I know jacked lofts has been done to death...

[clinkinfo]

13 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Ive seen that, and it contradicts what titleist says on their website. But if you noticed this: 

 

“As with the T100, a hefty amount of tungsten (an average of 66 grams) is co-forged into the heel and toe areas of the long and mid irons to boost forgiveness and foster a higher launch. Attention also was paid to the sole of the club with an enhanced camber for improved turf interaction. As you would expect in a players shape, the topline is on the thin side and offset is minimal. The set features progressive blade lengths, sole widths and hosel lengths with the goal of delivering the optimal center-of-gravity positioning for each iron.”

 

He starts if with “as with the t100”. To me thats talking about both irons in the same breath. Hard to differentiate anything until he says:

“We wanted to keep the exact look of T100 while making some slight tweaks to the CG and the sole,” said Ines. So it looks like a T100 but plays like a T200 distance-wise.”

 

Slight cg tweak. Like as in 0.014” HIGHER than the t100.... he didnt say WHICH DIRECTION! Not what is needed to offset 2 degrees of loft. 

@Valtiel I think this response was meant for you, or maybe pepperturbo. I’m not really sure.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

@Valtiel I think this response was meant for you, or maybe pepperturbo. I’m not really sure.

 

 

It wasnt meant for any one person, its a forum, but it was a reply to your post.

[clinkinfo]

3 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

It wasnt meant for any one person, its a forum, but it was a reply to your post.

Oh! I’ve been on a forum for 15 years...who knew lol

 

...guess I miss understood your emphasizing capitals in “he didnt say WHICH DIRECTION!”
 

‘I thought you were answering someone

Edited October 16, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

Ok.......I don’t see where I said CG isn’t an important design element.  Are you confusing me with someone else?

 

Don’t think I made a comment one way or another.  I did say I had no idea if PING moved the CG on their three different i500 loft options.  Maybe you misunderstood, I’m talking about that one ping model’s 3 loft options.  I was not making a general comment about CG movement in golf clubs.
 

But ironically, that’s the entire point of the thread.  A new 7 iron is not simply an old 5 iron with a 7 stamped on it.   It has redesigned geometry that is launching in a different window than older irons did.   So if you refuse to try them because there’s a loft You don’t like on a static spec sheet, you aren’t doing yourself any favors.  Those new “jacked loft”  iron heads do not launch the way that static number might otherwise have you think, and they are very playable fits for many people, with lots of positives.
 

unlike you, I don’t care if the marketing team screws up the details (like which direction the engineers move the CG), I expect that.  I AM AN ENGINEER.  the marketing folks never get it right, I don’t get offended by it.   I only care how an iron works with my swing and the resulting ball flight.   And since I can DEMO any golf club I want before I buy it, the marketing team can tell me whatever they want,  I get to SEE what it really does to the ball  before I buy anything.
 

 

I kept pointing out that CG differences have to be the primary factor in the three different specs of PING i500 launching the same, and you said "In the end, you seem super concerned with CoG.  I don't exactly know why, but that's fine". You're bickering with me when I say that a CG design change is behind the different performance seemingly for the sake of it, because you don't actually seem to disagree with that concept. It is the primary, and as far as I am aware only possible explanation for three different spec'd irons that are 3.5* in loft apart to launch the same and spin *near* the same. I DON'T think this is a bad thing, and you keep suggesting that I am dismissing them because of what they are on paper and/or refuse to try them. Not only are neither of those things true, but I DO NOT have a problem with the clubs if they work for people, I have a problem with the marketing that you keep making excuses for and the design trend because both are anti-consumer. You're naive if you think this is just "marketing screwing it up" as though they are some outsourced service that read that manual upside down and released backwards information. The marketing has specifically been designed to hide that lofts are getting stronger to increase distance so people feel better buying them, and they have been lying about CG location as part of that message, both for the sake of marketing and because no one EVER advertises higher CG, despite that being the trend. Veterans here on the forum have talked about, actual club builders and long time designers have talked about it, and now thanks to third party documentation and measuring, we can see it. It is not "exaggerated" or some "whoopsie" by advertising people, its crafted deception to sell clubs which is as I mentioned, anti-consumer, and THAT is where my issue is. 

But fine, like you said you can just ignore all that, put the ethics aside, and try the club for yourself. But unless you're actually able to take it to the course, you'll get skewed launch and spin results hitting off mats from a salesman they tell you is a fitter, and the entire experience is not nearly as useful or accurate as it should be. But fine! Lets excuse that part as well and say that the consumer has a certain responsibility in educating themselves, but then we come right back around to the fact that sifting through the misinformation, both what is crafted by the companies and what is parroted by people (myself included at times in the past) is exhausting, and you're left with your only options being either commit the days/weeks/months scouring forums and parsing the truth from the marketing spin, or buy the clubs with the intent to keep or sell depending on the results. I choose the latter since i'm fluent in eBay and shipping things, but not everyone is comfortable with that. And it ALL comes back around to CG for this simple reason...

The average player benefits from a low CG, specifically one within a certain range as it pertains to the height of the golf ball's equator, because the average player misses lower on the face with irons. Yes there are exceptions, but generally speaking the bad amateur misses are the "thin to win" or the full blown chunk, and no amount of fancy club technology saves the chunk. But a low CG helps the thin shot and makes the average thinner than ideal strike quite playable. So when the entire industry comes up with this marketing tag line of "we had to make the lofts stronger because modern tech has gotten the CG so low that the ball would fly too high if we didn't" only to see published data that not only says that isn't true, but that the OPPOSITE is true, then that SHOULD put a sour taste in your mouth, performance be damned. 

Anyway, i'm done rambling on the topic as I think i've made my position clear enough. I don't think a modern 7-iron is a restamped 5-iron, but I do think in many cases it is a flawed design that does not benefit the average golfer nearly as much as it could with what we know about CG placement and what was already accomplished on that front 20 years ago. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Valtiel

[clinkinfo]

14 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

I kept pointing out that CG differences have to be the primary factor in the three different specs of PING i500 launching the same, and you said "In the end, you seem super concerned with CoG.  I don't exactly know why, but that's fine". You're bickering with me when I say that a CG design change is behind the different performance seemingly for the sake of it, because you don't actually seem to disagree with that concept. It is the primary, and as far as I am aware only possible explanation for three different spec'd irons that are 3.5* in loft apart to launch the same and spin *near* the same. I DON'T think this is a bad thing, and you keep suggesting that I am dismissing them because of what they are on paper and/or refuse to try them. Not only are neither of those things true, but I DO NOT have a problem with the clubs or what they do for people, I have a problem with the marketing that you keep making excuses for and the design trend because both are anti-consumer. You're naive if you think this is just "marketing screwing it up" as though they are some outsourced service that read that manual upside down and released backwards information. The marketing has specifically been designed to hide that lofts are getting stronger to increase distance so people feel better buying them, and they have been lying about CG location as part of that message, both for the sake of marketing and because no one EVER advertises higher CG, despite that being the trend. Veterans here on the forum have talked about, actual club builders and long time designers have talked about it, and now thanks to third party documentation and measuring, we can see it. It is not "exaggerated" or some "whoopsie" by advertising people, its crafted deception to sell clubs which is as I mentioned, anti-consumer, and THAT is where my issue is. 

But fine, like you said you can just ignore all that, put the ethics aside, . But unless you're actually able to take it to the course, you'll get skewed launch and spin results hitting off mats from a salesman they tell you is a fitter, and the entire experience is not nearly as useful or accurate as it should be. But fine! Lets excuse that part as well and say that the consumer has a certain responsibility in educating themselves, but then we come right back around to the fact that sifting through the misinformation, both what is crafted by the companies and what is parroted by people (myself included at times in the past) is exhausting, and you're left with your only options being either commit the days/weeks/months scouring forums and parsing the truth from the marketing spin, or buy the clubs with the intent to keep or sell depending on the results. I choose the latter since i'm fluent in eBay and shipping things, but not everyone is comfortable with that. And it ALL comes back around to CG for this simple reason...

The average player benefits from a low CG, specifically one within a certain range as it pertains to the height of the golf ball's equator, because the average player misses lower on the face with irons. Yes there are exceptions, but generally speaking the bad amateur misses are the "thin to win" or the full blown chunk, and no amount of fancy club technology saves the chunk. But a low CG helps the thin shot and makes the average thinner than ideal strike quite playable. So when the entire industry comes up with this marketing tag line of "we had to make the lofts stronger because modern tech has gotten the CG so low that the ball would fly too high if we didn't" only to see published data that not only says that isn't true, but that the OPPOSITE is true, then that SHOULD put a sour taste in your mouth, performance be damned. 

Anyway, i'm done rambling on the topic as I think i've made my position clear enough. I don't think a modern 7-iron is a restamped 5-iron, but I do think in many cases it is a flawed design that does not benefit the average golfer nearly as much as it could with what we know about CG placement and what was already accomplished on that front 20 years ago. 

 

 

“I don't think a modern 7-iron is a restamped 5-iron...”
 

“...and try the club for yourself”

 

awesome, we agreed all along.  
 

this particular topic started “I know jacked lofts have been done to death but ...But I really don't understand this. Callaway have literally made a 7 iron that is a 5 iron ”
 

it wasn’t a full analysis of golf club design over the last 20 years, some of us were just trying to answer:

 

is a modern 7 iron [like the callaway] really a 5 iron with a 7 stamped on it?

 

Thanks for contributing, sorry if you misunderstood me along the way

 

 

. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by clinkinfo

[NRJyzr]

11 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

“I don't think a modern 7-iron is a restamped 5-iron...”
 

“...and try the club for yourself”

 

awesome, we agreed all along.  
 

this particular topic started “I know jacked lofts have been done to death but ...But I really don't understand this. Callaway have literally made a 7 iron that is a 5 iron ”
 

it wasn’t a full analysis of golf club design over the last 20 years, some of us were just trying to answer:

 

is a modern 7 iron [like the callaway] really a 5 iron with a 7 stamped on it?

 

Thanks for contributing, sorry if you misunderstood me along the way

 

 

. 

 

 

Not that it matters....  but I *do* think Callaway, and the other companies, have taken a 5i and stamped a "7" on it.  However, I am not shaking my fist at the heavens as you and others have characterized in this and other threads.  I don't deride other players for it, or tell them their 7 irons are really 5 irons, etc.

 

Just as @Valtiel and @Red4282 have stated, I dislike the deception.  

 

I also don't care if the clubs have a higher trajectory.  I don't believe in using trajectory to number your clubs.  I'm in the minority on that, but that doesn't matter.  LOL

 

My main complaint with loft jacking over the years has been the compression of gaps between clubs.  More and more 3* gaps showing up, requiring you to carry 9 clubs where you could have carried 8 previously; visible in the the loft progression differences between Eye2 and S55.  That's been largely dealt with now, but you still see it in the loft specs of some Mizunos, as one example.

 

It *is* kind of funny that in the 50s, a club that was 37" and 33* loft had a 5 on the sole, while these days it may have a 7.  Or even an 8.  🙂 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by NRJyzr

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

 

Not that it matters....  but I *do* think Callaway, and the other companies, have taken a 5i and stamped a "7" on it.  However, I am not shaking my fist at the heavens as you and others have characterized in this and other threads.  I don't deride other players for it, or tell them their 7 irons are really 5 irons, etc.

 

Just as @Valtiel and @Red4282 have stated, I dislike the deception.  

 

I also don't care if the clubs have a higher trajectory.  I don't believe in using trajectory to number your clubs.  I'm in the minority on that, but that doesn't matter.  LOL

 

My main complaint with loft jacking over the years has been the compression of gaps between clubs.  More and more 3* gaps showing up, requiring you to carry 9 clubs where you could have carried 8 previously; visible in the the loft progression differences between Eye2 and S55.  That's been largely dealt with now, but you still see it in the loft specs of some Mizunos, as one example.

 

It *is* kind of funny that in the 50s, a club that was 37" and 33* loft had a 5 on the sole, while these days it may have a 7.  Or even an 8.  🙂 

 

 

I can respect your opinion on the 5 being stamped a 7 and agree to disagree. I don't see that on the launch monitor or on course. 

 

But It's hard for me to get behind "marketing outrage" when every manufacturer seems to go out of their way to make their products available to try before you buy anything.  And since I can try it, On course, in hitting bays, some will even let me play 30 days with it, I just don't get how anyone is "tricking me" into buying something that doesn't work for me.  

[NRJyzr]

51 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

I can respect your opinion on the 5 being stamped a 7 and agree to disagree. I don't see that on the launch monitor or on course. 

 

But It's hard for me to get behind "marketing outrage" when every manufacturer seems to go out of their way to make their products available to try before you buy anything.  And since I can try it, On course, in hitting bays, some will even let me play 30 days with it, I just don't get how anyone is "tricking me" into buying something that doesn't work for me.  

 

Because the "why's" don't add up.  They're contradictory, and in some cases nonsensical.

 

An example is that we've been told they have to decrease lofts because they've moved the CG lower and farther back.  On top of that, they tell us they have increased trajectory to counter the lower spin of the modern solid core golf balls.

 

Reducing loft to counter higher flight that you also need from lower spin seems counterproductive.

Added to that, their reasons for why are not only not true, but in many cases, they've done the exact opposite.

 

Now you're saying because you can try the clubs, its ok.  What about the not insignificant number of golfers for whom that's not true?  There are always posts from WRXers who don't have the access that you do, and have to rely on information.  When that info is BS....

 

Just a couple of thoughts before I start getting ready to hit the course....

 

[shaolingolfer]

The proof is in the pudding.  Just go hit the jacked loft club yourself.

 

All I know is the jacked loft 5 iron or 7 iron I hit is definitely not a re-brand 3or 5 iron and I don't need all the scientific evidence to tell me otherwise. 🥱 

[NRJyzr]

40 minutes ago, shaolingolfer said:

The proof is in the pudding.  Just go hit the jacked loft club yourself.

 

All I know is the jacked loft 5 iron or 7 iron I hit is definitely not a re-brand 3or 5 iron and I don't need all the scientific evidence to tell me otherwise. 🥱 

 

How do you know?

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Because the "why's" don't add up.  They're contradictory, and in some cases nonsensical.

 

An example is that we've been told they have to decrease lofts because they've moved the CG lower and farther back.  On top of that, they tell us they have increased trajectory to counter the lower spin of the modern solid core golf balls.

 

Reducing loft to counter higher flight that you also need from lower spin seems counterproductive.

Added to that, their reasons for why are not only not true, but in many cases, they've done the exact opposite.

 

Now you're saying because you can try the clubs, its ok.  What about the not insignificant number of golfers for whom that's not true?  There are always posts from WRXers who don't have the access that you do, and have to rely on information.  When that info is BS....

 

Just a couple of thoughts before I start getting ready to hit the course....

 

 

that’s been part of the point all along, stop listening to the noise And go try them, that includes the marketing and anti-marketing pushback.  See if they work.  If you can’t see for yourself, don’t LISTEN to people’s opinions here, LOOK at their ball flight data and make a decision.   There’s Tons of fitting Ball data info in the forum, there’s tons on YouTube.  you don’t have to believe a single marketing claim if you don’t want.  All the stuff is readily out there being tested, by others and we can all test them ourselves. Manufacturers are not hiding the stuff so no one can see what it does. So yeah, I think that makes the “marketing outrage” a bit silly, but that’s me.  Because this is a “different” iron launch window, not the old one we all used to expect.  They are trying to get high decent angles so they can use less spin to stop.

 

and shaoilingolfer probably “knows” because he’s hit them on a monitor or on course, and he’s seen the different flight.  I have the epic forged (along with a billion other iron sets I shouldn’t).  Despite the static lofts, they hit the ball HIGHER than anything I’ve played.  Pw to pw, that 41* wedge flies significantly higher than the Mizuno 48* pw I have.  It’s not even close.  Would the static lofts have me expect that? No. But they still do, and the launch monitor confirms it.  consequently, they also Fall steeper, which means they stop pretty damn good.  And the smash factors are nuts .  For ME they create an amazing launch and landing condition with strangely consistent ball speeds across the face.  But that’s my experience, it might not be someone else’s.  But it IS my experience, despite some folks claiming it can’t be.  that’s what’s so weird, there’s so many people here telling folks the lofts are bad, the designs are bad, the trade offs are bad, the marketing is bad......I think it’s weird.  I like the new stuff I’ve tried.  Not everything has worked exactly the way I thought it might, but there’s a lot of cool stuff out there IMO.

 

play well!
 

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveGoodrich]

Anybody else notice the standard deviation numbers on the TXG test data for the i500 irons?  They show a standard deviation of 0 for the carry distance for both the Power Spec and Std Spec irons.  That implies that all shots were exactly the same distance, which is either a very tight grouping of a reasonable sample size (unlikely), or it is a sample size of 1 shot.  Without some explanation of their sample size and data reduction methods, I'm not sure I would put much stock in this data set.  

[mahonie]

2 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

that’s been part of the point all along, stop listening to the noise And go try them, that includes the marketing and anti-marketing pushback.  See if they work.  If you can’t see for yourself, don’t LISTEN to people’s opinions here, LOOK at their ball flight data and make a decision.   There’s Tons of fitting Ball data info in the forum, there’s tons on YouTube.  you don’t have to believe a single marketing claim if you don’t want.  All the stuff is readily out there being tested, by others and we can all test them ourselves. Manufacturers are not hiding the stuff so no one can see what it does. So yeah, I think that makes the “marketing outrage” a bit silly, but that’s me.  Because this is a “different” iron launch window, not the old one we all used to expect.  They are trying to get high decent angles so they can use less spin to stop.

 

and shaoilingolfer probably “knows” because he’s hit them on a monitor or on course, and he’s seen the different flight.  I have the epic forged (along with a billion other iron sets I shouldn’t).  Despite the static lofts, they hit the ball HIGHER than anything I’ve played.  Pw to pw, that 41* wedge flies significantly higher than the Mizuno 48* pw I have.  It’s not even close.  Would the static lofts have me expect that? No. But they still do, and the launch monitor confirms it.  consequently, they also Fall steeper, which means they stop pretty damn good.  And the smash factors are nuts .  For ME they create an amazing launch and landing condition with strangely consistent ball speeds across the face.  But that’s my experience, it might not be someone else’s.  But it IS my experience, despite some folks claiming it can’t be.  that’s what’s so weird, there’s so many people here telling folks the lofts are bad, the designs are bad, the trade offs are bad, the marketing is bad......I think it’s weird.  I like the new stuff I’ve tried.  Not everything has worked exactly the way I thought it might, but there’s a lot of cool stuff out there IMO.

 

play well!
 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not disputing anything you say and this is an honest question only because I really doubt the marketing side of golf. Have you physically measured the loft of your Epic PW vs the Mizuno wedge?

 

When the Big Bertha first came out and took the world by storm, the clubhead that was actually made at 9* was unplayable for all but the very best pros. The best results for Joe Public came with the clubhead at 11*. Callaway knew that they would struggle to sell drivers that were stamped at 11* so they just stamped them at 9* and never said a word.

 

I don’t mean to single out Callaway, because all the OEMs are the same, but I could only find figures for Callaway who spend 9x as much on marketing as they do on R&D. I don’t know whether I should find that surprising or whether my cynicism is clouding my judgement.

[clinkinfo]

4 minutes ago, mahonie said:

I’m not disputing anything you say and this is an honest question only because I really doubt the marketing side of golf. Have you physically measured the loft of your Epic PW vs the Mizuno wedge?

 

When the Big Bertha first came out and took the world by storm, the clubhead that was actually made at 9* was unplayable for all but the very best pros. The best results for Joe Public came with the clubhead at 11*. Callaway knew that they would struggle to sell drivers that were stamped at 11* so they just stamped them at 9* and never said a word.

 

I don’t mean to single out Callaway, because all the OEMs are the same, but I could only find figures for Callaway who spend 9x as much on marketing as they do on R&D. I don’t know whether I should find that surprising or whether my cynicism is clouding my judgement.

 

I haven’t measured them.  I can tell looking down they are significantly different looking, the callaway definitely has lower loft.  But I can’t tell you precisely how much other than the spec sheet, sorry.  And no worries, I’m not a fan boi of any brand, I’ve had, tried, and used them all.  Whatever works for me works.  That’s how my bag gets setup lol.

Edited October 16, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, DaveGoodrich said:

Anybody else notice the standard deviation numbers on the TXG test data for the i500 irons?  They show a standard deviation of 0 for the carry distance for both the Power Spec and Std Spec irons.  That implies that all shots were exactly the same distance, which is either a very tight grouping of a reasonable sample size (unlikely), or it is a sample size of 1 shot.  Without some explanation of their sample size and data reduction methods, I'm not sure I would put much stock in this data set.  

Just another example as to why you dont take anyones word on youtube as gospel. 

[Pepperturbo]

On 8/3/2019 at 6:52 AM, MtlJeff said:

> @KMo23 said:

> I’ve played 6 rounds of golf this year and haven’t once asked someone I was playing with what club they used or were going to use to hit the shot. I don’t think anyone’s asked me either.

>

> I’d love to play a set of these and beat the OP like a drum while yelling out what # club I just hit for each shot.

>

> Get a life people.

 

I dont know that it's always about that for most people. I dont like when sets bunch irons at the bottom (21 degree 5 iron for example) and then have wider gaps in the scoring clubs. But that's how sets seem to be trending. Tighter bunches in clubs you hit less and with less accuracy anyway. I'm not sure the value in having 3 irons with lofts less than say 23 degrees. It's a waste of irons imo

 

All depends on ball striking skills, don't ya think?

 

I play a lot of golf in multiple states.  Been asked many times what club I hit, but NEVER what loft did I hit. 

My club gaps are 4/3/3/4/4/4/4/4/4 and yardage spread is 10-12yrds each, pretty traditional.

 

Except for Golfwrx people, MOST golfers are oriented to the number on the sole of club, and, in most cases, don't know their lofts much less that they may be strong or oddly configured.  One friend's Ping clubs are 2' stronger than mine, when he hits 8i, I am hitting PW.  Other times he hits 5i and I hit 5i.  He's brought this up more than once wondering why the difference.

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

All depends on ball striking skills, don't ya think?

 

I play a lot of golf in multiple states.  Been asked many times what club I hit, but NEVER what loft did I hit. 

My club gaps are 4/3/3/4/4/4/4/4/4 and yardage spread is 10-12yrds each, pretty traditional.

 

Except for Golfwrx people, MOST golfers are oriented to the number on the sole of club, and, in most cases, don't know their lofts much less that they may be strong or oddly configured.  One friend's Ping clubs are 2' stronger than mine, when he hits 8i, I am hitting PW.  Other times he hits 5i and I hit 5i.  He's brought this up more than once wondering why the difference.

 

I rarely get asked what I’m hitting or hit now; but I think it’s partly Because I play with fairly established groups more often these days, unlike before when I would play more single golf with random people.  
 

but I NEVER said a club number to them when they asked.  I always just said a yardage.

 

A typical conversation used to go:

 

Them: ”hey, what are you hitting?”

Me: ”I’m playing 165”

Them: ”oh...”. Or maybe

Them: ”oh....what iron is that?”

Me: ”I have no idea, how far do you hit your irons?”

[shaolingolfer]

 

4 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

How do you know?

Well I have several gapping session for all my clubs with GC quad, playing approx. 100 rounds a year, practice several times a month with Mevo when I feel like it.  I know my ball speeds, launch, carry distance, height, etc.  Decent iron player, hdcp under 7.  That's about it.

Edited October 16, 2020 by shaolingolfer

[NRJyzr]

34 minutes ago, shaolingolfer said:

 

Well I have several gapping session for all my clubs with GC quad, playing approx. 100 rounds a year, practice several times a month with Mevo when I feel like it.  I know my ball speeds, launch, carry distance, height, etc.  Decent iron player, hdcp under 7.  That's about it.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky, but that really doesn't answer my question.  All of these things you list can be done, and are done, with iron sets that don't have "jacked lofts." 

 

So what about them makes you know that they work?

 

Again, this is meant as a sincere question, I'm not trolling or some other BS.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by NRJyzr

[shaolingolfer]

14 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I'm not trying to be snarky, but that really doesn't answer my question.  All of these things you list can be done, and are done, with iron sets that don't have "jacked lofts." 

 

So what about them makes you know that they work?

 

Again, this is meant as a sincere question, I'm not trolling or some other BS.

 

 

Let me try this again.  For me, the jacked loft club 27 degree seven iron is easier to hit, peak higher and better dispersion  to the same distance compare to more traditional loft 27 degree 5 iron.   

 

After all the research and testing I have done, just bought a used set of epic forge and go find out for sure myself on the golf course.

 

[Pepperturbo]

12 minutes ago, shaolingolfer said:

 

Let me try this again.  For me, the jacked loft club 27 degree seven iron is easier to hit, peak higher and better dispersion  to the same distance compare to more traditional loft 27 degree 5 iron.   

 

After all the research and testing I have done, just bought a used set of epic forge and go find out for sure myself on the golf course.

 

 

As I understand the subject, that's exactly their purpose.  It does make a person wonder though how that helps evolve one's game.  Seems like it would bring long iron replacement clubs into the equation.  You didn't say how far you carry that 7i.   My 27' 5i carries 170yds.

[LeoLeo99]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

As I understand the subject, that's exactly their purpose.  It does make a person wonder though how that helps evolve one's game.  Seems like it would bring long iron replacement clubs into the equation.  You didn't say how far you carry that 7i.   My 27' 5i carries 170yds.

 

My 23.5° 5 iron carries 175 yds.  And it's a lot easier to hit than my old blade 23° 3 iron.  

[shaolingolfer]

I carried my Srixon 29 degree 6 irons 174, 4800 spin, PXG 0211 27 degrees 6 irons 179, 4450 spin.

[Krooks Boepka]

Gotta love pointless garbage marketing!

[NRJyzr]

14 hours ago, shaolingolfer said:

 

Let me try this again.  For me, the jacked loft club 27 degree seven iron is easier to hit, peak higher and better dispersion  to the same distance compare to more traditional loft 27 degree 5 iron.   

 

After all the research and testing I have done, just bought a used set of epic forge and go find out for sure myself on the golf course.

 

 

It doesn't seem like any of those things are intrinsic to the modern stronger lofted clubs.  It really sounds like you've gotten a good fit for you.  Which could be done with weaker lofted clubs.

 

Trajectory has been mentioned many times across many threads, but my experience is that's always been available, even 30+ years ago.  I've tried sets that were unplayably high for me as a high trajectory player.

 

Which leads to my point.  High, and super high, trajectory existed decades ago, and no one felt the need to make the irons several degrees stronger.  

 

And then there are the words of Tom Wishon....

 

[LeoLeo99]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

It doesn't seem like any of those things are intrinsic to the modern stronger lofted clubs.  It really sounds like you've gotten a good fit for you.  Which could be done with weaker lofted clubs.

 

Trajectory has been mentioned many times across many threads, but my experience is that's always been available, even 30+ years ago.  I've tried sets that were unplayably high for me as a high trajectory player.

 

Which leads to my point.  High, and super high, trajectory existed decades ago, and no one felt the need to make the irons several degrees stronger.  

 

And then there are the words of Tom Wishon....

 

Wishon has jacked lofts, too.  His 565MC forged irons has a 23° 4 iron.  That was a 3 iron loft when I was a teenager.  His PW is 46°.  That was a 9 iron when I was a teenager.  

 

I don't see what difference it makes.  Play what you hit the best.  

[NRJyzr]

42 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Wishon has jacked lofts, too.  His 565MC forged irons has a 23° 4 iron.  That was a 3 iron loft when I was a teenager.  His PW is 46°.  That was a 9 iron when I was a teenager.  

 

I don't see what difference it makes.  Play what you hit the best.  

 

If you don't push them stronger, you don't sell.  Golfer egos are apparently not strong enough, collectively and generally speaking, to use weaker lofts.

 

[Red4282]

17 hours ago, shaolingolfer said:

 

Let me try this again.  For me, the jacked loft club 27 degree seven iron is easier to hit, peak higher and better dispersion  to the same distance compare to more traditional loft 27 degree 5 iron.   

 

After all the research and testing I have done, just bought a used set of epic forge and go find out for sure myself on the golf course.

 

Sounds like you are comparing a game improvement iron to a non game improvement iron..which is a different argument. Has nothing to do with loft. If your EF 27 degree had 5 stamped on it rather than 7 would it perform any differently? Of course not, so whats the point?

[Pepperturbo]

19 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

My 23.5° 5 iron carries 175 yds.  And it's a lot easier to hit than my old blade 23° 3 iron.  

 

Good for you.  My 620's are relatively easy too, for me.  Though they do require a bit more focus, which I like. 

[HSTNGolfer]

6 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Wishon has jacked lofts, too.  His 565MC forged irons has a 23° 4 iron.  That was a 3 iron loft when I was a teenager.  His PW is 46°.  That was a 9 iron when I was a teenager.  

 

I don't see what difference it makes.  Play what you hit the best.  

Tom has said that he had no choice other than to "move with the times" with respect to lofts, because no one will buy a set of clubs these days with a 6 stamped onto a head with 34 degrees of loft. The vast majority of golfers will only try out a 6 iron or 7 iron during a "fitting" in a golf retail store. If the 7i head of model A hits it 10 yards shorter than the the 7i of model B, then no one buys model A. However, Wishon still keeps 4 degree loft gaps from 50 degree AW to 26 degree 5 iron. 

 

Loft jacking is only a problem for higher swing speed players if the set has 5 or 6 degree loft gaps between higher lofted clubs and 2 to 3 degree loft gaps in the lower lofted clubs, that then results in DISTANCE GAPS that are too large between short irons and too close together on longer irons. The "hot face/high COR" technology brings very little benefit at higher lofts.

 

For lower swing speeds, 5 or 6 degree loft gaps may, however, be more appropriate for achieving correct distance gaps from gap wedge to 7 iron. Those players would be best served with hybrids starting from 26 degrees of loft or lower. In that case the compressed lofts in the longer irons can be avoided because the golfer should only get an iron set from 6i or 7i to GW. 

 

Bottom line: DISTANCE GAPS across a set are what matters. Lofts should be chosen/adjusted to achieve the correct distance gaps.