The technology is getting so much better

[Red4282]

Yes, but he is claiming pros play traditional irons because they need the extra loft to get the launch up (shaft lean ?‍♂️). But as we both just pointed out, the hot face irons launch irons higher when comparing similar lofts... its ok, he got caught spewing nonsense. Just admit it and move on

[rgk5]

I wasn't talking about traditional irons and yes, extra loft is needed by Touring pros for that very reason. The tradionally higher COG in that type of club reduces the Vertical Axis Gear Affect. The shaft lean imparts higher spin to overcome that problem. Back in 2003 I was involved in rebuilding a set of Titleist irons for David Frost after the secound round of the Canadian Open. I installed DG S-200 shafts and added 2* of loft to each one so he could increase his launch angles.

For me at age 73, I need the extra loft to increase spin and launch which is why I use Yonex Super Renkin Tour forged cavity back irons. The 5-iron is 27* and the pw is 47*. All the irons have a lower center of gravity.

[Red4282]

Ok we were talking purely launch, not spin. A 42 degree hot face iron launches higher than a 42 degree traditional iron, you said so yourself. So tell me again why would a pro who needs to get the ball up opt for the lower launching club? Hmm. Now will the hot faced be lower spin? Most likely, which is part of my argument they wont play these. Also just fyi, shaft lean has NOTHING to do with spin rates, its SPIN LOFT that determines that, so of course you know (or at least you should) thats shaft lean (or dynamic loft) minus angle of attack. You can have all the shaft lean in the world but if your angle of attack is Too shallow you will lack sufficient spin. Also as many other pointed out, cgs arent getting lower in these hot faced irons like you claim, proof is over at mpf stats. It sure is fun educating the so called experts.

[Red4282]

This is straight from mygufspi-

 

“GOLF STUDY: Data shows distance is NOT king with your irons.

Two large scale iron tests: Longest Irons = Worst "Strokes Gained" Scores.

Winning launch monitor battles equal sales. Problem is the data shows it doesn't seem to help golfers lower their scores.”

 

lol bingo!

[Petethreeput]

OK, I am sold. You know your stuff.

i suck. I am a picker. I have had a few back surgeries. My miss, probably 50% of the time is thin. Usually center face.

i play a blade bc I have heard spin isn’t affected as much.

true? Untrue?

can I ask for free advice or knowledge?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Haha, so true. Who needs an 8i to go 170?

[rgk5]

We can agree to disagree. I'll stick with Trackman and GC Quad. You can stick with MPF. BTW, let me know when you see a Tour pro working on his swing and his instructor has Maltby's book with him pointing out MPF ratings. I never said any Pro would "go for the lower launching club". David always played forged irons, particlarly Hogan and at that time Titleist. I did notice you conveniently ignored my David Frost scenario.

[rgk5]

Wrong bingo game. Scores do not improve because amateurs do not work on their short game. Inside 100 yds is where scoring lives. Ask Dave Pelz or Stan Utley.

[WristySwing]

DM me, we will talk to keep this train wreck on track.

[Red4282]

Ohhh im sorry does trackman and cc4 actually measure the physical cg of the club? Stay on point here..

[Red4282]

can a set of irons make your score worse? Is that possible? You guys are so full of it lol. Frauds. I'm done with this thread.

[rgk5]

Yes, a set can m ake you score worse if not properly fit. As for Spin Loft re: Angle of attack and see the image below. My angle of attack with a wedge is -1* with 0* of shaft lean and I still get 10,500 rpm of spin. Anyway our debate was civil until you played the fraud card.

 

[WristySwing]

You don't need to get nasty here. Name calling is a sign of a weak defense and a lack of intelligence (President Orange as an example). Lets keep it civil, most of us here are adults and can have a friendly debate. You are construing my words around to make it sound like what I am saying is wrong because you are cherry picking phrases here and there from different posts I have made that have completely different contexts to favour your argument. I will try and make everything available here and highlight some key terms to make it easier to follow:

I am saying ball speed creates lift and I am saying lower dynamic loft creates a lower launch window and flatter peak height. It really should be no surprise to anyone that peak height isn't as drastic a fluctuation it is just how far down range the ball is flying that gives the perception of high and low, in general, we can expect about 5 yards (15 feet or so) of height change off the same surface between a roughly 21* iron and a roughly 47* iron from a tour pro. Touring pros should not be the example we are using here as they are the best in the world and rarely miss the middle of the club and have perfect numbers but since you keep wanting to refer to them I will and will use everything based on the widely published Trackman University that has data from tour pros.

The average touring pro uses what you and Maltby would consider conventional irons all the way down to player classic irons, meaning they have a CoG that is higher (more vertical) than the CoG of the golf ball. This gives the iron a flight that is both flatter and with more spin. The average touring pro has a dynamic loft of approximately 20*, meaning on average, whether, they are shallow or steep, they are somehow taking roughly 8-10* of loft off the golf club by the time they reach impact. So, with these two things in mind we can infer that a tour player (who on average is both fast and has shaft lean/lower dynamic loft) will have a weird dichotomy of a flatter ball flight AND loads of ball speed. Take this TXG where they used the same iron, same shaft, same ball and bent the lofts on an i500 across the retro, standard, and power spec lofts. The retro spec (29*) launched on average 0.3* lower than the standard spec (27*) and 0.1* lower than the power spec (25.5*). I cannot remember if they looked at the tables for peak heights but you can check the video. The retro spec obviously had more spin but it was only 321 RPMs more spin than the 25.5* power spec version. This is precisely what Tutleman found when he was researching drivers that loft doesn't matter much as long as you are within a couple of degrees and strike is centered. This will not change the launch and spin appreciably in the sense that distance and consistency is impeded too much. This is a good example because the math has about 150-200 RPMs of spin per degree off the ground for an iron, yet we have 3.5x more loft change here and should see over 500 RPMs of spin change yet we are only seeing 321 RPMs. To me, and I will fully admit if I am reading too much into this and someone like Howard wants to correct me, that this is likely the cup-face working to regulate spin across the face of the club to make it more consistent regardless of the presented loft at impact.

Okay, so now that that is out of the way how does all of this apply in motion for a tour pro? Since a tour player has a lot of dynamic shaft lean and low dynamic loft at impact and much better face-to-path relationship than an average player their spin loft window is lower meaning they get a bit more ball speed out of this than what would be typical of an amateur. Now, spin loft you defined as dynamic loft - angle of attack, but it is a bit more complex than that as it takes into account glancing blows based on path and face angles that will kick this spin loft window up or down due to variation and inconsistencies in these positions. However, Trackman does have a bit of confusing information here albeit as they say Spin Loft average for a tour pro is 24.3* but dynamic loft for a tour pro is 20.2*, so they either have a misprint (unlikely) or we have an in motion example of what a 3D look at spin loft actually is without all the nitty gritty details about how face and path and strike actually contribute to this end number (more likely). I cannot comment on how these actually relate and what means what at the end of the day so I am just taking Trackman at their word here.

Again, now that that is out of the way we can now get a snap shot of what a tour pro does at impact and what this looks like downrange with a golf ball in motion. Take a static 30* 6i, one that is traditional with a standard higher vCoG, it doesn't matter which here as long as it fits this criteria. A tour pro is going to present about 20* of dynamic loft at impact and 24.5* of spin loft. This means they have now moved the apex down from its static loft presentation apex and have likely flattened it about 10-12 feet from what it is supposed to fly at based on manufacturer expectations from focus group trial and robot testing. However, remember I said a tour pro has a higher ball speed output which gives a slight increase in height? This helps a little bit to raise the height and keep them where they like to be, around the 90 foot apex (according to TM...however, I am not sold on this as I see more and more tournaments with pros around 120+ foot apexes). With a 30* iron roughly, the peak height, ball speed, and dynamic loft etc. are already maximized for that player and gives them the flight windows, stopping power, apex, etc. they want to see and is sufficient for the course difficulties they play because of their presented dynamic loft and spin loft at impact.

Rounding this all out IF a tour pro were to use something like a P790 at 26*, their launch angle and apex would likely increase due to the extra ball speed and change in the CoG of the head (even marginally...I could be wrong but I think Tutelman said something about changing CoG a few mm has a big impact, or maybe it was Ping, I can't remember but I did read that somewhere). However, their spin would suffer because a tour pro cannot afford to lose 3-500 RPMs of spin when you are playing on the statistically hardest, smallest, and most undulating greens week-in, week-out. This is where these subtle movements matter for us Joes. You and I are going to present a dynamic loft much closer to the static loft of the head. If we use a traditional head of 30* with a traditional higher VCoG then we are going to have some problems. The average amateur launches the ball far too low. Trackman recommends a peak height of roughly equal + 5 feet to their swing speed. However, this is not the case for most ams, who typically launch it 10 or more feet lower than their swing speed. So the movement of the CoG down helps the average Joe get the ball in the air much easier AND with the combined effect of the more forgiving face regulating ball speed and spin across a wider area you get much more predictable effects of where the ball is going to land, how it is going to take off, and how high it is going to go. Further, spin is extremely strike and weather dependent. On a driver you can change spin upwards of 1800 RPMs from the high toe to the low heel, so on an iron this is probably closer to 1000 RPMs if the conversion has been done (which I haven't ever seen but I'm sure someone has done it). For us amateurs who have lots of little hiccups and path changes more often and much more extreme than a tour pro that contribute to our wider strike berth, a lower CoG is going to help us get it in the air more predictably when we strike it low (common miss for ams vs. high) and any sort of mis-hit on the toe or heel is going to fly much more predictably because of the cup face normalizing strike and reducing the standard deviation on a wider area of the face. Not the whole face of course, but a wider area. Now I know some will argue here that what about the spin? You just said lower spin happens when you decrease loft and since players hit it everywhere they aren't getting the proper spin most of the time. A valid point. The cup face will help save that a bit as I showed above. Another thing is that most of us aren't playing on the types of greens a tour pro plays on and can get away with less spin and still have the ball one-hop and stop. Peak height is also a necessary addition here as regardless of spin staying static or going down, peak height will actually help the ball land easier because it will then create a steeper descent, which causes the ball to come more down than out. The magic number here is about 46*. So when I am fitting I aim for at least 4800 RPMs on a 6i (provided strike is good and middle-y), a peak height of SS + 5-10 feet, and a land angle of 45+. All of that in my own outdoor testing with my clubs on various golf courses has never let me down and had me bounding over greens in my 15+ years of paying attention to this type of stuff. We can also fudge this a little bit by using a golf ball that spins more and leverage close to 1000 RPMs more spin by using something like a Bridgestone Tour B XS or Cut Blue or Mizuno RB Tour X without touching a thing on the head or shaft of the club. In terms of technology then, you and others have argued that materials and CoG are the same as 20+ years ago. Fine, if I concede that (even though 1-off examples do not equal the norm) then I will still stand behind my thoughts that technology has gotten better in the sense that we understand the needs of each target player better and can optimize the head design based on loft, CoG, and type of face to best suit that target player. We can use something like an i210 or MP-20 MMC for someone who presents a low dynamic loft and lower spin who has pretty good face control just as well as I can use something like a Sim Max OS or G710 for someone who has poor face control, presents too much dynamic loft and as a result has excess spin. The technology has also gotten better in the sense that more clubs leverage this data so you don't have something like a BB02 being a clear standout for several years and everything else lacking far behind it. Every OEM has a club that could fit anyone who walks in the door. That my friends, is the beauty of iron technology recently.

My sources are presented below. I now want you to present your sources as I have asked for a 5th time now.

 

Optimizing a Driver's Launch Parameters Spin Loft What is Dynamic Loft? Max Height

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

@WristySwing I didn’t read your entire post, but gave you kudos for writing that much. And the sheer volume you’ve contributed to the rest of this thread.
I admire your passion!

[WristySwing]

Thank you very much. I hope it helps clear up some misconceptions presented here.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Yes, quite clear. As to whether those improvements will help my game, IDK? Even my i20 seem pretty up to date performance wise.

I’d be likely to purchase the P790 just because it looks nice and new. My old clubs are starting to look a bit ratty, and I should change my golf towel while I’m at it. Lol...

[Lobby]

 

Nah, man. Let this thread die.

All I know is if I need to get a club fitting, I'll go to you and not Red. All that hot air would explode my head.

 

 

[Red4282]

couple of things- first i would like to apologize if ive said anything that may offended you. Id like to keep the debate to facts and science... and realize it is a debate. There are certainly some things you are right about as am I. But i also think we need to admit when we may be wrong as well.

Secondly, Finally got a chance to watch that txg video. Ive seen it before but rewatched since you posted. I love txg but i think the missed a few key factors. First, if you look at the i500 on mpf, it has the HIGHEST vcog of all the irons they offer at a .93... most pings offerings range from the high .7s to the low .8s. however their is only one head listed on mpf. Im assuming that is the retrospec (higher lofted version). Txg mentions that the different versions have different cg locations and thats how it achieved similar launches between the three. So either (A) all heads are same concerning vcog, and theoretically would be impossible to launch at the same conditions, or (B) in fact the vcog does change between the versions. If thats the case, im skeptical that such a high base cg in the higher lofted irons is the skewing factor here, Making it appear the strong version is in fact higher launching than it is. Also interesting is that for a 25.5-29 degree club, he was launching it at 4-5 degrees higher than the tour average. Something just didnt seem right. I also disagree with the statement they made about flipping the club and adding loft. Flippers dont need a higher launching club. They could benefit from the strong lofts in a sense that they feel like they are making up for the lost distance from flipping. In my mind this debate is two fold- hot face and strong lofts and to break it down we need to seperate the two and the effects they have.

[Red4282]

Would you agree with these statements?

(a) If we take as many variables outside of the club design out (player delivery is same everytime-dynamic loft, lie and AOA- same balls and shafts) launch angle is dictated primarily by vertical center of gravity placement of the club head. The lower the cg, the higher the launch and vice versa.

(B) Ball speed dictates the potential for peak height given the launch angle and spin is constant. The higher the ball speed, the higher the peak height.

© Spin is primarily determined by spin loft and by strike location in relation to cg. A lower lofted club that results in lower dynamic loft will produce lower spin. A ball struck below the cg will have Increase in total spin. A ball struck above the cg will produce a lower spin. Generally speaking, clubs with lower cgs will produce lower spin rates and vice versa.

(D) Compression. The more the ball compresses, the lower the launch angle, and lower the spin.

Agree or disagree?

[WristySwing]

@Red4282 I think it's best if we just leave this alone now for the sake of our own mental well-being. For what it's worth, it's not cool to call someone a clueless fraud and then expect them to want to continue talking to you. I've laid out my position clearly enough, enough times. I am not doing it again. Stay safe.
?️

[rgk5]

As the second member of the 'clueless fraud" platoon, I too will follow WristySwing's lead and defer from any further participation in this thread. Healthy, mature debate is fun and as a 25 year high school teacher (retired) and a Certified Fitter for the last 17 years, I've learned much by listening to people more seasoned than I throughout my very satisfying careers. This thread did not echo those experiences. Ciao.

[ian-500]

Or for extra distance maybe we should all workout or do some stretching exercises and/or pilates/yoga. Sorry if this has been mentioned already.

[Red4282]

Alright i offered the high road, weird that you want to back out now. But since i spent some time and effort in researching some of this i will finish what i had:

in regards to (a) its is a MYTH that Technology has created cgs that are lower than they were 15-20 years ago. Here is proof. If you want to offer counter evidence Id be happy to look.

This is the lowest cg iron made by callaway in the last 5 years: (.748)

Here is pings- (.776)

Here is from 2002, callaway tu/ti- a shocking (.525)

Thats almost a full 1/4 inch lower than anything today. I think what is happening, and part of the bridge to our divide is: The claim “these have the loft of a 6 but launch like a 7” are true in the sense that when you compare them to most other irons today, they absolutely do. Nobody is comparing that to a 2002 tu/ti iron, and obviously if you did, it wouldn't even be close(the tu/ti would launch higher).There Is only one logical conclusion you could make from this: The golf manufactuers actually have been RAISING the cg over years (and it kind of makes Sense) and the cgs arent lower than irons from 20 years ago or you just dont believe the the MPF data and they are a fraud. Which one shall you take?

(B), ©, and (D) Since these two relate to hot faced irons, we know a hot face iron gives us a higher potential height because its increased in ball speed. However because its translating more energy to the ball (compression), if anything it may LOWER launch a tad bit over a non hot faced iron. Now, i believe that this would be minimal cause we are talking 1-4 mph more, and the additional peak height will outweigh that. The higher compression of the ball will also lead to Lower spin rates, and combined with a lower cg (compared to other irons of today of course), this explains the significant drop in spin.

My conclusion: What is technology? New materials and ideas. Materials? Eh-Negligible. As we have seen the bread and butter of club design was there 20 years ago. Some of the vibration dampening is nice. Ideas? Thats a tricky one. I guess you could say the thinner hotter faces in irons is relatively new idea, but i think its just got popular suddenly, and that there were some coming out 15 years ago, it just didn't get the popularity (prob cause they weren't strong lofted)

Hot faced irons- who are they good for? Slow speeds. Someone who doesnt have speed to reach optimum peak heights and has no concerns about consistency and dispersion in regards to spin (high handicap)

strong lofts- this really just comes down to the guy who flips or adds loft, and wants to make up for it by strengthening lofts and having the mindset of hitting an iron close with his friends or buddies. I have NO ISSUES with that and if thats how you choose to play, then have a blast! But thats all it is pure and simple and there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that they are needed or required for anything.

Is be happy to discuss any counter evidence, otherwise, its been fun ?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Swing speed certainly plays a big part of your disagreements.

[Red4282]

Can you offer anything more detailed than that? How so and why?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

“Hot faced irons- who are they good for? Slow speeds. Someone who doesnt have speed to reach optimum peak heights and has no concerns about consistency and dispersion in regards to spin (high handicap)”

I certainly don’t disagree with this statement.

[Red4282]

You dont disagree? Or you mean you do disagree? If you do, what data suggests that it does benefit faster speeds? I did have an “or” in my statement, so i guess technically a higher swing speed high handicap player who really has no concern with dispersion, could play them with no negative effect. Otherwise I've presented data why they may not be best for mid to low handicaps and i also have a major study to back up my claim.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Hmm, I could leave a more ambiguous answer here than last time, but my stance is that for players with a reasonable swing speed all this modern equipment does not “improve” things all that much.

Maybe for slower swingers? No idea?

[Red4282]

Oh well that sounds like you are in agreement.

[jons1]

It's not about improving, as it is getting as much out of what you already got to produce effective shots... long and straight.