Try to tell me it’s not ego

[DaveGoodrich]

 

I am not at all interested in the "ego" aspect of this.  If my ego was threatened by comparing my iron distances vs. other players, mine would have been crushed long ago.   But I find this to be an interesting technical question, and if we really want to have that conversation, we would all be better off discussing it without bringing other players psychological motivations into it.  

 

The OP provided one "data point" which suggests that (at least for higher swing speeds) "distance" irons don't produce significantly different launch conditions when compared loft for loft with more traditional irons.  My experience, at a much lower speed, is similar when comparing my XTD Forged with my Pro Black MB's, which are within a couple of yards, loft for loft.   My question is this: isn't there any unbiased study available to test this as a working hypothesis across various clubhead speeds?  Doesn't anybody without "skin in the game" own an Iron Byron?  If so, it should be pretty easy to set up a study where dynamic loft at impact, impact location on the clubface, and clubhead speed are held constant, and only the clubhead is varied.  Do this with a wide variety of clubhead designs, and we would understand how much the technology/design impacts launch conditions vs. how much is fundamental to the loft and clubhead speed.  Then see if that same relationship holds for various clubhead speeds.  Then hold everything else constant and hit it all over the clubface, and see how much "forgiveness" is affected by the design.  None of this needs to be subject to our subjective biases.  It is all within the realm of the knowable.    

 

My hypothesis is that the loft and clubhead speed are by far the most significant controlling factors.  The COG location matters, but is much, much less influential than those "fundamentals," and is highly overstated by the OEMs as a justification for "jacking" the lofts.   I'm less clear on whether "spring faces, speedfoam, etc" on irons can add significant ball speed by themselves, but I'm dubious.  I'm not saying these things make no difference, just that they are at the margins, not fundamental.  

 

@pinestreetgolf's discussion of the loft/length ratio is interesting to me.  I once made a post asking why this isn't considered as a fundamental fitting parameter, as it seems to me it would be pretty strongly related to clubhead speed.  I got no response.  But we know that the club length interval is less responsible for distance gapping than the loft.  So maybe that is a good argument to use shorter clubs at the long end (single length, 1/4" length intervals, etc.), not an argument to change the numbers on the clubs and insert a couple gap wedges.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bnperrone]

4 minutes ago, DaveGoodrich said:

I once made a post asking why this isn't considered as a fundamental fitting parameter, as it seems to me it would be pretty strongly related to clubhead speed.  I got no response.  But we know that the club length interval is less responsible for distance gapping than the loft.  So maybe that is a good argument to use shorter clubs at the long end (single length, 1/4" length intervals, etc.), not an argument to change the numbers on the clubs and insert a couple gap wedges.  

Length is absolutely a fundamental fitting parameter. Anybody going through a fitting where length is not carefully considered, regardless of the end result, didn't go through a fitting. They hit some stuff. In terms of fitting, my understanding is that loft is one of the last adjustments made, to fine-tune launch, spin, gapping, etc. to the player's preferences. In other cases it can be a fitting preference for the effect it has on bounce. Most fittings don't get into quite that level of detail, but EVERY fitting should involve a careful consideration of length. It is a fundamental pillar of the process.

 

The point you bring up about shorter clubs at the top end has been extensively discussed on these forums, although most of it is probably found in the "club tech" section. Check out / search for MOI builds and concepts, DIY MOI matching, 3/8" length change per club instead of 1/2" per club, and 1/4" steps in the wedges and even lower irons. I can assure you that there is more technical discussion that has been had than you would ever imagine if you manage to come across the right posts and topics. That said, be prepared to go down a rabbit hole, and most likely spark a desire to build a new set of irons to try it out. It's possible that your topic didn't get responses because of the topic being extensively discussed elsewhere. Please don't take that as an insult, because it isn't my intent. 

[FatThinShank]

46 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

 

Easy.  https://mizunogolf.com/us/golf-clubs/mp-series/mp-20/

 

Just order them -1".

 

OMFG they offer jacked lofts in the MP-20 line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Nobody is telling the consumer not to cut an inch off to make it easier to hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (<- what I hear you saying.  That club, -1", is literally identical to the Mavrik 5 iron.  -1" is offered as an iron option at every single OEM, with no disclaimer that you are jacking your lofts).

 

I totally agree with you that the Mavrik line isn't for everyone.  I swing the driver 111 or so.  I can actually hit the 18* 4 iron and elevate it.  They work well for me.  Its not about that.  Its about the original topic.  I am telling the OP it is not about ego.  It is about shaft length.  I want shorter shafts with lower loft because I swing hard but I am better at swinging hard than hitting the middle.  Hence, for me and others like me, short shafts and low lofts (but normal lies) work great.  That's not "ego".  Its a good fit.

 

I don't care that I can hit a club that says "6" on it 200.  I care that I can hit a club that has a 37.625" shaft 200.  The OP is longer than me despite the fact that we probably both hit our sixes the same.  But its not "ego" that I'm bagging the iron I'm bagging.  Its because I love the short, light shafts.  Its a good fit for me.  Then I come on here and read this elitist garbage.

I think you've put yourself into too much of a mental pretzel here, what you're saying has almost nothing to do with the original post and I'm not really sure who you are arguing with anymore. Taking 1" off a club isn't a stock offering btw. If all you said was that the strong lofts mixed with a lightweight shaft perform best for you this wouldn't even be a topic anymore.

 

Its not wrong or right but you have to admit that you are an extreme outlier for having 111mph swing speed and playing 65g graphite shafts all so that you can properly launch irons that are very strong lofted. If it works for you then awesome but the whole point is that those irons were not produced with you in mind.

[Pepperturbo]

11 minutes ago, DaveGoodrich said:

 

I am not at all interested in the "ego" aspect of this.  If my ego was threatened by comparing my iron distances vs. other players, mine would have been crushed long ago.   But I find this to be an interesting technical question, and if we really want to have that conversation, we would all be better off discussing it without bringing other players psychological motivations into it.  

 

The OP provided one "data point" which suggests that (at least for higher swing speeds) "distance" irons don't produce significantly different launch conditions when compared loft for loft with more traditional irons.  My experience, at a much lower speed, is similar when comparing my XTD Forged with my Pro Black MB's, which are within a couple of yards, loft for loft.   My question is this: isn't there any unbiased study available to test this as a working hypothesis across various clubhead speeds?  Doesn't anybody without "skin in the game" own an Iron Byron?  If so, it should be pretty easy to set up a study where dynamic loft at impact, impact location on the clubface, and clubhead speed are held constant, and only the clubhead is varied.  Do this with a wide variety of clubhead designs, and we would understand how much the technology/design impacts launch conditions vs. how much is fundamental to the loft and clubhead speed.  Then see if that same relationship holds for various clubhead speeds.  Then hold everything else constant and hit it all over the clubface, and see how much "forgiveness" is affected by the design.  None of this needs to be subject to our subjective biases.  It is all within the realm of the knowable.    

 

My hypothesis is that the loft and clubhead speed are by far the most significant controlling factors.  The COG location matters, but is much, much less influential than those "fundamentals," and is highly overstated by the OEMs as a justification for "jacking" the lofts.   I'm less clear on whether "spring faces, speedfoam, etc" on irons can add significant ball speed by themselves, but I'm dubious.  I'm not saying these things make no difference, just that they are at the margins, not fundamental.  

 

@pinestreetgolf's discussion of the loft/length ratio is interesting to me.  I once made a post asking why this isn't considered as a fundamental fitting parameter, as it seems to me it would be pretty strongly related to clubhead speed.  I got no response.  But we know that the club length interval is less responsible for distance gapping than the loft.  So maybe that is a good argument to use shorter clubs at the long end (single length, 1/4" length intervals, etc.), not an argument to change the numbers on the clubs and insert a couple gap wedges.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loft and club head speed are important presuming you use the sweet spot.  Miss the sweet spot and distance is diminished, regardless of the loft or clubhead speed.  I play 620 series with more traditional lofts and hit my 5i as far as some friends hit their 5i even 4i with jacked lofts. 

[Sean2]

On 1/31/2021 at 1:26 PM, nsxguy said:

 

How can this possibly baffle you ?

 

Distance sells. Yes, even in irons.

 

Manufacturers are "telling" you your new 7 iron goes as far as your old 6 iron when the lofts are the SAME.

 

Some posters admittedly anecdotal information suggests the above claim of more distance is bogus.

 

THAT is why some golfers are bothered.

 

I don't think I can explain this any better. Hope this helps.

I remember a time when irons were seen as scoring clubs, not distance clubs. Now everything is focused on distance. I am waiting for someone to release a putter that promises 20 more feet of roll. 

[bnperrone]

19 minutes ago, FatThinShank said:

I think you've put yourself into too much of a mental pretzel here, what you're saying has almost nothing to do with the original post and I'm not really sure who you are arguing with anymore. Taking 1" off a club isn't a stock offering btw. If all you said was that the strong lofts mixed with a lightweight shaft perform best for you this wouldn't even be a topic anymore.

 

Its not wrong or right but you have to admit that you are an extreme outlier for having 111mph swing speed and playing 65g graphite shafts all so that you can properly launch irons that are very strong lofted. If it works for you then awesome but the whole point is that those irons were not produced with you in mind.

Thanks for posting. I was typing out my own response and I just couldn't do it anymore. The arguments reached flat-earther levels. 

[bnperrone]

12 minutes ago, CokeZero said:

Ma grandpappy had a saying, he said "amateurs teach amateurs to BE amateurs"

 

This is real simple math here and every single one of y'all is a hot mess. What a disaster this is 

Bless your heart. Which tour do you play on?

[ALIF]

7 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

Bless your heart. Which tour do you play on?

He's a pro golfer who I bet is a pretty solid ball striker and teacher. Its his lively hood.

[bnperrone]

5 minutes ago, ALIF said:

He's a pro golfer who I bet is a pretty solid ball striker and teacher. Its his lively hood.

Great! I'll look forward to him explaining how dumb my points have been since every single person here is an idiot. That said, I certainly agree this turned into a hot mess a long time ago. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

8 hours ago, pinestreetgolf said:

 

I don’t understand why a club stamped “3” that is 21*/38” is fine but a club stamped “5” that is 21*/38” is “jacked”.  It’s the same damn club!

Have you never played golf with a group full of "consumers" of golf clubs? Not people who are WRX folks who are dialing in their fittings and their gaps for their game. People who went out, bought a set of golf clubs off the rack, and just want to hit some balls around?

 

I'll tell you that on the tee of a par 3, a VERY common question is "what did you hit into that", and it carries a level of bravado to say "oh, I hit an easy 8" when your playing partner said "oh, I had to hit a stiff 7!" Even if the guy hitting the 8 is a "jacked" loft while the guy hitting the 7 is a traditional loft, that guy hitting the 8 is going to be the big hitter. 

 

That's the "ego" point of it. The number stamped on the bottom MATTERS to players who don't have a clue what their lofts are... And that's most players. "It's the same damn club", but one has a 5 stamped on it and one has a 3, and that matters. 

 

If I'm a club manufacturer and I can sell a 5 iron that flies as long someone else's 3 iron, that's a marketing win. Hardcore players will go to clubfitters and work out their gapping regardless of what is stamped on the bottom, but your casual weekend golfer cares. 

[pinestreetgolf]

23 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Have you never played golf with a group full of "consumers" of golf clubs? Not people who are WRX folks who are dialing in their fittings and their gaps for their game. People who went out, bought a set of golf clubs off the rack, and just want to hit some balls around?

 

I'll tell you that on the tee of a par 3, a VERY common question is "what did you hit into that", and it carries a level of bravado to say "oh, I hit an easy 8" when your playing partner said "oh, I had to hit a stiff 7!" Even if the guy hitting the 8 is a "jacked" loft while the guy hitting the 7 is a traditional loft, that guy hitting the 8 is going to be the big hitter. 

 

That's the "ego" point of it. The number stamped on the bottom MATTERS to players who don't have a clue what their lofts are... And that's most players. "It's the same damn club", but one has a 5 stamped on it and one has a 3, and that matters. 

 

If I'm a club manufacturer and I can sell a 5 iron that flies as long someone else's 3 iron, that's a marketing win. Hardcore players will go to clubfitters and work out their gapping regardless of what is stamped on the bottom, but your casual weekend golfer cares. 

ok, but he posted on WRX and said “you”. Who was the OP talking to in your opinion if not WRX readers?

 

look guys, there is zero doubt OEMs use it to sell clubs. But that isn’t what the OP said. He was clear that the only possible reason based on his test is ego, which is wrong and misleading.

Edited February 2, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[chippa13]

3 hours ago, bnperrone said:

Great! I'll look forward to him explaining how dumb my points have been since every single person here is an idiot. That said, I certainly agree this turned into a hot mess a long time ago. 

This was a hot mess from the moment the OP hit "Submit".

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, pinestreetgolf said:

ok, but he posted on WRX and said “you”. Who was the OP talking to in your opinion if not WRX readers?

 

look guys, there is zero doubt OEMs use it to sell clubs. But that isn’t what the OP said. He was clear that the only possible reason based on his test is ego, which is wrong and misleading.

 

He was talking about club OEMs who want to sell clubs based on their 7 iron going as far as another OEMs 6 iron. 

 

I thought that was clear. 

[pinestreetgolf]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

He was talking about club OEMs who want to sell clubs based on their 7 iron going as far as another OEMs 6 iron. 

 

I thought that was clear. 

he doesn’t mention OEMs once and says if you play jacked loft clubs you could only have one possible purpose and that is to mislead your buddies. Go read it.

[pinestreetgolf]

1 minute ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

He was talking about club OEMs who want to sell clubs based on their 7 iron going as far as another OEMs 6 iron. 

 

I thought that was clear. 

the post was a +1 taking crap to anyone who uses jacked lofts. Nothing about selling anything. It was written in the second person and the last two lines literally address the reader.

[betarhoalphadelta]

6 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

he doesn’t mention OEMs once and says if you play jacked loft clubs you could only have one possible purpose and that is to mislead your buddies. Go read it.

EXACTLY! OEMs are playing on casual golfer's egos. 

 

The only purpose of continuously strengthening lofts is to be able to hit a 7 iron into a green that your buddy is hitting a 5 or 6.

 

Which is why he says, in the OP, that the difference is that we went from 3-PW sets to 4-AW sets. We just changed the lofts in relation to the number stamped on the bottom of the club so casual golfers can hit "less club" into the same shot than their buddies... And so the OEMs can sell new clubs as being "longer" than their predecessors.

 

I'm gaming a 20 year old set of clubs that were fit for me... 20 years ago. I'm working on swing issues as I get back into the game, and once I get those sorted I'll get fit for something more modern. 

 

To the fitter, my goal will be to fit my gaps so that I've got good club gapping. But if it just so happens that suddenly my 7i is 15 yards longer, and my playing partners see that... I won't mind. It's ego. 

[Tree Levino]

“You’ll be hitting 8s where you used to hit 7s”

 

Hmmm the 8 iron is 32 degrees, 63 lie, and 37” long ... what does that sound like?

[Mikeski]

Those Wilsons ladies clubs? Cant tell by the man hands with long finger nails. 

[CokeZero]

 

[pinestreetgolf]

10 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

EXACTLY! OEMs are playing on casual golfer's egos. 

 

The only purpose of continuously strengthening lofts is to be able to hit a 7 iron into a green that your buddy is hitting a 5 or 6.

 

Which is why he says, in the OP, that the difference is that we went from 3-PW sets to 4-AW sets. We just changed the lofts in relation to the number stamped on the bottom of the club so casual golfers can hit "less club" into the same shot than their buddies... And so the OEMs can sell new clubs as being "longer" than their predecessors.

 

I'm gaming a 20 year old set of clubs that were fit for me... 20 years ago. I'm working on swing issues as I get back into the game, and once I get those sorted I'll get fit for something more modern. 

 

To the fitter, my goal will be to fit my gaps so that I've got good club gapping. But if it just so happens that suddenly my 7i is 15 yards longer, and my playing partners see that... I won't mind. It's ego. 

 

The issue we're having (aside from that other guy who plays on tour not having anything better to do than read threads he doesn't like) is the use of the word "only".

[bnperrone]

15 hours ago, bnperrone said:

loft is one of the last adjustments made, to fine-tune launch, spin, gapping, etc. to the player's preferences. In other cases it can be a fitting preference for the effect it has on bounce. Most fittings don't get into quite that level of detail, but EVERY fitting should involve a careful consideration of length. It is a fundamental pillar of the process.

@CokeZero sorry I didn’t specifically label apex and descent angle, but by pointing out launch and spin and distances between clubs it is absolutely implied that apex and descent would be addressed. I don’t know why I’m posting this because surely at least 2 people are going to argue semantics with it, but there you go. 

[Bad9]

7 hours ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

“You’ll be hitting 8s where you used to hit 7s”

 

Hmmm the 8 iron is 32 degrees, 63 lie, and 37” long ... what does that sound like?

Those 7 iron specs are the exact same as the 5 iron in one of first set of clubs I ever built for myself in the early 2000's It was the Maltby CER 851UM model. I started using those build specs a few years before that but it was the earliest model I recall building without looking at the spec sheets I have at home(I can go back to 1996 or so). As per MPF data its VCOG is .640 and RCOG(if it matters) is .596. The D9 is not in the Maltby data is but the D7 is and it has the same loft(difference of 1°) and length measurements. It's VCOG is.862 and RCOG is .502. To me it looks like the Wilson COG is higher and closer to the face than the 20yr old Maltby which is the opposite of what manufacturers claim is the basis for loft creep. And yes I know that is only one example but I'm sure there are lots more if you were to compare more models with the Maltby measurements,

[Bye]

16 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

@CokeZero sorry I didn’t specifically label apex and descent angle, but by pointing out launch and spin and distances between clubs it is absolutely implied that apex and descent would be addressed. I don’t know why I’m posting this because surely at least 2 people are going to argue semantics with it, but there you go. 

You are right, and it would be picked up by a decent fitter. They would also recognise that a certain player, might need something different at the top of their bag to help in this area. No need to doubt yourself on this one.
 

 

[Tree Levino]

1 hour ago, Bad9 said:

Those 7 iron specs are the exact same as the 5 iron in one of first set of clubs I ever built for myself in the early 2000's It was the Maltby CER 851UM model. I started using those build specs a few years before that but it was the earliest model I recall building without looking at the spec sheets I have at home(I can go back to 1996 or so). As per MPF data its VCOG is .640 and RCOG(if it matters) is .596. The D9 is not in the Maltby data is but the D7 is and it has the same loft(difference of 1°) and length measurements. It's VCOG is.862 and RCOG is .502. To me it looks like the Wilson COG is higher and closer to the face than the 20yr old Maltby which is the opposite of what manufacturers claim is the basis for loft creep. And yes I know that is only one example but I'm sure there are lots more if you were to compare more models with the Maltby measurements,

It's nonsensical and that is one of the most blatant examples of trying to trick the consumer I've seen. Luckily, the entire comments on that post is saying "say because you jacked the lofts". It seems people are getting it. 

 

The 6 degree gaps in the scoring irons that are becoming the norm are ridiculous as well. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by TigerInTheWoods

[manima1]

On 1/27/2021 at 10:09 PM, TigerInTheWoods said:

So I’m hitting balls into the net tonight with launch monitor. My dad has his clubs sitting there and has a P790 demo he was trying out so I decided to compare to my backup set. 
 

Club A: P730 6i lofted at 31* 

 

Club B: P790 7i lofted at 30.5*

 

Both clubs within a quarter inch of each other. 
 

Both clubs carrying between 200-205y repeatedly. Ball speed identical. Smash identical. Both are essentially the same loft. One is apparently a tech filled rocket launcher one is pure blade. 
 

Loft for loft, it’s smoke and mirrors - they’re the same. The difference is I’m playing 5-AW in one set or 4-PW in the other. 
 

If it’s not about telling your buddies that you smoothed a 7i 180 I don’t know what else to tell you. 

I think the gap between these type of clubs will start to show it self more and more in the lower lofted long irons. 

 

The spin delta will increase as the loft decreases on these types of clubs and the extra forgiveness / ball speed retention on miss hits increases as well.  You just aren’t going to see as big on of an impact on anything less than a 5 iron loft (around 25 degrees) in my opinion.

 

I can tell you for a fact you my Srixon 545 4 iron consistently carries 5-10 yards longer that my 745 4 iron equivalent (both at 22 degrees).  This is due to slightly lower spin and better ballspeed across the face on mishits.  It also has an “extra gear” when you step on one – possibly due to the face insert design as opposed to the solid forged construction of the 745.

 

The less loft, the less "glancing blow", the more impact the technology can have on the shot.

 

[Bye]

It’s moving on to the part that I find more interesting. These clubs help keep the ball speed/launch up on an off centre strike, but the spin still drops off. Everyone that I have played with that has a set of these, or just low spinning irons in general really struggles with distance control. 

[Tree Levino]

1 hour ago, Bye said:

It’s moving on to the part that I find more interesting. These clubs help keep the ball speed/launch up on an off centre strike, but the spin still drops off. Everyone that I have played with that has a set of these, or just low spinning irons in general really struggles with distance control. 

 

Launch I agree with, ball speed I do not. At the same loft, I genuinely believe the ball speed loss on off center hits is negligible. Launch suffers massively on miss hits with a blade in the 3-5 iron range compared to more "forgiving" models though.

[Bye]

6 minutes ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

 

Launch I agree with, ball speed I do not. At the same loft, I genuinely believe the ball speed loss on off center hits is negligible. Launch suffers massively on miss hits with a blade in the 3-5 iron range compared to more "forgiving" models though.

Agreed, and I should have qualified it by saying it’s the short to mid irons where the people I have played with get these flyer type shots from the fairway.

[DLiver]

OMG who cares about this crap!?!? No one knows what iron I hit ever. Do guys stand around an announce their club and distance after a shot. Holy crow. Heck 99% of the guys I play with (all indexes <9) don't even know what clubs everyone plays, unless they're considering a new set and start asking around.

[CokeZero]

15 hours ago, bnperrone said:

@CokeZero sorry I didn’t specifically label apex and descent angle, but by pointing out launch and spin and distances between clubs it is absolutely implied that apex and descent would be addressed. I don’t know why I’m posting this because surely at least 2 people are going to argue semantics with it, but there you go. 

This pic is fuzzy enough that it doesn't automatically dox me lol, but yeah I really am, have been for a while.. But bruh apex and descent angle are never implied. They're the point. I don't care at all how I launch it, I care about how high it gets, how much spin is retaining through the air and how it lands. That's how I know where my pockets are and how I have to play the shot and how much room I have. And even Trackman doesn't tell the whole story because the software hasn't been programmed to take in some of the real world variables and impact conditions. 

 

Now if you can tell me as a player why, without a laser, just looking the shot over into a green from the fairway or first cut you want the 4I-PW to apex at the same number; what the ultimate advantage is to doing that I'll be happy to walk you through a couple things that set course records with the flag up. On the level, for real. Hell I all but answered the question just in setting the situation..