trackman monitors... What do you know, I'm carrying it about 160+ every time. I was smart enough to get fit on trackman, so those numbers were legit.

 

Look as far as I am concerned... a lower lofted club WILL carry a bit father, all else equal. Physically is has to, otherwise physics is broke. I agree it may only be like. 3 or 4 yards more, but once I add in roll out, it is about 3/4 of a club longer which is kind of the expected result. I agree that players should find what sounds and looks good and go from there. It's just that maybe 1/1000 "real" players will ever pick M2 simply because the lofts they'd need on those clubs to get the desired launch conditions can't be done. You can't bend an M2 iron in loft up 5 degrees... Even if you can (can you?? I'm not 100% sure it couldn't be done..) then you get wacked out flight because CG's and whatnot have been designed/optimized for that stock loft.

[bladehunter]

all 7 irons same? lol

 

 

I admitedly only skimmed the OP...But i read enough to see the 5-7 yard gap on average between several irons and ball combos... thats not even close to the same for a decent player.... add some wind plus or minus and your talking birdie vs double on any one given shot if hazard is involved... not to mention what happens when you go outside and hit each off actual turf so that you get REAL spin and distance numbers... some of these will jump up in distance and some will balloon and loose distance... and the gap gets wider...