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

[phatchrisrules]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > BTW, fairway woods have "jacked lofts" too. A 18* 5-wood? Was 21* at some point. Why no complaints here?

> > >

> > > I think there is a misunderstanding. No one is complaining about the golfers who are using jacked lofts. We are just calling out the scam like marketing these companies and fitters are using.

> >

> > You haven't been reading close enough. Not only are some(I don't know if you did) are complaining about, and even more common, ridiculing golfers using clubs with jacked lofts.

>

> Well im sure there are some, but still confuses me. If a guy is hitting traditional lofted clubs he is either- really good and could care less about other golfers- or is just old school and is grumpy- which happens with everything in life. Im certainly not one, if golfers want to waste their money so be it. But my take on it all is more of a mythbuster type approach to the marketing behind it.

>

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Bad9 said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > BTW, fairway woods have "jacked lofts" too. A 18* 5-wood? Was 21* at some point. Why no complaints here?

> > > >

> > > > I think there is a misunderstanding. No one is complaining about the golfers who are using jacked lofts. We are just calling out the scam like marketing these companies and fitters are using.

> > >

> > > You haven't been reading close enough. Not only are some(I don't know if you did) are complaining about, and even more common, ridiculing golfers using clubs with jacked lofts.

> >

> > That is amazing. Posting in a thread that was started entirely as a complaint about "jacked lofts", which is itself a loaded term intended to be derogatory (although it probably says more about the person using it than it does about the target of his ire) and saying nobody is complaining about golfers using jacked lofts.

> >

> > The only juice that keeps these threads in constant use on every golf forum is crocodile tears of "concern" about all those poor morons playing irons with the wrong numbers stamped on the sole. And how the big, bad golf equipment companies are lying to those deluded saps and making them think they are so much better than they really are.

>

> Jacked lofts is loaded and derogatory? My goodness dude, thats awfully sensitive. Why cant someone come on the forums and bust some myths? Fact is there seems to be many golfers who enjoy their jacked loft fantasies and they seem to be uber sensitive to this subject. Good news is they can only jack lofts so much more... i mean im sure in a few years we will see a 35 degree pw ?

>

>

There's not much mythbusting going on, though. You cherrypicked the one review that is negative despite a lot of reviews being quite positive. For instance, in the one linked just below, the player apexes the 6i at 101 feet while PGA tour average is 84 feet. That extra 20 feet of apex definitely accounts for something. TXG also has a positive review on it where Ian shows his 6i data against the Epic Forged and it's 20 yards extra carry at only 1 club stronger loft.

 

 

I also showed you earlier on how you can gap these properly and you basically called me an idiot and that it was laughable I work as a fitter. I think this has been kind of put to bed and we should all just play what we like and leave it that. If I want to hit an 8 iron 195 yards what skin is it off your nose if I play G700 power-spec irons and then bend them an additional 2* strong and then play 6 wedges?

[Bad9]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > BTW, fairway woods have "jacked lofts" too. A 18* 5-wood? Was 21* at some point. Why no complaints here?

> > >

> > > I think there is a misunderstanding. No one is complaining about the golfers who are using jacked lofts. We are just calling out the scam like marketing these companies and fitters are using.

> >

> > You haven't been reading close enough. Not only are some(I don't know if you did) are complaining about, and even more common, ridiculing golfers using clubs with jacked lofts.

>

> Well im sure there are some, but still confuses me. If a guy is hitting traditional lofted clubs he is either- really good and could care less about other golfers- or is just old school and is grumpy- which happens with everything in life. Im certainly not one, if golfers want to waste their money so be it. But my take on it all is more of a mythbuster type approach to the marketing behind it.

>

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Bad9 said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > BTW, fairway woods have "jacked lofts" too. A 18* 5-wood? Was 21* at some point. Why no complaints here?

> > > >

> > > > I think there is a misunderstanding. No one is complaining about the golfers who are using jacked lofts. We are just calling out the scam like marketing these companies and fitters are using.

> > >

> > > You haven't been reading close enough. Not only are some(I don't know if you did) are complaining about, and even more common, ridiculing golfers using clubs with jacked lofts.

> >

> > That is amazing. Posting in a thread that was started entirely as a complaint about "jacked lofts", which is itself a loaded term intended to be derogatory (although it probably says more about the person using it than it does about the target of his ire) and saying nobody is complaining about golfers using jacked lofts.

> >

> > The only juice that keeps these threads in constant use on every golf forum is crocodile tears of "concern" about all those poor morons playing irons with the wrong numbers stamped on the sole. And how the big, bad golf equipment companies are lying to those deluded saps and making them think they are so much better than they really are.

>

> Jacked lofts is loaded and derogatory? My goodness dude, thats awfully sensitive. Why cant someone come on the forums and bust some myths? Fact is there seems to be many golfers who enjoy their jacked loft fantasies and they seem to be uber sensitive to this subject. Good news is they can only jack lofts so much more... i mean im sure in a few years we will see a 35 degree pw ?

>

>

 

What mythbusting are you doing? The jacked loft trend is 20+ years old and has been discussed ad nauseum on this and other forums for the same amount of time. Its not like you're bringing some new discovery to the table.

[North Butte]

> @Red4282 said:

> Jacked lofts is loaded and derogatory? My goodness dude, thats awfully sensitive. Why cant someone come on the forums and bust some myths? Fact is there seems to be many golfers who enjoy their jacked loft fantasies and they seem to be uber sensitive to this subject. Good news is they can only jack lofts so much more... i mean im sure in a few years we will see a 35 degree pw ?

 

What "myth"? The loft specs for every club made in the last 25 years or more are only a Google search away. It isn't like you're revealing some deep, dark secret.

 

If a guy has an Epic 7-iron, hits it 157 yards and says, "I hit my Epic 7-iron 157 yards" that's simply stating a fact. Your "myth-busting" consists of basically coming back with "Oh yeah, well if your clubs had the right lofts you'd only be hitting it 130".

 

That's not myth busting. That's just a Grandpa Simpson rant.

[Llortamaisey]

For the next set of irons I have made, I think I’m going to complete opposite way. I’m going to have the 9 iron at 50 degrees loft and go from there. So the 8 iron will be 46, the 7 iron will be 42, the 6 iron will be 38, and so on. That would get my 4 iron back under 200 yards where it should be. Everyone clubbing off me will be two clubs over the green. They’ll have to quit the game.

[Red4282]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > Jacked lofts is loaded and derogatory? My goodness dude, thats awfully sensitive. Why cant someone come on the forums and bust some myths? Fact is there seems to be many golfers who enjoy their jacked loft fantasies and they seem to be uber sensitive to this subject. Good news is they can only jack lofts so much more... i mean im sure in a few years we will see a 35 degree pw ?

>

> What "myth"? The loft specs for every club made in the last 25 years or more are only a Google search away. It isn't like you're revealing some deep, dark secret.

>

> If a guy has an Epic 7-iron, hits it 157 yards and says, "I hit my Epic 7-iron 157 yards" that's simply stating a fact. Your "myth-busting" consists of basically coming back with "Oh yeah, well if your clubs had the right lofts you'd only be hitting it 130".

>

> That's not myth busting. That's just a Grandpa Simpson rant.

 

You guys are impossible. Again your acting like im attacking the golfer and i am not. Their is a certain fitter here claiming they DO offer something to golfers because of tech blah blah blah. Thats the myth im after-Lengthening and jacking lofts isnt tech. Its a cheap way to mislead a consumer that their club is superior to other clubs. But im done on this topic cause every point i make, yall just wanna switch the goal posts. Ive showed you an example of exactly what im talking about... nobody has replied to that. Oh except it was “one test”. The fact that this has been a trend or so for 20 years doesnt mean jack to me. As a matter of fact that just shows my point that tech in last 20 years is at a standstill and this is how can show “gains”. If any of you would like to continue the chat about the science behind it, id love to.

[North Butte]

As I have pointed out upthread, I have irons from two years ago that I hit higher and more consistently while landing softer compared to irons of exactly the same loft from 20 years ago.

 

Rant all you want, a 30-degree 7-iron today hits better shots for a hack like me than your beloved 30-degree 5-iron from decades ago before lofts were "jacked". The clubs are demonstrably better. But for YOU, the fact the write a "7" on the sole instead of a "5" means they (somehow or another) don't work at all.

 

There are no "goal posts" beyond me standing 150 yards out in the fairway and wanting to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. For me the quality of a club is how easy it makes it to do that. For you, it's all about what number is on the sole. Nobody buy you cares about the club numbers but apparently it ALL you care about. What a nutty thing to be hung up on.

[NRJyzr]

> @Bad9 said:

> What mythbusting are you doing? The jacked loft trend is 20+ years old and has been discussed ad nauseum on this and other forums for the same amount of time. Its not like you're bringing some new discovery to the table.

 

You're close, it's probably 70-80 years. :)

[mogc60]

It seems L O F T is a big problem

Lack

Of

F******

Talent

[Red4282]

> @"North Butte" said:

> As I have pointed out upthread, I have irons from two years ago that I hit higher and more consistently while landing softer compared to irons of exactly the same loft from 20 years ago.

>

> Rant all you want, a 30-degree 7-iron today hits better shots for a hack like me than your beloved 30-degree 5-iron from decades ago before lofts were "jacked". The clubs are demonstrably better. But for YOU, the fact the write a "7" on the sole instead of a "5" means they (somehow or another) don't work at all.

>

> There are no "goal posts" beyond me standing 150 yards out in the fairway and wanting to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. For me the quality of a club is how easy it makes it to do that. For you, it's all about what number is on the sole. Nobody buy you cares about the club numbers but apparently it ALL you care about. What a nutty thing to be hung up on.

 

Nothing you said here was scientific in nature and is purely opinion. Which is fine but im not going to waste any more time arguing with what you feel. Again, you keep saying i care about the number on the bottom. I DONT.

[tyorke1]

higher longer nuf said

[North Butte]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > As I have pointed out upthread, I have irons from two years ago that I hit higher and more consistently while landing softer compared to irons of exactly the same loft from 20 years ago.

> >

> > Rant all you want, a 30-degree 7-iron today hits better shots for a hack like me than your beloved 30-degree 5-iron from decades ago before lofts were "jacked". The clubs are demonstrably better. But for YOU, the fact the write a "7" on the sole instead of a "5" means they (somehow or another) don't work at all.

> >

> > There are no "goal posts" beyond me standing 150 yards out in the fairway and wanting to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. For me the quality of a club is how easy it makes it to do that. For you, it's all about what number is on the sole. Nobody buy you cares about the club numbers but apparently it ALL you care about. What a nutty thing to be hung up on.

>

> Nothing you said here was scientific in nature and is purely opinion. Which is fine but im not going to waste any more time arguing with what you feel. Again, you keep saying i care about the number on the bottom. I DONT.

 

If not the number on the sole, then what is your gripe?

 

My DCI 990's from 20 years ago came stock in a set 3-PW that ranged from 21 to 49 (8 clubs) degrees. My Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metals came stock in a set 4-GW that ranges 21 to 50 degrees (8 clubs). Other than changing 3 to 4, PW to GW and so forth on the soles of the clubs they have the exact same lofts. What is being "jacked"?

 

I also have some Ping Eye 2 irons from the early 90's. Similar lofts, I believe it is 20-1/2 degrees to 50-1/2 degrees for the stock 8-club set.

 

Even the lengths are the same give or take a half inch inch. A set of modern "jacked" irons have the same basic specifications, or very nearly so, as sets made many years earlier.

 

And yet, I find the newest irons easier to elevate and I hit them more consistently and they land softer. No surprise manufacturers have figured out ways to make irons easier to hit over the past 20-30 years. But the only "marketing" involves changing the number of the sole. Which affects the actual performance of the irons not at all.

[JBent9610]


 

Taylormade: Understand the procedure now? Just change the number on the sole and promise more distance. Have playing partners say how much further they are hitting their 7-iron than the forum member is, and then sit back and watch the pattern.

 

Callaway: And this pattern is always the same?

 

Taylormade: With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves. All we need do is sit back and watch.

 

Callaway: Then I take it this place, this "Golfwrx", is not unique?

 

Taylormade: By no means. The internet is full of Golfwrx's and we'll go from one to the other and let them destroy themselves. One to the other, one to the other, one to the other...

 

[Red4282]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > As I have pointed out upthread, I have irons from two years ago that I hit higher and more consistently while landing softer compared to irons of exactly the same loft from 20 years ago.

> > >

> > > Rant all you want, a 30-degree 7-iron today hits better shots for a hack like me than your beloved 30-degree 5-iron from decades ago before lofts were "jacked". The clubs are demonstrably better. But for YOU, the fact the write a "7" on the sole instead of a "5" means they (somehow or another) don't work at all.

> > >

> > > There are no "goal posts" beyond me standing 150 yards out in the fairway and wanting to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. For me the quality of a club is how easy it makes it to do that. For you, it's all about what number is on the sole. Nobody buy you cares about the club numbers but apparently it ALL you care about. What a nutty thing to be hung up on.

> >

> > Nothing you said here was scientific in nature and is purely opinion. Which is fine but im not going to waste any more time arguing with what you feel. Again, you keep saying i care about the number on the bottom. I DONT.

>

> If not the number on the sole, then what is your gripe?

>

> My DCI 990's from 20 years ago came stock in a set 3-PW that ranged from 21 to 49 (8 clubs) degrees. My Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metals came stock in a set 4-GW that ranges 21 to 50 degrees (8 clubs). Other than changing 3 to 4, PW to GW and so forth on the soles of the clubs they have the exact same lofts. What is being "jacked"?

>

> I also have some Ping Eye 2 irons from the early 90's. Similar lofts, I believe it is 20-1/2 degrees to 50-1/2 degrees for the stock 8-club set.

>

> Even the lengths are the same give or take a half inch inch. A set of modern "jacked" irons have the same basic specifications, or very nearly so, as sets made many years earlier.

>

> And yet, I find the newest irons easier to elevate and I hit them more consistently and they land softer. No surprise manufacturers have figured out ways to make irons easier to hit over the past 20-30 years. But the only "marketing" involves changing the number of the sole. Which affects the actual performance of the irons not at all.

 

My gripe is they are doing it to move clubs and make $$$$ and borderline lying to its customers. I ask you this, had they labeled the clubs correctly , would we even be talking about them? Nope. They would just be another forgiving iron option. Performance wise, the only thing these bring to the table when you compare apples to apples is a reduced spin rate, which could be good or bad depending on the player- and conditions. But whatever man, like i said theres only so much they can do it, unless they just start inventing new wedges lol. but they should At least make the AW part of the set.

 

 

[jblough99]

Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

 

Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

[phatchrisrules]

> @jblough99 said:

> Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

>

> Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

 

I am the fitter that this guy has the issue with. This is exactly what they are supposed to do. I have day after day of data I could post if it wouldn't reveal my client's names. Thank you for coming here and sharing what they do. I think the most appalling aspect of this whole disgust with "jacked lofts" is the complete dismissal of the intelligence of the people designing these things. People with Masters and Doctorates in Physics, Engineering, and Aerospace Design are being written off by guys who are 10 handicaps working for an insurance company (or something else equally unrelated to golf club design) looks at the lofts and turns their noses up at it and dismisses it entirely. They then somehow become more knowledgeable than people who have forgotten more about these topics than most of us could ever hope to know.

 

It's sickening to be honest. They're probably the same types who argue with their doctor because they read on WebMD that their symptoms meant they had X except when you look up in X in any medical journal it's about as rare as flying Dobermans.

 

Edit: as an aside. If the benchmark are really tour player lofts, do any of us actually have any hard data besides Tiger as to what the lofts they actually play? I thought I remember hearing Jason Day was using irons bent 3* strong of spec to keep his flight down. If that is the case, he is using a 26* P760 6i. All of us know literally nothing about the workings of a tour pro and we should collectively stop "caring" so much about the well being of other golfers and just focus on ourselves. If I want to play a 20* 6i, that's my call, not yours.

[Red4282]

> @jblough99 said:

> Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

>

> Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

 

Apples and oranges man. A players club vs gi club. This same test 20 years ago with clubs then would have same results. The appeal to a players club obviously is consistency in distance control and workability, and most good players are willing to give up a few yards for that.

[North Butte]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > As I have pointed out upthread, I have irons from two years ago that I hit higher and more consistently while landing softer compared to irons of exactly the same loft from 20 years ago.

> > > >

> > > > Rant all you want, a 30-degree 7-iron today hits better shots for a hack like me than your beloved 30-degree 5-iron from decades ago before lofts were "jacked". The clubs are demonstrably better. But for YOU, the fact the write a "7" on the sole instead of a "5" means they (somehow or another) don't work at all.

> > > >

> > > > There are no "goal posts" beyond me standing 150 yards out in the fairway and wanting to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. For me the quality of a club is how easy it makes it to do that. For you, it's all about what number is on the sole. Nobody buy you cares about the club numbers but apparently it ALL you care about. What a nutty thing to be hung up on.

> > >

> > > Nothing you said here was scientific in nature and is purely opinion. Which is fine but im not going to waste any more time arguing with what you feel. Again, you keep saying i care about the number on the bottom. I DONT.

> >

> > If not the number on the sole, then what is your gripe?

> >

> > My DCI 990's from 20 years ago came stock in a set 3-PW that ranged from 21 to 49 (8 clubs) degrees. My Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metals came stock in a set 4-GW that ranges 21 to 50 degrees (8 clubs). Other than changing 3 to 4, PW to GW and so forth on the soles of the clubs they have the exact same lofts. What is being "jacked"?

> >

> > I also have some Ping Eye 2 irons from the early 90's. Similar lofts, I believe it is 20-1/2 degrees to 50-1/2 degrees for the stock 8-club set.

> >

> > Even the lengths are the same give or take a half inch inch. A set of modern "jacked" irons have the same basic specifications, or very nearly so, as sets made many years earlier.

> >

> > And yet, I find the newest irons easier to elevate and I hit them more consistently and they land softer. No surprise manufacturers have figured out ways to make irons easier to hit over the past 20-30 years. But the only "marketing" involves changing the number of the sole. Which affects the actual performance of the irons not at all.

>

> My gripe is they are doing it to move clubs and make $$$$ and borderline lying to its customers. I ask you this, had they labeled the clubs correctly , would we even be talking about them? Nope. They would just be another forgiving iron option. Performance wise, the only thing these bring to the table when you compare apples to apples is a reduced spin rate, which could be good or bad depending on the player- and conditions. But whatever man, like i said theres only so much they can do it, unless they just start inventing new wedges lol. but they should At least make the AW part of the set.

 

The numbers on the sole of a club can't be "correct" or "incorrect". They are purely arbitrary, always have been. You're asking about a hypothetical if clubs were label LIKE YOU WANT THEM LABELED. Which they aren't. It's like complaining that the Rules of Golf make you drop within two clubs lengths instead of three.

 

And surely you understand that current off-the-shelf sets of irons do come with a GW/AW/U/E/G/whatever 50-degree (or 49 degree or 48 degree) wedge as part of the set. Right?

 

You're complaining about some straw man set where the longest club is 43 or 44 degrees. Just like sets from 25 years ago, there is a 43/44/45 degree club AND there's a 48/49/50 degree club as "part of the set". That hasn't changed at all in at least two decades. It's just that they put "PW" and "GW" on the soles instead of "9" and "PW".

 

Have you actually even bought or played a set of the clubs you're whining about? You comments seem like those of a person who has no idea what is actually on the market today. Go to Golf Galaxy and see if you can find a set with the longest club at 45 degree or less, you won't find it.

[North Butte]

> @jblough99 said:

> Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

>

> Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

 

Never been close to being able to play blades but if I'd had access to a launch monitor when I made the switch from DCI 990 "players cavity backs" to G20 "super game improvement" I'd have seen pretty much exactly what you're seeing. At the same loft and (roughly) same length, the newer tech hits it same or a bit longer, notably higher, lands and stops quicker, the whole package. And that was before the hot-face irons arrived on the scene.

[Red4282]

> @phatchrisrules said:

> > @jblough99 said:

> > Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

> >

> > Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

>

> I am the fitter that this guy has the issue with. This is exactly what they are supposed to do. I have day after day of data I could post if it wouldn't reveal my client's names. Thank you for coming here and sharing what they do. I think the most appalling aspect of this whole disgust with "jacked lofts" is the complete dismissal of the intelligence of the people designing these things. People with Masters and Doctorates in Physics, Engineering, and Aerospace Design are being written off by guys who are 10 handicaps working for an insurance company (or something else equally unrelated to golf club design) looks at the lofts and turns their noses up at it and dismisses it entirely. They then somehow become more knowledgeable than people who have forgotten more about these topics than most of us could ever hope to know.

>

> It's sickening to be honest. They're probably the same types who argue with their doctor because they read on WebMD that their symptoms meant they had X except when you look up in X in any medical journal it's about as rare as flying Dobermans.

>

> Edit: as an aside. If the benchmark are really tour player lofts, do any of us actually have any hard data besides Tiger as to what the lofts they actually play? I thought I remember hearing Jason Day was using irons bent 3* strong of spec to keep his flight down. If that is the case, he is using a 26* P760 6i. All of us know literally nothing about the workings of a tour pro and we should collectively stop "caring" so much about the well being of other golfers and just focus on ourselves. If I want to play a 20* 6i, that's my call, not yours.

 

Your hilarious man. Yea these “engineers” chose golf clubs- not anything important... lol and u act like fitting people is such a difficult profession. Answer my question- why did they change the #s on the sole. Why not just put the traditonal number on there? Im waiting.

 

Edit: take back my fitting statement, while i think its a respected profession, and i appreciate those who do it well, i also think there are a fair share of dishonest or bad fitters out there- just like in any profession.

 

 

[Tree Levino]

]> @jblough99 said:

> Been a blade player all of my golfing career. Currently have a set of JPX 919 Tours. Recently picked up a set of G410’s to try out, not my exact specs, but couldn’t pass up a deal. I don’t have time to practice like I used to with a little one running around the house, so I figure I want something a little less demanding. So I tested the G410 vs the 919 Tours, not by going matching the number on the sole but matching the actual loft. So i had G410 8 iron vs 919 7 iron, G410 5 iron vs 919 4 iron, etc. What I saw across the board, distance was about the same G410 a few yards longer (equal loft), spin was actually a touch higher with the G410, launch angle was 2-3 degrees higher with the G410, ball speed was about 5mph higher with the G410, peak height was 10-20 feet higher with the G410, and decent angle was 4-6 degrees steeper. Distance was more consistent with the G410, read this as forgiveness. I really noticed this in the longer irons, especially in height and decent angle. G410 5 iron was still coming down at 45* or more. Remember the club lofts were within half a degree, so I think the G410 was doing exactly what it was “marketed” to do.

>

> Probably going to sell both sets and order a set of G410’s to my exact specs. Can’t argue with results.

 

Haha my apologies, this thread has turned into a combination of interesting and a complete mess. I kind of understand where Chris and others are coming from.. but then you are proving the theory that you are hitting XX 7 iron 6 iron distance with 6 iron spin. For me, my PW is my 140 carry club. If my PW now goes 150 sometimes (or at times further with these clubs) I'm in a predicament. Especially because my PW is no longer spinning at 10k it's now 9k and so on and so forth down through the bag. Now I know these clubs are not aimed at me - I am actually trying to get less height and control distance rather than gain it, however, height and spin, as you said, come from speed. If the players using these are lacking speed they will be spinning the irons even less (4k 7 irons for instance) and distance control can and will get wacky on the course. MC is good example because he doesn't hit the ball very far. I don't buy the argument that ball speed, height, descent etc go up loft vs loft with the GI vs players CB. Results in below videos clearly show nearly identical ballspeed, height, descent, spin etc from a 30 degree club to 30 degree club. The difference is you are bumping all of your clubs towards the top end of the bag, needing more wedges and really messing with you game IMO. If a player can only hit their 6 iron 150 they should be playing the proper tees not buying low spin cannons.

 

 

 

[North Butte]

> @balls_deep said:

 

> Haha my apologies, this thread has turned into a combination of interesting and a complete mess. I kind of understand where Chris and others are coming from.. but then you are proving the theory that you are hitting XX 7 iron 6 iron distance with 6 iron spin. For me, my PW is my 140 carry club. If my PW now goes 150 sometimes (or at times further with these clubs) I'm in a predicament. Especially because my PW is no longer spinning at 10k it's now 9k and so on and so forth down through the bag. Now I know these clubs are not aimed at me - I am actually trying to get less height and control distance rather than gain it, however, height and spin, as you said, come from speed. If the players using these are lacking speed they will be spinning the irons even less (4k 7 irons for instance) and distance control can and will get wacky on the course. MC is good example because he doesn't hit the ball very far. I don't buy the argument that ball speed, height, descent etc go up loft vs loft with the GI vs players CB. Results in below videos clearly show nearly identical ballspeed, height, descent, spin etc from a 30 degree club to 30 degree club. The difference is you are bumping all of your clubs towards the top end of the bag, needing more wedges and really messing with you game IMO. If a player can only hit their 6 iron 150 they should be playing the proper tees not buying low spin cannons.

 

Don't you see that you're hung on the number on the bottom of the club? You keep saying "hit 6 iron 150" and "PW is my 140 carry club". Maybe in one particular set those numbers are true. But you don't hit that club 140 because it says "PW", you hit it because it has a certain loft. That's what we're trying to tell you.

 

You yourself point out that "loft for loft" different types of clubs produce very similar ball flight results. Of course they do. Loft is by far the most important spec of an iron or wedge. So where's your beef? Why do you lot keep banging on thread after thread, year after year about the fact that 30-degree club now has a "7" on the bottom instead of "6" or "5"? For that matter it could have the letter "Z" stamped on it and it's still a 30-degree club.

 

There's no such thing as "6-iron distance". That's the thing you simply will not let go of. I can only conclude that you think how far your hit a "6-iron" is some sort of test of manhood or golf ability. It's neither.

 

P.S. And even by the standards of this silly, silly thread I can't believe you actually said anyone who doesn't play weak-lofted irons ought to just move up a set of tees. What the actual???

[NRJyzr]

> @"North Butte" said:

> And yet, I find the newest irons easier to elevate and I hit them more consistently and they land softer. No surprise manufacturers have figured out ways to make irons easier to hit over the past 20-30 years. But the only "marketing" involves changing the number of the sole. Which affects the actual performance of the irons not at all.

 

This isn't intended to be argumentative, here goes nothing....

 

There are a lot of variables. Do the old and new irons all have the same shafts? Are you comparing current swings with each, or going off memory of your playing older sets 25 years ago? Are you comparing low trajectory irons of your earlier use to high trajectory irons of current use, or are they all of similar trajectory biases? (It's quite possible to find that trajectory difference in irons of the same vintage; I have sets that match that description, similar vintage, both blades)

 

Which brings the question, what are the new irons, and what are you comparing them to?

[Tree Levino]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @balls_deep said:

>

> > Haha my apologies, this thread has turned into a combination of interesting and a complete mess. I kind of understand where Chris and others are coming from.. but then you are proving the theory that you are hitting XX 7 iron 6 iron distance with 6 iron spin. For me, my PW is my 140 carry club. If my PW now goes 150 sometimes (or at times further with these clubs) I'm in a predicament. Especially because my PW is no longer spinning at 10k it's now 9k and so on and so forth down through the bag. Now I know these clubs are not aimed at me - I am actually trying to get less height and control distance rather than gain it, however, height and spin, as you said, come from speed. If the players using these are lacking speed they will be spinning the irons even less (4k 7 irons for instance) and distance control can and will get wacky on the course. MC is good example because he doesn't hit the ball very far. I don't buy the argument that ball speed, height, descent etc go up loft vs loft with the GI vs players CB. Results in below videos clearly show nearly identical ballspeed, height, descent, spin etc from a 30 degree club to 30 degree club. The difference is you are bumping all of your clubs towards the top end of the bag, needing more wedges and really messing with you game IMO. If a player can only hit their 6 iron 150 they should be playing the proper tees not buying low spin cannons.

>

> Don't you see that you're hung on the number on the bottom of the club? You keep saying "hit 6 iron 150" and "PW is my 140 carry club". Maybe in one particular set those numbers are true. But you don't hit that club 140 because it says "PW", you hit it because it has a certain loft. That's what we're trying to tell you.

>

> You yourself point out that "loft for loft" different types of clubs produce very similar ball flight results. Of course they do. Loft is by far the most important spec of an iron or wedge. So where's your beef? Why do you lot keep banging on thread after thread, year after year about the fact that 30-degree club now has a "7" on the bottom instead of "6" or "5"? For that matter it could have the letter "Z" stamped on it and it's still a 30-degree club.

>

> There's no such thing as "6-iron distance". That's the thing you simply will not let go of. I can only conclude that you think how far your hit a "6-iron" is some sort of test of manhood or golf ability. It's neither.

>

> P.S. And even by the standards of this silly, silly thread I can't believe you actually said anyone who doesn't play weak-lofted irons ought to just move up a set of tees. What the actual???

 

I was replying directly to the guy who was comparing his current clubs to G410 and there were mentions of club numbers in there. For the record, I have played with AWESOME players who are short hitters. I'm trying to make a comparison loft for loft. A 30 degree club vs 30 degree club has similar height, spin etc. We have to talk about what is on the bottom because if the design of said club is lowering spin, we are effectively losing a club from the bottom end of the bag. I don't care if my 9 iron is my 140 club or my 8 iron (which it used to be before technique improved). Anecdotally, I have improved my swing after moving from strong lofted clubs to _more_ traditionally lofted irons. I do not think we should be playing a 49 or 50 degree PW and I have stated that earlier in the thread. Tech has taken us a long way. I just think that the provided videos disprove the idea that we are getting better performance. It's the same, we are just essentially losing a club from the bottom. And yeah, if you have no distance, play up and stop slowing down my saturdays hacking it from the tips. No shame in that comment.

[North Butte]

> @NRJyzr said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > And yet, I find the newest irons easier to elevate and I hit them more consistently and they land softer. No surprise manufacturers have figured out ways to make irons easier to hit over the past 20-30 years. But the only "marketing" involves changing the number of the sole. Which affects the actual performance of the irons not at all.

>

> This isn't intended to be argumentative, here goes nothing....

>

> There are a lot of variables. Do the old and new irons all have the same shafts? Are you comparing current swings with each? Or going off memory? Are you comparing low trajectory irons of your earlier use to high trajectory irons of current use, or are they all of similar trajectory biases? It's quite possible to find that trajectory difference in irons of the same vintage; I have sets that match that description, similar vintage, both blades.

>

> Which brings the question, what are the new irons, and what are you comparing them to?

 

Comparison are with the set of Titleist DCI 990 irons I played from 2000-2011 and the set of 1990's vintage Ping Eye 2 irons that i have as a classic set to play with for fun once in a while.

 

Modern irons are Ping G20 (2012-2015), Ping G30 (2016-2017), Ping G (2017-2018) and now Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metal.

 

Yes, the old Titleists had much heavier and stiffer shafts. But the shafts in the Eye 2 irons are roughly the same weight class as in modern sets, albeit a bit stiffer. Ping Microtaper.

 

But the difference in ball flight between a 30-degree iron of the older clubs and newer is not about shafts. I know it's a matter of faith on GolfWRX that the clubhead doesn't matter and it's all about the shafts but I don't buy that. I've briefly tried modern clubs (JPX 850) with heavier, stiffer shafts and while I don't like those shafts as well they still have the modern quick launching, flat flying trajectory.

 

Even comparing not-spring-face G20's (which I played for hundreds of rounds) to the G or 900 HM irons with the higher COR the ball flight improves without any loss of forgiveness or consistency. It's not a lie, it's not my imagination, it's not the shafts and it's not the stinkin' number stamped on the sole of the club. Over the last few decades there has been a very gradual improvement in how easily a hack like me can propel the ball high and long and stop it on the green. Just from clubhead technology.

[NRJyzr]

FWIW I dont buy the "shafts more important than heads" either. I've got a J's Professional Weapon driver, LOL, and have hit MS-11's and Ram Tour Grinds with the same shafts, with noticeably different trajectory results.

 

It might be interesting to compare all the CG locations of the clubheads you mention. Don't have time to check them at the moment, but I'll probably get to it at some point...

[Tree Levino]

> @NRJyzr said:

> FWIW I dont buy the "shafts more important than heads" either. I've got a J's Professional Weapon driver, LOL, and have hit MS-11's and Ram Tour Grinds with the same shafts, with noticeably different trajectory results.

>

> It might be interesting to compare all the CG locations of the clubheads you mention. Don't have time to check them at the moment, but I'll probably get to it at some point...

 

Agreed re: shafts and heads. A high CG blade is drastically harder to elevate than a low CG club. Example, my MP5 have CG below .800 and go MUCH higher on average strikes than the Cobra MBs I had did.

[Titleist_PT23]

Just curious for those that know, how do you adjust the actual vertical CG locations for a) offset and b) how far away from the face the CG is? In some ways, both of these are adding a bit of dynamic loft (all else equal) vs. the stated loft?

 

Regarding shafts, I think the weight difference could be a big issue for some when comparing old to new. A lot of the older clubs the choices were DG or maybe Dynalite Gold (still heavy vs. the 95-100 gram options out there). I'm not super sensitive on the (slightly) different profiles of various similar weighted shafts if that's what you mean by not important. But I think have someone hit DGS300 and NSPro 950GH and there may be a substantial difference.

[North Butte]

For my part, I can't play at all with those super light 85g or 90g shafts like Taylormade and some others put in their most hackerish clubs. With my Zorro-like tempo I have no idea where the club is when it's that light.

 

But the old 125-130g Dynamic Gold types cost me clubhead speed and also make me compensate by trying to swing harder. So not good either, at least in anything longer than a 9-iron or PW.

 

I can't really saw for sure I see any performance differences within my usual 100-115g comfort zone. I've played XP115 and didn't notice any falloff in distance or trajectory. Something like the AWT 2.0 (variable weight 95-108g) or Modus 5 (constant weight 103g) are a good compromise.

 

I did not like the CFS shafts Ping was using for a while which, for some reason, got *lighter* in the short irons rather than heavier. Very strange. With my constant-weight Modus I do lead tape the heck out of 9-iron and the wedges to get a little more clubhead feel and tempo help.

[NRJyzr]

> @agolf1 said:

> Just curious for those that know, how do you adjust the actual vertical CG locations for a) offset and b) how far away from the face the CG is? In some ways, both of these are adding a bit of dynamic loft (all else equal) vs. the stated loft?

>

> Regarding shafts, I think the weight difference could be a big issue for some when comparing old to new. A lot of the older clubs the choices were DG or maybe Dynalite Gold (still heavy vs. the 95-100 gram options out there). I'm not super sensitive on the (slightly) different profiles of various similar weighted shafts if that's what you mean by not important. But I think have someone hit DGS300 and NSPro 950GH and there may be a substantial difference.

 

You'll have to ask Ralph Maltby, he's the source for any CG data I might find. They publish both the vertical and rearward CG of the clubheads they've measured, in the details of their MPF.

[Red4282]

> @"North Butte" said:

> For my part, I can't play at all with those super light 85g or 90g shafts like Taylormade and some others put in their most hackerish clubs. With my Zorro-like tempo I have no idea where the club is when it's that light.

>

> But the old 125-130g Dynamic Gold types cost me clubhead speed and also make me compensate by trying to swing harder. So not good either, at least in anything longer than a 9-iron or PW.

>

> I can't really saw for sure I see any performance differences within my usual 100-115g comfort zone. I've played XP115 and didn't notice any falloff in distance or trajectory. Something like the AWT 2.0 (variable weight 95-108g) or Modus 5 (constant weight 103g) are a good compromise.

>

> I did not like the CFS shafts Ping was using for a while which, for some reason, got *lighter* in the short irons rather than heavier. Very strange. With my constant-weight Modus I do lead tape the heck out of 9-iron and the wedges to get a little more clubhead feel and tempo help.

 

Im still waiting on my answer. WHY did callaway decide to stamp a 27 degree club a 7 iron rather than a 6 or 5? I dont CARE about the number on the bottom but i want someone to give me a reason WHY they did it.