Lofts: Traditional vs Weak vs Strong

[MelloYello]

A thought came through my head the other day with regard to TW's infamous weak lofts. Seems to me, a player could always mitigate a weaker club but probably couldn't generate extra loft when they needed it. Much like bounce on a wedge, it'd be better to err on the side of having too much knowing that 1-2^o extra is pretty inconsequential. So I wonder if TW doesn't do the weak loft thing just as a little extra insurance thinking that if he needs it, it'll be there. 

 

Anyhow, I ask this because recently I've gone the other way. I've tried numerous player's cavities with strong / power / distance lofts and I'll be honest, I just don't get it. I can't get them in the air as easily as a club with traditional lofts. Say what you will for the supposedly lower CG, but to me, the effect of that small change is way more subtle than straight-up eliminating 2-3^o of loft from the get go. I seem to have to work harder to hit those bigger clubs reasonably. I have to approach every single shot trying to hit it super high just to get back to where I had originally been with a traditionally-lofted club.

 

Having recently bought a set of z785 irons and finding them to be no more forgiving than what I had, I'm going back to my 716 CB irons which at least have the traditional lofts, which seem to be better for me. But seeing the effect of this, I'm wondering if I shouldn't go a step further and try weakening those traditional lofts just a little bit. I'm not a low- or high-ball hitter. I'm comfortably in between. So I'm wondering if weaker lofts might be a cool trick? Lord knows I tend to deloft clubs a bit anyway. 

 

Anyone else struggle with these newer strong-lofts? 

 

Anyone else try weaker lofts?

 

 

[MtlJeff]

To me the difference is only shaft length. The lofts actually haven't changed at all in many cases, only the number on the bottom of the club has. My G410's have similar spacing in 4-GW as my Eye2's did in 3-PW

 

So now you have a shaft that is shorter for that same loft than you did 15+ years ago in many cases, because not every OEM has made iron shafts longer. A shorter shaft with the same loft to me, seems like it would be harder to get airborne as you say. This is one reason i'm not crazy about single length...i feel like i would struggle to elevate the 4 and 5 irons

 

I do believe there is some truth to irons having higher launches these days, but they have to in order to compensate for hitting a 29 degree iron that has the shaft length of a "7" iron

[LukeDonaldsTiger]

I don’t get it either. There’s definitely benefits for people that lose swing speed, but it’s really just the numbers on the clubs that are changing, in a way. We’re going to have 5-6 wedges soon, which is stupid!

 

I stand on the tee with my buddy on a par 3 hole. He is proud as hell he‘s hitting a 9i when I pull 7i. His P790s are just ridiculously low lofted against my MP-33s. I don’t mind having to hit two more clubs, as long as I don’t „run out of clubs“, but seriously, I don’t want to hit iron when I’m 250 out! 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, MelloYello said:

A thought came through my head the other day with regard to TW's infamous weak lofts. Seems to me, a player could always mitigate a weaker club but probably couldn't generate extra loft when they needed it. Much like bounce on a wedge, it'd be better to err on the side of having too much knowing that 1-2^o extra is pretty inconsequential. So I wonder if TW doesn't do the weak loft thing just as a little extra insurance thinking that if he needs it, it'll be there. 

 

Anyhow, I ask this because recently I've gone the other way. I've tried numerous player's cavities with strong / power / distance lofts and I'll be honest, I just don't get it. I can't get them in the air as easily as a club with traditional lofts. Say what you will for the supposedly lower CG, but to me, the effect of that small change is way more subtle than straight-up eliminating 2-3^o of loft from the get go. I seem to have to work harder to hit those bigger clubs reasonably. I have to approach every single shot trying to hit it super high just to get back to where I had originally been with a traditionally-lofted club.

 

Having recently bought a set of z785 irons and finding them to be no more forgiving than what I had, I'm going back to my 716 CB irons which at least have the traditional lofts, which seem to be better for me. But seeing the effect of this, I'm wondering if I shouldn't go a step further and try weakening those traditional lofts just a little bit. I'm not a low- or high-ball hitter. I'm comfortably in between. So I'm wondering if weaker lofts might be a cool trick? Lord knows I tend to deloft clubs a bit anyway. 

 

Anyone else struggle with these newer strong-lofts? 

 

Anyone else try weaker lofts?

 

 

And another one takes the path of most resistance.   Bravo.  
 

 

I don’t get it either.  Today’s modern iron with very high Vcog is actually harder to hit.  I don’t care what anyone says.  I have a mid 90s set of titleist blades I can hand yo I with a px 6.5 shaft and illl bet my life you hit the 6 iron higher than 99% of modern iron equivalents.  Why ? The center of gravity is so low on older irons it’s easy to get the ball in the air.    Modern irons are designed to hit  fat. Or at least very steeply.  It’s the only way to get the center of gravity to the equator of the ball.  You can draw a diagram out that will show this with a divot after the ball vs at or before the ball.  The oems are teaching people to hit it fat in my opinion.  

[SugarLandGolfer]

I wish manufacturers allowed people to do a “weak” set that did nothing except move the numbers on the irons down.

 

30* 7 iron —> 6 iron

34* 8 iron —> 7 iron

 

literally nothing changes on the club except the number at the bottom. The default could be the Modern lifts, but the “traditional” lofts could be an option. Seems like a relatively innocent change that would make traditionalists happy. It’s just a point of reference that has 0 impact on the actual club. 

[MelloYello]

26 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

And another one takes the path of most resistance.   Bravo.  
 

 

I don’t get it either.  Today’s modern iron with very high Vcog is actually harder to hit.  I don’t care what anyone says.  I have a mid 90s set of titleist blades I can hand yo I with a px 6.5 shaft and illl bet my life you hit the 6 iron higher than 99% of modern iron equivalents.  Why ? The center of gravity is so low on older irons it’s easy to get the ball in the air.    Modern irons are designed to hit  fat. Or at least very steeply.  It’s the only way to get the center of gravity to the equator of the ball.  You can draw a diagram out that will show this with a divot after the ball vs at or before the ball.  The oems are teaching people to hit it fat in my opinion.  

 

 

This is definitely my issue. I got to the range and I'm so accustomed to the traditional MB/CB type of club that I feel I have to trap every shot with these bigger clubs just to hit them consistently at which point I usually end up with a rather low/flat ball-flight which has done nothing to make me "better." 

 

As you say, the VCoG is, if anything, higher in the bigger club which works against the user. I guess maybe the bigger faces or thicker toplines might inspire some further confidence in a certain player but for me, the perceived lack of loft all but destroys that confidence.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by MelloYello

[bubbagump]

3 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

 

This is definitely my issue. I got to the range and I'm so accustomed to the traditional MB/CB type of club that I feel I have to trap every shot with these bigger clubs. As you say, the VCoG is, if anything, higher in the bigger club which works against the user. 

 

I guess maybe the bigger faces or thicker toplines might inspire some further confidence in a certain player but for me, the perceived lack of loft all but destroys that confidence.  

This sounds more like the genre of club just isn't suited to your eye/taste/mental, than any issue about lofts.  Same as say a majority of golfers looking down at a blade 3 iron would destroy their confidence regardless of loft.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by bubbagump

[cgasucks]

I started golf in 2000 where the norm of iron sets at that time where a PW was 47-48d (some even at 49d like my 990s) with a length of 35.5".  It didn't matter if they were Mizuno blades or Callaway X-14s.  For me, I prefer those lofts even till this day as the higher lofts in shorter irons held the greens better on approach shots.  Now these days, those lofts are only available in today's blades and CB.   A 28d SGI 7 iron is absurd.

Edited October 1, 2020 by cgasucks

[chippa13]

17 minutes ago, SugarLandGolfer said:

I wish manufacturers allowed people to do a “weak” set that did nothing except move the numbers on the irons down.

 

30* 7 iron —> 6 iron

34* 8 iron —> 7 iron

 

literally nothing changes on the club except the number at the bottom. The default could be the Modern lifts, but the “traditional” lofts could be an option. Seems like a relatively innocent change that would make traditionalists happy. It’s just a point of reference that has 0 impact on the actual club. 

Why is it so hard for people to just say, "on my old set I pulled the X iron to hit the ball Y yards and now on my new set I pull the X+1 iron to hit the ball Y yards"?

[bladehunter]

15 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

 

This is definitely my issue. I got to the range and I'm so accustomed to the traditional MB/CB type of club that I feel I have to trap every shot with these bigger clubs just to hit them consistently at which point I usually end up with a rather low/flat ball-flight which has done nothing to make me "better." 

 

As you say, the VCoG is, if anything, higher in the bigger club which works against the user. I guess maybe the bigger faces or thicker toplines might inspire some further confidence in a certain player but for me, the perceived lack of loft all but destroys that confidence.  

Yes.  That need to trap it .  That’s my exact thought. You cannot hit it shallow and flush with most modern irons.   Has to be very steep to hit the actual meeting of the horizontal and vertical middle. I think most are finding the vertical middle by hitting it fat.  And the sole then protects the shot enough to cover it up.   Hit The ball first then divot and it’s a thin shot 99.999 A% of the time with that same iron.  

[MelloYello]

20 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

This sounds more like the genre of club just isn't suited to your eye/taste/mental, than any issue about lofts.  Same as say a majority of golfers looking down at a blade 3 iron would destroy their confidence regardless of loft.  

 

Well, I don't want to look down at a blade 3 iron either, LOL. I don't know who does aside from a few rare Pros. 

 

I'm more just curious why I can't get these clubs to perform as advertised. I'm kind of curious if there are players who've switched from traditional lofts to something like an i210, z785 or even an AP2 and found that their ball-flight indeed went up. 

 

I can't fathom how someone would hit a 32^o 7-iron higher than a 35^o 7-iron given the shafts were comparable. After all, I don't know a single person who wants to make their irons fly lower 100% of the time but that's apparently what these stronger lofts do in a "players" club, no? 

Edited October 1, 2020 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yes.  That need to trap it .  That’s my exact thought. You cannot hit it shallow and flush with most modern irons.   Has to be very steep to hit the actual meeting of the horizontal and vertical middle. I think most are finding the vertical middle by hitting it fat.  And the sole then protects the shot enough to cover it up.   Hit The ball first then divot and it’s a thin shot 99.999 A% of the time with that same iron.  

 

Absolutely. Tons of thin shots. I can relate to that 100%. 

[bubbagump]

Just now, MelloYello said:

 

Well, I don't want to look down at a blade 3 iron either, LOL. I don't know who does aside from a few rare Pros. 

 

I'm more just curious why I can't get these clubs to perform as advertised. I kind of more curious if there are players who've switched from traditional lofts to something like an i210, z785 or even an AP2 and found that their ball-flight indeed went up. 

 

I can't fathom how someone would hit a 32^o 7-iron higher than a 35^o 7-iron given the shafts were comparable. After all, I don't know a single person who wants to make their irons fly lower 100% of the time but that's apparently what these stronger lofts do in a "players" club, no? 

 

They may just be a poor fit for you?  Though if you are playing CBs fine, I would be kind of surprised if you couldnt get into a set of t100s and have similar results.  There are huge differences between stuff like T300s and 790s that are just meant to nuke, vs JPX forged or T100s. 

 

That being said, I think its all just dependent on peoples swings.  Watch PGA Tour or around you on the course, and plenty of people are able to play quite well with stronger than traditional lofts and hit them high and hold greens.  

[Fairway14]

Club designers and sales reps claiming "lofts must be stronger due to high tech iron faces/weighting" is a lie. Companies make the lofts stronger so that players will hit their new 7-iron longer than their old 7-iron.

[bubbagump]

17 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

Club designers and sales reps claiming "lofts must be stronger due to high tech iron faces/weighting" is a lie. Companies make the lofts stronger so that players will hit their new 7-iron longer than their old 7-iron.

Exactly, and even then majority of those golfers probably arent even aware of the difference but are just enjoying their "new found" distance and use it to gloat hitting their new 7 iron on the 130y par 3 instead of their 5.  

 

All "distance" irons arent the same, the category gets white washed all together.  P790s are not T100s and vice versa.  Those better players using better player irons that have slightly stronger lofts, understand the loft changes, and play with said irons well, because it really boils down to whats been mentioned prior, in that they are the same set of clubs but just with different (usually by 1) numbers.  Get them in your specs, and needs....its all good.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by bubbagump

[ChipNRun]

 

2 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I've tried numerous player's cavities with strong / power / distance lofts and I'll be honest, I just don't get it. I can't get them in the air as easily as a club with traditional lofts.

 

It depends on the individual iron clubhead design, and the shaft you have. In my case, the standard Mavriks have lofts about 3* stronger per club than the Mavrik Maxs. For example: on 7 iron Mv =27* / MAX = 30*.

Hitting the same Catalyst 65 shaft in both, I got about +8 yards per club longer and higher with Max than standard.

 

IF golf expos return, go to one and talk to the different club manufacturer reps. They will explain different strategies for strengthening lofts.

 

{Clubhead speed + loft} determines a lot about how a given iron will launch for you. IF someone has 95 MPH clubhead speed with their 5i, they can get good launch with a lower loft than someone like me (79 MPH). For the faaast swinger, high loft + high clubhead speed can lead to ballooning the ball, especially in shorter irons.

 

Related topic: that's why most golfers hit a 4W better than a 3W.

 

That's why we have fittings, to find out what works for you.

[Fairway14]

1 minute ago, bubbagump said:

Exactly, and even then majority of those golfers probably arent even aware of the difference but are just enjoying their "new found" distance.  

 

I've played rounds of golf with distance irons and they are exciting, but not reliable for consistent carry yardage.

For blasting super long shots distance irons are good. For consistent shot making and, or, low scoring I don't recommend distance irons. 

[jvincent]

2 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Anyone else struggle with these newer strong-lofts? 

 

Anyone else try weaker lofts?

 

 

 

IMHO people are easily sucked in by distance in irons.

 

When I picked up my Z785s I was a little worried that the stock lofts were a little strong and sure enough that's what I found. 20 minutes on the bending machine and that fixed them up.

 

I still play the 4i and I (and old-ish, fat-ish guy) can still get it in the air with spin and hold a green on a decent strike. With my adjusted lofts I carry it 190-195 which is plenty for the courses I play.

[Gsea]

Throw your money in the pot and lets play.

 

Ping Eye2 2 Iron

18.5°

58.5°

Ping Eye2 4 Iron

24.7°

60.0°

Ping Eye2 5 Iron

28.5°

61.0°

Ping Eye2 6 Iron

32.0°

61.5°

Ping Eye2 7 Iron

36.0°

62.5°

Ping Eye2 8 Iron

40.2°

63.0°

Ping Eye2 9 Iron

45.0°

64.0°

Ping Eye2 PW

50.7°

64.5°

Ping Eye2+ SW

53.0

64.5°

 

[SugarLandGolfer]

48 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Why is it so hard for people to just say, "on my old set I pulled the X iron to hit the ball Y yards and now on my new set I pull the X+1 iron to hit the ball Y yards"?

I don’t disagree with you, but we have a thread here (and countless others) complaining about loft jacking. Seems like an easy fix that could make golfers happy.

[Ri_Redneck]

All the same results I found when I tested SGI irons this spring. About the only time they felt good was if I teed the ball up!

 

BT

[kcstock]

Yeah, I think everyone is orbiting around the same solution.  You should get similar ball speed / spin numbers based on loft, Angle of attack and clubhead speed. so adjusting your expectations of how far a 7 Iron should carry is key.  That said, club manufacturers are not all equal so testing or getting fit for irons is  going to be the best solution.

 

Consider angle of descent, spin rate and the turf (Rough, Fairway, Green, Firm, Soft) is going to play a major role in the performance of your shot.

 

I just moved to the south from metro Detroit and i can say the turf here is VERY different, requiring a lot more bounce for the way I deliver the club.

 

My $.02

[scooterhd2]

can someone explain the VCOG trend going higher. all you hear in marketing in the opposite. and with some of the tungsten plugs and what not, it makes sense that it would be getting lower to me. is my Z785 7 iron really that much harder to launch than an older model? and what do these highlight COG measurements actually mean?

 

[Jtgavigan]

2 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

To me the difference is only shaft length. The lofts actually haven't changed at all in many cases, only the number on the bottom of the club has. My G410's have similar spacing in 4-GW as my Eye2's did in 3-PW

 

So now you have a shaft that is shorter for that same loft than you did 15+ years ago in many cases, because not every OEM has made iron shafts longer. A shorter shaft with the same loft to me, seems like it would be harder to get airborne as you say. This is one reason i'm not crazy about single length...i feel like i would struggle to elevate the 4 and 5 irons

 

I do believe there is some truth to irons having higher launches these days, but they have to in order to compensate for hitting a 29 degree iron that has the shaft length of a "7" iron

 

I agree. My 5i through GW have similar lofts to the 4i through PW that I played years ago.

 

To me, the number on the bottom means less than if I have a club for every situation. But, it does stroke my ego when I hit a "7 iron" 175 or 180 yards. It is really a 6i loft, with a 1/2" shorter shaft. 

 

But, I do like the new technology. I am playing Maltby TS1 irons and I love the feel and flight. 

[Drivingrangehero]

I went from traditional lofted clubs Mizuno MP-67’s to modern lofted Titleist 716 T-MB’s which are not jacked lofts, but stronger than my MP’s and I now carry a GW 50* SW55* and LW60* because my PW is 45*
 

With the MP’s I carried a GW 52* and a SW 56* because my PW was 48*
 

I no longer carry a 3 iron in my T-MB set, but I did in my previous MP set............ what did I gain ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

i like theT-MB’s, but feel I could have just re-shafted the MP’s and called it a day. I liked the way they got through the turf and felt better. 
 

The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference to me. My goal is to hit it a repeatable distance consistently. 
 

I suppose if you have 6 iron loft on a 7-iron shaft like modern clubs, you may be able to put it closer to the hole all things being equal. I personally haven’t seen any benefit from that, or loss either 

[MelloYello]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

IMHO people are easily sucked in by distance in irons.

 

When I picked up my Z785s I was a little worried that the stock lofts were a little strong and sure enough that's what I found. 20 minutes on the bending machine and that fixed them up.

 

I still play the 4i and I (and old-ish, fat-ish guy) can still get it in the air with spin and hold a green on a decent strike. With my adjusted lofts I carry it 190-195 which is plenty for the courses I play.

 

Where did you go with the lofts on your z785 set?

 

Did you go all the way to traditional 21 - 24 - 27 - 31 - 35 - 39 - 43 - 47? 

[MelloYello]

1 hour ago, bubbagump said:

 

They may just be a poor fit for you?  Though if you are playing CBs fine, I would be kind of surprised if you couldnt get into a set of t100s and have similar results.  There are huge differences between stuff like T300s and 790s that are just meant to nuke, vs JPX forged or T100s. 

 

That being said, I think its all just dependent on peoples swings.  Watch PGA Tour or around you on the course, and plenty of people are able to play quite well with stronger than traditional lofts and hit them high and hold greens.  

 

I don't think it's so much about what fits my eye, rather who would be properly fit by taking their existing 7-iron and bending it 2-3^o strong? 

In theory, the only person for whom that'd be a good "fit" would be someone who absolutely skies a traditional iron. In my experience, the "lower CG" being advertised isn't effectively counteracting these strong lofts and in many cases we see that the VCoG actually goes higher when the clubhead as a whole is made larger to increase MOI.

 

I understand how SGI sets can jack the lofts. I'm just not sure how they're getting away with it in "player's" sets where the VCoG isn't really being lowered. 

 

TBH, I can't really think of anyone I know who plays these stronger lofts and hits it real high. They all have a sort of penetrating, flat trajectory. Some have slightly higher SS and some don't. The only high ball hitters I know are playing more traditional lofts. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by MelloYello

[bladehunter]

47 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

can someone explain the VCOG trend going higher. all you hear in marketing in the opposite. and with some of the tungsten plugs and what not, it makes sense that it would be getting lower to me. is my Z785 7 iron really that much harder to launch than an older model? and what do these highlight COG measurements actually mean?

 

Brain was on backward.  I’ll be back in a second. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

52 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

can someone explain the VCOG trend going higher. all you hear in marketing in the opposite. and with some of the tungsten plugs and what not, it makes sense that it would be getting lower to me. is my Z785 7 iron really that much harder to launch than an older model? and what do these highlight COG measurements actually mean?

 

I think you’re thinking of the total playability factor.   That Vcog is middle of the road.  Checkout how high i500 is .  This is relation on the face.    If we took a transfer and laid  it over tigers irons wear mark , then stick it to an i500 face , it would be a groove or more too low to be considered a flush shot for that iron. . That’s the Vcog argument.  They’ve moved it back and up to effect spin , to give the guy playing on the mud a chance to hit a “ flush “ shot from a bad swing.     This goes along with strong lofted  irons.  

[Sean2]

I don't worry about loft too much. It's just a number, or letter, on the bottom of the club. I am still hitting the same number of irons I hit before...they just have a different letter/number on them today then back then.