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

[bmaas03]

 

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?

 

I don't disagree with you about fitters at some stores and that sometimes fitters get it wrong. In my case, the fitter I worked with at CC has been referenced on golfwrx dozens of times as a high quality fitter, and even posts here. But I bought my clubs at lower prices than CC would sell them to me with the same specs (with no pressure to buy) and from limited interaction with him, he seemed like a nice enough guy that he won't take offense to you calling him an idiot.

My fitter at Totally Driven has more than 20 years experience. My game improved with each fitting. Telling, indeed.

For what it's worth from one anonymous golfwrxer to another, I'd suggest a bit more care with your words before you continue to paint with such a broad brush.

I simply disagreed with your statement that masking tape has no effect (especially for better players at higher swing speeds as has been referenced several times in this thread), and this has turned into what feels like something a bit more personal. I'm looking forward to your test results and appreciate your time, and if I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly grant you those 200 Internet points we've laid on the table. I might even make a trip to Canada to be fitted by you if you include a bag of coffee crisps.

[PingDrv00]

I do not understand why we have to denigrate a member for trying his best to provide real world results with his swing, and multiple irons. He is sharing his results nothing more. I appreciate his info, and if you have issues move on!

[nbg352]

.

I do not understand why we have to denigrate a member for trying his best to provide real world results with his swing, and multiple irons. He is sharing his results nothing more. I appreciate his info, and if you have issues move on!

It's a disturbing trend around here, lately

[dlygrisse]

.

I do not understand why we have to denigrate a member for trying his best to provide real world results with his swing, and multiple irons. He is sharing his results nothing more. I appreciate his info, and if you have issues move on!

It's a disturbing trend around here, lately

Agreed, and I appreciate the OP's effort in doing the test and posting the results. However just looking at the data provided I would say the answer is NOT yes. It is maybe based on the parameters provided not as drastic as one might think.

 

Check out this video.

[tarmactrr]

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

Exactly. Masking tape will increase launch and reduce spin.

[rgk5]

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab. Do not forget face design, i.e. VFT that raises ball speeds on off centre hits compared to conventional faces, e.g. a Callaway CF vs Pro Forged. This can close the gap between lofts. I've fit hundreds of clients and seen the results.

 

Give a good PGA Tour Pro a 32* 7-iron and one at 35* and he will quickly adjust to hit both the same distance by altering ball position and lag. Another reason why 7-irons are more similar than different in performance. BTW, do not put too much faith in indoor Trackman readings as it does far better when the ball can fly at least 50 yards.

[nbg352]

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab. Do not forget face design, i.e. VFT that raises ball speeds on off centre hits compared to conventional faces, e.g. a Callaway CF vs Pro Forged. This can close the gap between lofts. I've fit hundreds of clients and seen the results.

 

Give a good PGA Tour Pro a 32* 7-iron and one at 35* and he will quickly adjust to hit both the same distance by altering ball position and lag. Another reason why 7-irons are more similar than different in performance. BTW, do not put too much faith in indoor Trackman readings as it does far better when the ball can fly at least 50 yards.

All true!

[Golfrnut]

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab.

 

Is there information out there to this study? I would disagree on importance. Possibly on a driver there's less where the spin loft is low and there would not be as much of a loss of friction. Irons, on the other hand, I would completely disagree with. The higher the loft, the more importance as the potential for loss of friction increases dramatically.

 

FS test with wedge

https://www.facebook...f=page_internal

[rgk5]

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab.

 

Is there information out there to this study? I would disagree on importance. Possibly on a driver there's less where the spin loft is low and there would not be as much of a loss of friction. Irons, on the other hand, I would completely disagree with. The higher the loft, the more importance as the potential for loss of friction increases dramatically.

 

FS test with wedge

https://www.facebook...f=page_internal

 

Tell you what, I'll try it on Wed. with my Tour Trusty 51* GW, with face tape and without, and report back with the spin readings from the GC2. Balls used will be the Srixon ZStar. BTW, I'm quite a good wedge player even at the ancient age of 70.

[CheckJV]

All 7 irons are born the same. Any differences are a function of upbringing.

[Llortamaisey]

All 7 irons are born the same. Any differences are a function of upbringing.

 

You shouldn't try to tell your 7 iron how to identify itself. When it's old enough it can decide on its own.

 

My 7 iron identifies as a 6 iron.

[nbg352]

All 7 irons are born the same. Any differences are a function of upbringing.

 

You shouldn't try to tell your 7 iron how to identify itself. When it's old enough it can decide on its own.

 

My 7 iron identifies as a 6 iron.

Mine suffers from senility. It never knows where it's going.......

[Golfrnut]

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab.

 

Is there information out there to this study? I would disagree on importance. Possibly on a driver there's less where the spin loft is low and there would not be as much of a loss of friction. Irons, on the other hand, I would completely disagree with. The higher the loft, the more importance as the potential for loss of friction increases dramatically.

 

FS test with wedge

https://www.facebook...f=page_internal

 

Tell you what, I'll try it on Wed. with my Tour Trusty 51* GW, with face tape and without, and report back with the spin readings from the GC2. Balls used will be the Srixon ZStar. BTW, I'm quite a good wedge player even at the ancient age of 70.

 

Well, that's fine. Was there an actual study done?

[phatchrisrules]

I don't disagree with you about fitters at some stores and that sometimes fitters get it wrong. In my case, the fitter I worked with at CC has been referenced on golfwrx dozens of times as a high quality fitter, and even posts here. But I bought my clubs at lower prices than CC would sell them to me with the same specs (with no pressure to buy) and from limited interaction with him, he seemed like a nice enough guy that he won't take offense to you calling him an idiot.

My fitter at Totally Driven has more than 20 years experience. My game improved with each fitting. Telling, indeed.

For what it's worth from one anonymous golfwrxer to another, I'd suggest a bit more care with your words before you continue to paint with such a broad brush.

I simply disagreed with your statement that masking tape has no effect (especially for better players at higher swing speeds as has been referenced several times in this thread), and this has turned into what feels like something a bit more personal. I'm looking forward to your test results and appreciate your time, and if I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly grant you those 200 Internet points we've laid on the table. I might even make a trip to Canada to be fitted by you if you include a bag of coffee crisps.

Tape affect is minimal and inconsequential as proven at the Callaway Performance Lab.

 

Is there information out there to this study? I would disagree on importance. Possibly on a driver there's less where the spin loft is low and there would not be as much of a loss of friction. Irons, on the other hand, I would completely disagree with. The higher the loft, the more importance as the potential for loss of friction increases dramatically.

 

FS test with wedge

https://www.facebook...f=page_internal

 

Tell you what, I'll try it on Wed. with my Tour Trusty 51* GW, with face tape and without, and report back with the spin readings from the GC2. Balls used will be the Srixon ZStar. BTW, I'm quite a good wedge player even at the ancient age of 70.

 

Well, that's fine. Was there an actual study done?

 

I'm just going to quote you all here, but this is mostly directed at bmaas03. I was out of line, but the local CC-clone stores around me have coloured my opinion of high end fitting studios. Obviously I have never met your fitters in person, so I am sure they are nice people and know a fair bit. So I hope they, and you, accept my apology. Sometimes I am too cocky for my own good.

 

At any rate, I did the test. I used masking tape, not face tape. I do know face tape affects spin, but as I mentioned in my original post and to the original commenter who took offence, that I used masking tape. Face tape (as in lie tape or impact tape) will cut spin by about 50%, I see this routinely when I am doing dynamic lie testing. However, I was interesting in testing masking tape, as we have been using it forever at my store. The results, were....interesting...to say the least, and I may owe bmaas03 those magic internet points after all, sort of.

 

It looks like masking tape does affect launch and spin, but not at all as we had thought. I used my current 7i (JPX900 Forged w/ C-Taper Lite Stiff) and hit the exact same Chrome Soft golf ball off of a GC2 monitor. The tests were without tape, with two layers of masking tape, and with only one layer. I was convinced there would be little to no difference, and I was sort of right. In both the single tape and double tape scenarios launch went down by 1.5-2*, and spin shot up 300 RPMs. So I went from hitting it around 20.5* with 5500 spin without tape to hitting it roughly 19* with 5800 RPMs of spin. So while there clearly is an affect on launch and spin, what did that do to carry and total distance? Nothing. Both were carrying 159 and rolling out to 170 according to the monitor. This was also double checked with a co-worker of mine that swings faster, and he saw about 400 RPM spin increase and the same reduction in launch.

 

My take home from this is that I will continue to use the tape. It does not affect the end result (i.e. carry) at all. In fact, I would argue that it doesn't affect the numbers at all. It would be the same as hitting a driver at 12* and 2500 RPM vs. 14* and 2100 RPMs vs. 17* and 1700 RPMs. It is just a different way of getting to the optimal. As long as we are hovering around that 19* 5500 RPM number I am happy, with the corresponding higher spin at lower launch or less spin at elevated launch, I don't care. I do not feel this change is significant as we see the correct corresponding change in flight that is non-harmful. I will continue to use tape as it will help me fully understand strike point rather than guessing by ear.

 

Thanks for those who are interested.

[carn9698]

Best topic I have read in ages. Great info. Well done Phatchris. As most guys buy irons on 7i results this gives a great understanding of what to look out for.

[NikeNerd]

phatchrisrules,

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to do this and write out a lengthy and thoughtful post on this. We need posts like this to start the discussion.

 

From OP: "In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false."

 

It seems your hypothesis is misstated or that your tests were not geared towards testing this particular hypothesis. If you were truly testing whether loft affected distance, you would have chosen a different experimental design. Your independent variable would be loft, and the dependent variable would be distance. All other things should have been held constant as best as you could. These things include but are not limited to:

 

Club length

Manufacturer

Club mass

Club swing weight

 

Comparing, for example, a Taylormade M1 37-inch 9 iron versus a 37-inch 6 iron with identical shafts, masses, and swing weights (this can be achieved with lead tape) would have been a better test of the hypothesis you stated and would have undoubtedly resulted in your concluding that the 6 iron flew further than the 9 iron.

 

It seems to me you were testing a different idea. From reading your post it appears that you wanted to find out the degree to which the lofts of different models of irons affected the distance of the golf shot. An example hypothesis would be:

 

"Loft is only one of the many determinants of total distance; having an iron with lower loft does not always mean the ball will fly further than an iron with more loft."

 

If you had said this at the beginning I would have agreed with you and wouldn't even need to read your methodology, it just seems extremely plausible, even to the point of being obvious.

 

If you actually believe your stated hypothesis, how do you explain the fact that Bryson Dechambeau uses irons whose make, model, and lengths are identical, and yet his 4 iron launches dramatically lower and flies significantly further than his 9 iron?

[AndersUK]

Adding masking tape to the face screws the figures as it reduces spin.

[phatchrisrules]

Best topic I have read in ages. Great info. Well done Phatchris. As most guys buy irons on 7i results this gives a great understanding of what to look out for.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

phatchrisrules,

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to do this and write out a lengthy and thoughtful post on this. We need posts like this to start the discussion.

 

From OP: "In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false."

 

It seems your hypothesis is misstated or that your tests were not geared towards testing this particular hypothesis. If you were truly testing whether loft affected distance, you would have chosen a different experimental design. Your independent variable would be loft, and the dependent variable would be distance. All other things should have been held constant as best as you could. These things include but are not limited to:

 

Club length

Manufacturer

Club mass

Club swing weight

 

Comparing, for example, a Taylormade M1 37-inch 9 iron versus a 37-inch 6 iron with identical shafts, masses, and swing weights (this can be achieved with lead tape) would have been a better test of the hypothesis you stated and would have undoubtedly resulted in your concluding that the 6 iron flew further than the 9 iron.

 

It seems to me you were testing a different idea. From reading your post it appears that you wanted to find out the degree to which the lofts of different models of irons affected the distance of the golf shot. An example hypothesis would be:

 

"Loft is only one of the many determinants of total distance; having an iron with lower loft does not always mean the ball will fly further than an iron with more loft."

 

If you had said this at the beginning I would have agreed with you and wouldn't even need to read your methodology, it just seems extremely plausible, even to the point of being obvious.

 

If you actually believe your stated hypothesis, how do you explain the fact that Bryson Dechambeau uses irons whose make, model, and lengths are identical, and yet his 4 iron launches dramatically lower and flies significantly further than his 9 iron?

 

I think you are right. My hypothesis was originally "does a 28.5* 7i fly further than a 34* 7i" and it does. Then I thought about it a bit and thought that well, it does fly further, but not as far as it should (12-16y). I think your re-statement of what my hypothesis should have been vs. what I have been arguing as the true findings are pretty much lined up. I like your restatement better and I hope I summarized the findings well enough in the discussion/conclusion to make sense of it all.

 

As for SL clubs, I know they use boosted COR and change the CG a little more than normal, but apart from that, they are a mystery to me.

 

Adding masking tape to the face screws the figures as it reduces spin.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read like 3 posts above your own. I tested it, 4 times in a row to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing and then had a coworker who is a better ball striker try it too. Masking tape DOES NOT launch it higher, nor does it reduce spin. It does the opposite. It launches lower (1.5-2*) with more spin (~300 RPMs). The net result of the end of that was exactly 0 yards +/- carry and total with tape on, in both a single and double layer, compared to no tape. So yes, it does change the resultant numbers, but it does not impact the overall numbers as we see higher spin at lower launch, which changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[dlygrisse]

Best topic I have read in ages. Great info. Well done Phatchris. As most guys buy irons on 7i results this gives a great understanding of what to look out for.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

phatchrisrules,

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to do this and write out a lengthy and thoughtful post on this. We need posts like this to start the discussion.

 

From OP: "In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false."

 

It seems your hypothesis is misstated or that your tests were not geared towards testing this particular hypothesis. If you were truly testing whether loft affected distance, you would have chosen a different experimental design. Your independent variable would be loft, and the dependent variable would be distance. All other things should have been held constant as best as you could. These things include but are not limited to:

 

Club length

Manufacturer

Club mass

Club swing weight

 

Comparing, for example, a Taylormade M1 37-inch 9 iron versus a 37-inch 6 iron with identical shafts, masses, and swing weights (this can be achieved with lead tape) would have been a better test of the hypothesis you stated and would have undoubtedly resulted in your concluding that the 6 iron flew further than the 9 iron.

 

It seems to me you were testing a different idea. From reading your post it appears that you wanted to find out the degree to which the lofts of different models of irons affected the distance of the golf shot. An example hypothesis would be:

 

"Loft is only one of the many determinants of total distance; having an iron with lower loft does not always mean the ball will fly further than an iron with more loft."

 

If you had said this at the beginning I would have agreed with you and wouldn't even need to read your methodology, it just seems extremely plausible, even to the point of being obvious.

 

If you actually believe your stated hypothesis, how do you explain the fact that Bryson Dechambeau uses irons whose make, model, and lengths are identical, and yet his 4 iron launches dramatically lower and flies significantly further than his 9 iron?

 

I think you are right. My hypothesis was originally "does a 28.5* 7i fly further than a 34* 7i" and it does. Then I thought about it a bit and thought that well, it does fly further, but not as far as it should (12-16y). I think your re-statement of what my hypothesis should have been vs. what I have been arguing as the true findings are pretty much lined up. I like your restatement better and I hope I summarized the findings well enough in the discussion/conclusion to make sense of it all.

 

As for SL clubs, I know they use boosted COR and change the CG a little more than normal, but apart from that, they are a mystery to me.

 

Adding masking tape to the face screws the figures as it reduces spin.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read like 3 posts above your own. I tested it, 4 times in a row to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing and then had a coworker who is a better ball striker try it too. Masking tape DOES NOT launch it higher, nor does it reduce spin. It does the opposite. It launches lower (1.5-2*) with more spin (~300 RPMs). The net result of the end of that was exactly 0 yards +/- carry and total with tape on, in both a single and double layer, compared to no tape. So yes, it does change the resultant numbers, but it does not impact the overall numbers as we see higher spin at lower launch, which changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

Well this blows the whole theory out of the water that new grooves spin in the ball more right? Unless of course we are coming out of light rough?

[bladehunter]

Why use the tape at all though ? It's an unneeded distraction isn't it ? You can sharpie line the back of the ball wnd get a better imprint with zero distractions

[phatchrisrules]

Well this blows the whole theory out of the water that new grooves spin in the ball more right? Unless of course we are coming out of light rough?

 

I have seen no difference in the amount of spin tour players are putting on the ball now vs. then. I haven't noticed much difference, if any, on my own shots either. I think it was a way for the tour to feel important that they were going to give the old guard a chance to hold onto their records. Most of these have since been shattered, I believe.

 

Why use the tape at all though ? It's an unneeded distraction isn't it ? You can sharpie line the back of the ball wnd get a better imprint with zero distractions

 

I don't find it distracting at all. It serves two purposes. The first is to protect the golf club if we don't have a demo head available. Would you buy an iron set off the shelf that had a 7i with a marked up sole, ball marks, and sharpie across the face? Second, even if we used it strictly on a demo iron, have you ever tried to clean sharpie off of an iron face? It takes freaking forever. Not to mention it would get confusing if the person hit 5-8 shots, the face would be covered in sharpie and it would be tough to track which is which.

 

You can have your opinions on the look, feel, and skewing of data using masking tape but I think I have illustrated it doesn't do anything at all. Yes there is an effect, but the end results are identical, they just show up in different ways. It would be like if you drained a putt right in the middle vs. it catching the side door. At the end of the day, your score is your score, and at the end of the day, your carry number is your carry number.

[cardoustie]

foot powder spray ?

 

Thx for sharing the results

[rgk5]

The results of my GW test from today are as follows, using the Foresight GC2

 

Club; Tour Trusty 51*, DG S-200 shaft

 

Ball; new Srixon ZStars

 

With Masking Tape On the Face; Launch... 35.*

Spin.........5958 rpm

 

No Tape; Launch... 33*

Spin....... 7220 rpm

 

This was an average of five shots after a 15 shot warm-up, hitting 7-irons. IMO, the higher launch with tape somewhat neutralises the lower spin rate from the taped head, so both would hold a green quite adequately. Ergo, the results are not identical but nothing to fret over. 7-irons would be much closer in spin than the results posted here, given the vagaries of swing lag and contact consistency we all have.

[AFcelica]

Just proves how individual golf can be. Watch club reviews on YouTube, most of their facts and figures would disagree with yours. Crossfield even mentions all the time he likes to not know the loft so he doesn't subconsciously try to manipulate the club face. Not and end all be all or even very important. As always ymmv, testing is the only way to find what's right for each individual

[pinestreetgolf]

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...

 

This seems like a really good point. I'm sophisticated enough to only barely follow the conversation but from practice that spin into a big wind over a pond seems like a much bigger difference than a number on a launch monitor. Introducing weather and the course and tucked pins and these minor differences can start to become major, no?

[nbg352]

Best topic I have read in ages. Great info. Well done Phatchris. As most guys buy irons on 7i results this gives a great understanding of what to look out for.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

phatchrisrules,

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to do this and write out a lengthy and thoughtful post on this. We need posts like this to start the discussion.

 

From OP: "In summary, my hypothesis that the stronger the loft of an iron, the further it will go was proven false."

 

It seems your hypothesis is misstated or that your tests were not geared towards testing this particular hypothesis. If you were truly testing whether loft affected distance, you would have chosen a different experimental design. Your independent variable would be loft, and the dependent variable would be distance. All other things should have been held constant as best as you could. These things include but are not limited to:

 

Club length

Manufacturer

Club mass

Club swing weight

 

Comparing, for example, a Taylormade M1 37-inch 9 iron versus a 37-inch 6 iron with identical shafts, masses, and swing weights (this can be achieved with lead tape) would have been a better test of the hypothesis you stated and would have undoubtedly resulted in your concluding that the 6 iron flew further than the 9 iron.

 

It seems to me you were testing a different idea. From reading your post it appears that you wanted to find out the degree to which the lofts of different models of irons affected the distance of the golf shot. An example hypothesis would be:

 

"Loft is only one of the many determinants of total distance; having an iron with lower loft does not always mean the ball will fly further than an iron with more loft."

 

If you had said this at the beginning I would have agreed with you and wouldn't even need to read your methodology, it just seems extremely plausible, even to the point of being obvious.

 

If you actually believe your stated hypothesis, how do you explain the fact that Bryson Dechambeau uses irons whose make, model, and lengths are identical, and yet his 4 iron launches dramatically lower and flies significantly further than his 9 iron?

 

I think you are right. My hypothesis was originally "does a 28.5* 7i fly further than a 34* 7i" and it does. Then I thought about it a bit and thought that well, it does fly further, but not as far as it should (12-16y). I think your re-statement of what my hypothesis should have been vs. what I have been arguing as the true findings are pretty much lined up. I like your restatement better and I hope I summarized the findings well enough in the discussion/conclusion to make sense of it all.

 

As for SL clubs, I know they use boosted COR and change the CG a little more than normal, but apart from that, they are a mystery to me.

 

Adding masking tape to the face screws the figures as it reduces spin.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read like 3 posts above your own. I tested it, 4 times in a row to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing and then had a coworker who is a better ball striker try it too. Masking tape DOES NOT launch it higher, nor does it reduce spin. It does the opposite. It launches lower (1.5-2*) with more spin (~300 RPMs). The net result of the end of that was exactly 0 yards +/- carry and total with tape on, in both a single and double layer, compared to no tape. So yes, it does change the resultant numbers, but it does not impact the overall numbers as we see higher spin at lower launch, which changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

Well this blows the whole theory out of the water that new grooves spin in the ball more right? Unless of course we are coming out of light rough?

Moisture kills spin. Grooves, by channelling moisture away from the face, mitigates this. The better the condition of the grooves, the better moisture is channelled away. New grooves work better in the rough and wet fairways than old grooves. Old grooves work just fine from the short stuff in drier conditions.

[thormania]

How can you even believe this??

 

Take a Blade 7 iron and a Ping G400 7 iron and tell me they are the same on the course

[AndersUK]

Where did I say tape produces a higher launch? Tape reduces spin, which in turn produces a LOWER ball flight. The point being that launch conditions are different when you add material to the club face. This is fact. Quality club fitters know this when checking impact position and dynamic lies with tape, hence they advise customers to ignore the figures.

 

Adding masking tape to the face screws the figures as it reduces spin.

 

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read like 3 posts above your own. I tested it, 4 times in a row to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing and then had a coworker who is a better ball striker try it too. Masking tape DOES NOT launch it higher, nor does it reduce spin. It does the opposite. It launches lower (1.5-2*) with more spin (~300 RPMs). The net result of the end of that was exactly 0 yards +/- carry and total with tape on, in both a single and double layer, compared to no tape. So yes, it does change the resultant numbers, but it does not impact the overall numbers as we see higher spin at lower launch, which changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Z1ggy16]

I just wanted to put this here, as more semi scientific "proof" that the distances between 7 irons aren't AS big as people think. In case though you can't watch, the summary is Mike Newton, PGA golfer hit G400, i200's and iBlades on GC2 with HMT, all 7i's. After he hit all of them, the distance in carry was all within a few yards of each other, and same with total distance. Spin was maybe 500-600 lower with G400 than iBlade. The same shaft was used each time.

 

http://youtu.be/8SWFD5ypwMw

 

Anecdotally, I think in "real" golf conditions, carry between 7i's is generally pretty similar, but I do experience more roll out with the lower lofted, lower spinning GI irons. It's not massively more, but there is some effect which I don't think is captured in Mike's video because it's closed data. However, one thing I can agree with is that as long as swing speed is very similar and the same shaft is used, you won't see huge carry differences between 7i's as long as lofts are within 3-4* or so.

[Ampire2121]

I didn't know we all played golf on a simulator