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

[North Butte]

> @Mikey5e said:

> They should just do away with the numbers (7,8,9,etc) and just stamp lofts on. The real issue is how far you hit a particular club, something every golfer should be aware of.

 

One day in the future, all clubs will be chipped. Instead of a number on the sole there will be a readout that displays the most recent, fully Bayesian estimate of your yardage with that club. Somebody will ask on a Par 3 tee, "What club did you hit there?" and you won't say, "I hit 7". You'll look at the bottom of the club and say, "I hit my 143.8".

 

Of course as soon as that happens guys will be on here complaining that certain clubs have "jacked chips" that sucker weak players into thinking they hit farther than they do.

[Bad9]

> @Mikey5e said:

> They should just do away with the numbers (7,8,9,etc) and just stamp lofts on. **The real issue is how far you hit a particular club, something every golfer should be aware of.**

 

The part I **bolded** is exactly right and it makes no difference what is stamped on the bottom of the club be it club number, loft, Egyptian hieroglyph or geometric symbol.

[North Butte]

> @Bad9 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > They should just do away with the numbers (7,8,9,etc) and just stamp lofts on. **The real issue is how far you hit a particular club, something every golfer should be aware of.**

>

> The part I **bolded** is exactly right and it makes no difference what is stamped on the bottom of the club be it club number, loft, Egyptian hieroglyph or geometric symbol.

 

I have a golf acquaintance, a guy at my club who I play with maybe 3-4 times a year, who is the darndest combination of old-school "feel" player and modern exactitude. He lasers just about every single shot he hits from outside of maybe 40-50 yards. And when he plays practice rounds for tournaments he makes exact yardage notations in his little notebook about every hole.

 

But if you ask him "What's your 150 club" or "How far do you hit your 7-iron" he refuses to even try to answer. He's totally about possibly using five or six different clubs from 150 yards depending on the lie, the wind, slopes, where the pin is on the green and all that. But he wants the laser to tell him "153" before hitting the shot.

 

As far as I can get him to explain him to me, the idea is he knows the distance number first. Then he'll look at the shot with that number in mind and suddenly picture a high draw with a 8-iron that stops quickly or a little cut with a 6-iron that will catch a slope. All feel and visualization the shot but with an exact number as the starting point.

 

Somehow I doubt he worries overmuch about "jacked lofts" (although to be fair he plays an older set of blades anyway). Every time I talk to him about this stuff I come away a little dazed by trying to wrap my brain around it.

[Bad9]

NB I don’t think I’m like your friend but I don’t care how far anyone else hits their clubs, only how far I hit mine. I won’t look at buying a set with a PW less than 45 degrees or so to avoid having two gap wedges but that’s about as strong as my feelings on it goes. The distance someone else hits they’re clubs is meaningless to my game and the actual loft of their clubs even more so. I just need to know how I hit my clubs on the shots I play.

[DaveGoodrich]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > They should just do away with the numbers (7,8,9,etc) and just stamp lofts on. **The real issue is how far you hit a particular club, something every golfer should be aware of.**

> >

> > The part I **bolded** is exactly right and it makes no difference what is stamped on the bottom of the club be it club number, loft, Egyptian hieroglyph or geometric symbol.

>

> I have a golf acquaintance, a guy at my club who I play with maybe 3-4 times a year, who is the darndest combination of old-school "feel" player and modern exactitude. He lasers just about every single shot he hits from outside of maybe 40-50 yards. And when he plays practice rounds for tournaments he makes exact yardage notations in his little notebook about every hole.

>

> But if you ask him "What's your 150 club" or "How far do you hit your 7-iron" he refuses to even try to answer. He's totally about possibly using five or six different clubs from 150 yards depending on the lie, the wind, slopes, where the pin is on the green and all that. But he wants the laser to tell him "153" before hitting the shot.

>

> As far as I can get him to explain him to me, the idea is he knows the distance number first. Then he'll look at the shot with that number in mind and suddenly picture a high draw with a 8-iron that stops quickly or a little cut with a 6-iron that will catch a slope. All feel and visualization the shot but with an exact number as the starting point.

>

> Somehow I doubt he worries overmuch about "jacked lofts" (although to be fair he plays an older set of blades anyway). Every time I talk to him about this stuff I come away a little dazed by trying to wrap my brain around it.

 

This is exactly how I approach my distances.

[OrangeGravy]

Jacked lofts don't bother me, but it's very clear why the OEMs change the number on the club. There is no logical reason other than to mislead the general golfing public who don't pay attention to such things. When I was playing as a kid probably through my early 20's ( a long time ago ), I had no clue that iron lofts could be different from manufacturer to manufacturer. I had no clue that shaft flex wasn't an industry standard designation. All I knew is I played stiff flex clubs. I play with people regularly who are my age, mid forties, and still have no idea about these things. I don't have the energy to explain it to them and they probably don't care. One of them moved to Cobra Amp Cell irons a couple years ago. They have a 44* PW. He still can't figure out why he keeps flying the green from 130 out with his PW. His amazement at this outweighs any anger or frustration with the bad result from the shot. It's pretty funny really.

[Bad9]

> @OrangeGravy said:

> Jacked lofts don't bother me, but it's very clear why the OEMs change the number on the club. There is no logical reason other than to mislead the general golfing public who don't pay attention to such things. When I was playing as a kid probably through my early 20's ( a long time ago ), I had no clue that iron lofts could be different from manufacturer to manufacturer. I had no clue that shaft flex wasn't an industry standard designation. All I knew is I played stiff flex clubs. I play with people regularly who are my age, mid forties, and still have no idea about these things. I don't have the energy to explain it to them and they probably don't care. One of them moved to Cobra Amp Cell irons a couple years ago. They have a 44* PW. He still can't figure out why he keeps flying the green from 130 out with his PW. His amazement at this outweighs any anger or frustration with the bad result from the shot. It's pretty funny really.

If after two years of flying over the green with the same club he can’t figure out he should hit less club, knowing the loft of the club is the least of his concerns

 

[OrangeGravy]

> @Bad9 said:

> > @OrangeGravy said:

> > Jacked lofts don't bother me, but it's very clear why the OEMs change the number on the club. There is no logical reason other than to mislead the general golfing public who don't pay attention to such things. When I was playing as a kid probably through my early 20's ( a long time ago ), I had no clue that iron lofts could be different from manufacturer to manufacturer. I had no clue that shaft flex wasn't an industry standard designation. All I knew is I played stiff flex clubs. I play with people regularly who are my age, mid forties, and still have no idea about these things. I don't have the energy to explain it to them and they probably don't care. One of them moved to Cobra Amp Cell irons a couple years ago. They have a 44* PW. He still can't figure out why he keeps flying the green from 130 out with his PW. His amazement at this outweighs any anger or frustration with the bad result from the shot. It's pretty funny really.

> If after two years of flying over the green with the same club he can’t figure out he should hit less club, knowing the loft of the club is the least of his concerns

>

 

I agree. He doesn't care to know why. He's content to just think he nukes it every so often. He can't take less club because his GW is 8* weaker and he can't reach. I love watching it happen.

[clinkinfo]

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

41 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

This is old and has been discussed thoroughly, and proves nothing.

[Titleist_PT23]

I've recently re-labeled my GW as a "4-iron."  So I don't have to use a Sharpie, PING told me they are working on a Retro-Retro and a Neanderthal Spec loft option for the next group of iron releases.

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

This is old and has been discussed thoroughly, and proves nothing.

 

No, it clearly shows that most of you complaining about loft jacking are arguing about the wrong thing because you don’t look at how it actually affects ball flight.

 

You can dismiss it as fake, that’s your right.  But it’s real data that supports one side of this discussion.  It doesn’t mean everyone on earth would get the same results, but for THIS skilled player the test shows their real results.

 

Same irons, same swing, same person testing.  Only difference is the loft, and that difference does NOT produce the results many in this thread are claiming.  They do not go low, they do not fly “like a lower iron”.  The lower lofted club flies higher and comes in at a steeper decent angle with slightly less spin.  

 

And this entire topic is “old” and has been discussed to death here on Golfwrx for about 10 years.  When there’s something with real data, and someone actually testing these concepts, that’s more information than most of the “feelings” being thrown around in threads like these. 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by clinkinfo

[NRJyzr]

7 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

No, it clearly shows that most of you complaining about loft jacking are arguing about the wrong thing because you don’t look at how it actually affects ball flight.

 

You can dismiss it as fake, that’s your right.  But it’s real data that supports one side of this discussion.  

 

 

 

It's irrelevant how it affects trajectory.  There have always been lower trajectory irons, and higher trajectory irons (once we've gotten out of the hickory era, anyway).  If you hit a club too high for its loft, maybe instead select a design that hits the ball lower, instead of putting a "9" on your 8 iron.

 

If all these clubs hit so much higher than everything before, why aren't we bouncing the ball off satellites by now with the short irons?

 

[clinkinfo]

15 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

 

It's irrelevant how it affects trajectory.  There have always been lower trajectory irons, and higher trajectory irons (once we've gotten out of the hickory era, anyway).  If you hit a club too high for its loft, maybe instead select a design that hits the ball lower, instead of putting a "9" on your 8 iron.

 

If all these clubs hit so much higher than everything before, why aren't we bouncing the ball off satellites by now with the short irons?

 

 

Is that a joke?

 

We don’t hit satellites Because the lofts are lowered!

[Red4282]

56 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

No, it clearly shows that most of you complaining about loft jacking are arguing about the wrong thing because you don’t look at how it actually affects ball flight.

 

You can dismiss it as fake, that’s your right.  But it’s real data that supports one side of this discussion.  It doesn’t mean everyone on earth would get the same results, but for THIS skilled player the test shows their real results.

 

Same irons, same swing, same person testing.  Only difference is the loft, and that difference does NOT produce the results many in this thread are claiming.  They do not go low, they do not fly “like a lower iron”.  The lower lofted club flies higher and comes in at a steeper decent angle with slightly less spin.  

 

And this entire topic is “old” and has been discussed to death here on Golfwrx for about 10 years.  When there’s something with real data, and someone actually testing these concepts, that’s more information than most of the “feelings” being thrown around in threads like these. 

 

Wow completely misguided attack. First, im not complaining, merely pointing out the science and technology hasnt changed regarding this in the last 20 years, but the lofts have. 2nd, I never said that test was fake, but it wasnt very scientific in nature. Did they measure cog on all three heads? Of course not. We have cog measurement on the non power spec version and they are EXTREMELY HIGH. So for the power spec to launch the same, wouldnt be that hard for ping to accomplish. They raised the cg on the weak lofted head  to give the power spec the magic trick of launching the same. But give me a 2002 big bertha tu/ti head in that same loft as the power spec, and it would launch higher... think about that. A 5 iron from 20 years ago launching higher than a 7 iron or whatever they are labeling it lol. Like i said this video has been discussed, its not a good test, unless you are selling clubs..

Edited October 12, 2020 by Red4282

[clinkinfo]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Wow completely misguided attack. First, im not complaining, merely pointing out the science and technology hasnt changed regarding this in the last 20 years, but the lofts have. 2nd, I never said that test was fake, but it wasnt very scientific in nature. Did they measure cog on all three heads? Of course not. We have cog measurement on the non power spec version and they are EXTREMELY HIGH. So for the power spec to launch the same, wouldnt be that hard for ping to accomplish. They raised the cg on the weak lofted head  to give the power spec the magic trick of launching the same. But give me a 2002 big bertha tu/ti head in that same loft as the power spec, and it would launch higher... think about that. A 5 iron from 20 years ago launching higher than a 7 iron or whatever they are labeling it lol. 

 

yeah, I guess I misinterpreted “This is old and has been discussed thoroughly, and proves nothing.”

 

Measure the cog?  they measured the resulting ball flight!  That’s like saying my car did 0-60 in three seconds and someone asking if I measured the traction at launch.  Um...no, I just DID 0-60 in 3 seconds.   Those are results, not static car measurements.  
 

But I guess you’re  claiming that those 3 irons are actually different irons in all 3 of those specs.  I can’t help with that, because the irons DIDN'T fly the same.  So again, the results show they are different irons.  If the COG was raised in the retro to launch like the power, the ball speed wouldn’t have fallen like that.   But whatever,.

 

this has been done to death,  that’s actual test data of ball flight results.  Take it for what you want or don’t want.

 

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

yeah, I guess I misinterpreted “This is old and has been discussed thoroughly, and proves nothing.”

 

Measure the cog?  they measured the resulting ball flight!  That’s like saying my car did 0-60 in three seconds and someone asking if I measured the traction at launch.  Um...no, I just DID 0-60 in 3 seconds.   Those are results, not static car measurements.  
 

But I guess you’re  claiming that those 3 irons are actually different irons in all 3 of those specs.  I can’t help with that, because the irons DIDN'T fly the same.  So again, the results show they are different irons.  If the COG was raised in the retro to launch like the power, the ball speed wouldn’t have fallen like that.   But whatever,.

 

this has been done to death,  that’s actual test data of ball flight results.  Take it for what you want or don’t want.

 

Yea they measures ball flights, but they are three different heads designed differently. Would to compare a taurus to a vette too? Lol I like txg but they arent perfect and they have whiffed on a few things like this. Go find the t100 vs t100s video. They claim lower cg in the t100s even though titleist said its not, and even though its been measured to not be. Proceded to do a test and didnt get results like the above test. When pointed out, they say NOTHING. Funny thing is, they then did a second video where they bent the t100 strong a degree and the t100s weak a degree and the result was EXACTLY THE SAME. Lmao.  

Edited October 12, 2020 by Red4282

[NRJyzr]

52 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

Is that a joke?

 

We don’t hit satellites Because the lofts are lowered!

 

Isn't there still a club with an upper 40-something loft, or maybe even 50*?

[clinkinfo]

13 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Yea they measures ball flights, but they are three different heads designed differently. Would to compare a taurus to a vette too? Lol I like txg but they arent perfect and they have whiffed on a few things like this. Go find the t100 vs t100s video. They claim lower cg in the t100s even though titleist said its not, and even though its been measured to not be. Proceded to do a test and didnt get results like the above test. When pointed out, they say NOTHING. Funny thing is, they then did a second video where they bent the t100 strong a degree and the t100s weak a degree and the result was EXACTLY THE SAME. Lmao.  

 

we don’t agree on the idea they are “3 different heads”.  So there’s no point continuing.  They have 3 different specs, that’s the point.  If we were comparing 3 of the same exact heads, we’d get 3 of the same results.

 

yes, on a 0-60 test you can certainly compare a Taurus to a corvette because the result is what matters.  I don’t know what that has to do with this exactly, but that’s ok.

I don’t think txg “whiffed” as much as some don’t like the results and want to explain the video away somehow.  But data is data.  It’s a comparison, and if you want to think of it like a Taurus vs a vette, go ahead.  

[clinkinfo]

2 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Isn't there still a club with an upper 40-something loft, or maybe even 50*?

 

You mean one that would be optimized for THAT loft to fly correctly. Yes, as far as I know every brand is designing that

[Red4282]

37 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

we don’t agree on the idea they are “3 different heads”.  So there’s no point continuing.  They have 3 different specs, that’s the point.  If we were comparing 3 of the same exact heads, we’d get 3 of the same results.

 

yes, on a 0-60 test you can certainly compare a Taurus to a corvette because the result is what matters.  I don’t know what that has to do with this exactly, but that’s ok.

I don’t think txg “whiffed” as much as some don’t like the results and want to explain the video away somehow.  But data is data.  It’s a comparison, and if you want to think of it like a Taurus vs a vette, go ahead.  

Data is data. But data can be mislead to tell a different story if you set it up to do so. 

why not just compare the power spec 6 iron to the non power spec 5 iron? Or better yet a similarly lofted club that doesnt have the one of the highest cog on the current market. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Red4282

[Red4282]

35 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

we don’t agree on the idea they are “3 different heads”.  So there’s no point continuing.  They have 3 different specs, that’s the point.  If we were comparing 3 of the same exact heads, we’d get 3 of the same results.

 

yes, on a 0-60 test you can certainly compare a Taurus to a corvette because the result is what matters.  I don’t know what that has to do with this exactly, but that’s ok.

I don’t think txg “whiffed” as much as some don’t like the results and want to explain the video away somehow.  But data is data.  It’s a comparison, and if you want to think of it like a Taurus vs a vette, go ahead.  

No they whiffed hard. When you claim something and it is flat wrong and you are shown this, you whiffed.

[clinkinfo]

15 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Data is data. But data can be mislead to tell a different story if you set it up to do so. 

why not just compare the power spec 6 iron to the non power spec 5 iron? Wouldnt that be a better test?

 

That would be a “better”  test only IF you believe ping dramatically redesigned each version of those heads to play completely differently.  There’s no universal agreement that happened, and as I pointed out, if you really moved the CG on the retro loft to launch the same as the power loft you’d see the same ballspeed. So they may have tweaked some things to optimize, but they aren’t 3 different club head designs.  I think the test is clearly illustrating that the main change in those 3 heads is loft, and that’s the result you get.   
 

Regardless  though, assume for a second ping DID change those 3 heads completely to launch the same.  So what?  The power spec model CLEARLY flys better, farther, with enough stopping power.  Most golfers would still pick it, illustrating the stronger lofted version is producing a better result.
 

many of us who test stronger lofts tell the forum the same thing, they go high AND far.  They don’t fly like the next club down.  But there’s some folks here who are so “entrenched” in the idea that loft changes in irons are bad, it makes no difference.  Many arguing for traditional lofts don’t even seem to have experiences trying anything else.

 

i could get my weather from a weather-person who’s using data and scientific modeling to predict tomorrow’s forecast.  Or, I could ask the forum what they “feel” the weather will be tomorrow.  While the weather-person may not always be right.....I’m still using them.

Edited October 12, 2020 by clinkinfo

[clinkinfo]

12 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

No they whiffed hard. When you claim something and it is flat wrong and you are shown this, you whiffed.

They didn’t “claim something” and have it turn out wrong,  they did a test and showed you the outcome.  

[Pepperturbo]

On 8/2/2019 at 6:54 AM, TigerInTheWoods said:

> @cgasucks said:

> Jacked lofts has been done for decades. My oldest set in my basement (1971 Wilson Staffs) has its PW factory set at 51 deg, which is a GW loft these days. My second oldest set is my 1988 845s which was originally touted as a GI set and its factory loft on its PW set at 48 deg, which was considered jacked up back in those days but considered very conservative nowadays found only in today's blades or players CB. 20 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if I see 40 deg PW as the norm at an 8 iron length.

 

That's why just putting lofts on makes much more sense IMO. I liked that Hogan was doing that for a while. I do feel as though that's a hard sell to the masses though as they don't think about lofts. A 7 is just a 7.

 

I am not convinced putting loft on the bottom is any better than a number.  You're right.  A 7 is just a 7 to most people.  I said it many times, attention to details is key to good golf.  Most people don't know what weak or jacked loft means.  All most people care about is how far "they think" a certain iron goes. 

 

Also, @cgasucksis right about decades.  A relative played on the PGA tour back in the 50/60's.  He told me many of the tour players jacked their irons 1-2' then.

 

The greater problem is most golfers do NOT know how far they "carry" a given iron and unaware stronger lofted irons in the wrong hands creates spin.  As lofts get stronger into mid-short irons, difficulty hitting the ball will resurface.  Remember, the reason strong lofts came into existence was people couldn't hit low-lofted long irons, so OEM's brought out hybrid replacement clubs.   Even some high single digit golfers today don't have a clue as to their cover yardages, they only know about how far, yet scratch their heads when they come up short or long of the target.  

 

Yesterday, on a tight short Par 4, I had a leave of 109yds into a breeze with front part of the green sloping towards the fairway and a pond which cover was 91yds.  I hit a moderate PW to 3' for birdie.  A friend had a bit more in, he hit his jacked 9i which was really a 7i, and was confused why he was at the back left of the green 45' away.  Go figure...

 

 

[driveandputtmachine]

I always love to read through these threads to see where people's heads are at.  

The 1st thing everyone on here should remember is - GolfWRX is not full of your average golfers.

The 2nd thing is that there are so many different golf swings on WRX alone that making blanket statements is pretty much a bad thing

 

I for instance was a +2, played college golf and tried my hands at the mini tours.   I had kids and went up to a 6, because I had them close together and would rather spend time with them than play golf.

 

Once they got older I started taking them with me and they tried the game a bit too.  As they got even older and decided golf wasn't for them I was able to play again and I went back to a +1.8.   Then a wrist injury, putting off surgery, now having surgery, I am back up to a four.  Working through getting back down, if I can get down and maintain a 1 or so I will be happy.

 

However I am a super high spin player, my launch is mid.  I don't care about jacked lofts, I don't care about old school lofts, I don't care about middle of the road lofts. I like the hollow bodied irons because it puts my spin where I like it with a good/great decent angle. The only reason I know my current lofts(or at least most of them) is I am testing a new set of irons and I am bending/drilling/lead taping them to get the distance gaps correct between clubs.  My 9 iron can be 40* or it can be 38, or it can be 44.  I do not care.  I care that the iron in front of it is roughly 12 yards shorter, and the iron behind it is roughly 12 yards longer.  That allows me to play a standard shot, a chippy cut(my term for the feel), or a trap draw.  That gives me three distances with my 7 iron down to LW to work the ball some and play away from penalty areas to limit my upper score, which is my goal now.  

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

They didn’t “claim something” and have it turn out wrong,  they did a test and showed you the outcome.  

I just told you they claimed the t100s cog was lower than the t100. Thats what im referring to.

[shaolingolfer]

My hdcp is a 7, decent iron player, sweeper, 6 Iron SS 86 mph and pretty good at distance control.  Gave up my 4 iron like 5 years ago and 5 iron Z765 couples years back for a 5 hybrid.  My friend just bought a new set of Callaway Rogue X iron with a 21 degree 5 iron.  He let me hit the 21 degree 5 iron and 27 degree 7 iron and it's so easy to hit and they launch like a 5 and 7 iron but go much more further and unbelievable straight.  There's no way I can hit a 5 year old traditional 3 iron that straight and that high than the jacked loft new modern iron.  

 

The Rogue X 7 iron probably easier to hit, straighter and similar distance to my Z765 5 iron, they probably carry right around 180ish.  I don't see any down side to it and very very intrigue at the Epic Forged. 🤫

Edited October 12, 2020 by shaolingolfer

[clinkinfo]

4 hours ago, Red4282 said:

I just told you they claimed the t100s cog was lower than the t100. Thats what im referring to.

 

but we aren’t talking about a t100 video, we are talking about the video posted above.  They didn’t claim anything in that video, they just showed you what happens with 3 different lofts.

 

 If you want to discuss unrelated TXG errors in videos maybe start a different thread because it sounds like you’re commenting on this video.

Edited October 13, 2020 by clinkinfo

[Red4282]

1 minute ago, clinkinfo said:

 

but we aren’t talking about some t100 video, we are talking about the video posted above.  They didn’t claim anything in that video, they just showed you what happens with 3 different lofts.

Look, like i said txg is a great channel, but they get things wrong too. They made a claim about an iron head, were called out, and didnt say anything. Then proceded to show tests that showed exactly the opposite of their claims. Never admitted they were wrong. This isnt about txg. But their are flaws in that test with the I500. Let me ask you this. HOW, in your words, do “jacked” lofts achieve the same launch angle and relatively same spin as irons with traditional lofts?