Try to tell me it’s not ego

[GHIN n Juice]

It’s definitely winter.  An 8 page topic on strong vs traditional lofts, lol.  The season can’t get here fast enough.

[Tree Levino]

21 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

If you just figured this out, I'm not sure what to say.  At one minute, you talk like a golfing czar.  How can anyone so smart not know loft is the biggest driver of distance. There couldn't have been any reason to post this thread other than have people tell you how right you are.

 

Believe me, I don't think of myself like that I promise you. I'm hitting balls into a net because we are in quarantine (and therefore bored as sh!t). I hadn't hit a P790 for a while and happened to be hitting both because I'm always curious about equipment. Just thought it was interesting that an iron that's thought of as one of the quickest on the market wasn't any faster at the same loft than something that's considered one of the least forgiving modern blades (if you read into any MPF etc). 

[Titleist_PT23]

28 minutes ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

 

Believe me, I don't think of myself like that I promise you. I'm hitting balls into a net because we are in quarantine (and therefore bored as sh!t). I hadn't hit a P790 for a while and happened to be hitting both because I'm always curious about equipment. Just thought it was interesting that an iron that's thought of as one of the quickest on the market wasn't any faster at the same loft than something that's considered one of the least forgiving modern blades (if you read into any MPF etc). 

OK, apologies if I started pointing fingers.  But to me it has always been clear.  The more you miss the more some of these designs can help retain ball speed.  Out of the middle nothing else matters.  Same for the "advancements" in fairway woods.  If you don't miss, something back to say the RBZs or X Hots aren't going to cost you much vs. today's offerings.  The more you are all over the face the better todays' stuff will be (relatively speaking).

[Titleist_PT23]

6 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’ve actually contemplated stamping the correct signal on my T100 set and adding the P to the vokey 50 degree wedge. 

Do it.  It would be better than most of the complaining we see around here.  If done and properly promoted, I actually think you have a good shot at the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

 

But, do you get around the course right now fine as is?  I mean maybe these clubs aren't as good for you but is the label really changing things?  As mentioned, I've played both strong and weak sets.  Neither better nor worse.  As long as the matching clubs go from around 25 - 50, that's all I care about.  But the worst argument is that there's some small, acceptable amount of jacking.  Like the 45, 46, or 47 "PW" is OK but beyond that is too much.

[revanant]

To me, the larger point is just that iron tech hasn't accomplished very much over decades. 
 

If the difference between my MP-4 6 iron and AP 1 7 iron is a quarter inch in length but the same general performance, then what gains did tech accomplish?

 

In this vid, shared by @TigerInTheWoods, at the same loft and length, the difference between the irons was essentially 300 RPM traded for 2 degrees of launch. 
 

 

Generally, I would probably prefer more spin to more initial launch, since irons are meant to hit a number and lower spin can lead to less predictable results. 

The problem of lower spinning irons comes to a head in a follow-up test, where the results weren't curated and Mark just did a head-to-head measurement of all shots. 
 

Long story short, the GI iron from 2020 was much less consistent on misses. It sent more flyers way out into the horizon while also having more shots carry woefully short in Mark's hands.  
 

Does this indict all cavity back irons? No.  But I think it does raise questions about the conventional wisdom that modern irons "require" strong lofts to counter the tungsten and tech built in, and that low spin is an inherently good thing. 
 

Personally, I'll take the most consistent,  sharpest descending, highest spinning iron I can find. Most modern irons in the GI/SGI/Player's Distance category are built on the opposite direction. So far, I'm still searching for that magical combination. 

(Mavrik dispersion is on the left, top flite is on the right)

Edited January 31, 2021 by revanant

[Tree Levino]

29 minutes ago, revanant said:

To me, the larger point is just that iron tech hasn't accomplished very much over decades. 
 

If the difference between my MP-4 6 iron and AP 1 7 iron is a quarter inch in length but the same general performance, then what gains did tech accomplish?

 

In this vid, shared by @TigerInTheWoods, at the same loft and length, the difference between the irons was essentially 300 RPM traded for 2 degrees of launch. 
 

 

Generally, I would probably prefer more spin to more initial launch, since irons are meant to hit a number and lower spin can lead to less predictable results. 

The problem of lower spinning irons comes to a head in a follow-up test, where the results weren't curated and Mark just did a head-to-head measurement of all shots. 
 

Long story short, the GI iron from 2020 was much less consistent on misses. It sent more flyers way out into the horizon while also having more shots carry woefully short in Mark's hands.  
 

Does this indict all cavity back irons? No.  But I think it does raise questions about the conventional wisdom that modern irons "require" strong lofts to counter the tungsten and tech built in, and that low spin is an inherently good thing. 
 

Personally, I'll take the most consistent,  sharpest descending, highest spinning iron I can find. Most modern irons in the GI/SGI/Player's Distance category are built on the opposite direction. So far, I'm still searching for that magical combination. 

(Mavrik dispersion is on the left, top flite is on the right)

 

I'm taking the Top Flite all day!

[Titleist_PT23]

8 hours ago, revanant said:

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by agolf1
.

[CokeZero]

Ok I'm suddenly working on something that involves this topic. In the game of golf in the 21st century as it has been in every other involves firing a ballistic into the air at great distance with precision. Now more than ever the most important component of precision is controlling the distance. Technology has taken care of a great deal of the side to side dispersion and the primary concern of the player is a shot which flies a specific distance and stops there. Even off the tee. In order to do this a great number of shots, but less than half need to fly high and far in the air with spin so they stop.

 

And this brings us to iron play which is completely different from tee play and wedge play. Iron play is, again now more than ever fairly repetitive without an abundance of variation. I think of a good iron player as a consistent one. And in the tools used I don't want to change things when they work. The distances have to stay the same. How is anyone supposed to hit shots the right distance when everything at least says it changes every year? 

 

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot I was the insane one and can't say hey these things have never made sense. Like how irons have always been numbered backwards. Think how different and basically nonexistent this entire thread would be and the concept of loft-jacking if that first guy to put numbers on instead had put the numbers the right way. I've always been interested who that first guy was.

[CokeZero]

Seriously I've been doing this weird but kinda cool game since 1980 and things are pretty good right now. It's totally different now but I'm kinda digging it. Can we leave it alone a while? It certainly isn't perfect but it's kinda in a nice place right now, even with Bryson.

[Tree Levino]

6 hours ago, CokeZero said:

Seriously I've been doing this weird but kinda cool game since 1980 and things are pretty good right now. It's totally different now but I'm kinda digging it. Can we leave it alone a while? It certainly isn't perfect but it's kinda in a nice place right now, even with Bryson.

 

I don't love Bryson by any means but I think he's creating a pretty cool shift. Rory has put on some bulk and speed (avg ball speed was up 5mph this week from his avg last season) and lots of guys testing longer drivers etc. Flat out if you hit it further you will score better. 

[pinestreetgolf]

Yeah, I think the real "disagreement" here is how important the number on the bottom is.

 

So, I guess dropping the combative tone and hoping to get the question answered by those who think the loft thing is an issue, I've got two clubs I could do with this tomorrow and jump on a trackman with both and post the results (more of a thought experiment, but I can actually do it if requested).

 

I cut my old, traditionally lofted j40 3 iron down to 38" (currently 39.5").  Its 21*.  I then swingweight it to its old swingweight, which wouldn't be too hard.

My Mavrik 5 iron is 38" with 21* of loft.

 

So both clubs are identical (38"/21*).  One says "3" on the bottom, and one says "5".

 

It baffles me that one of those has a "jacked loft" and one has a "true" loft.  They're identical.  Does anyone doubt these would play the same way?

 

This is why the bladhunter et al jacked loft debate/hate baffles me.  They are just shorter traditional irons.  Its a zero sum game.  Its like telling me your sick of 4/8 being written as 3/6.  Its math.  You can convert any loft into traditional or not by messing with the length and vice versa.

 

I don't like this topic because I can't tell you how many times I play an event or join a random group and get "hey, whoa, why are you playing those?" comments from people.  Its like people go in cycles from "cool, new Mavrik irons!" -> "the lofts are jacked!  lol, what idiots!" -> "no good player would ever use these, they use blades! -> "wtf are you doing with these bro?". 

 

It very rarely gets discussed that jacked lofts can allow people who want a very flexible, light (and tip flexible) shaft for health or other reasons (shoulder surgery) keep the ballflight down.  There are massive advantages to it besides conning the masses out of cash, and after about a week you see no playing differences between "jacked" (<- not really, because you can make it identical with length) and traditional iron specs.  But it allows you to hit a 7 iron that says 5 on the bottom for some reason with a shaft that really fits you and keeps the ball *down*.  If I put 65 gram high launching graphite into my old 48* PW it would go to the moon.  This gives my fitter another tool to fit my unique game and profile and situation.  Its just weird to me that people find that offensive.

Edited January 31, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[bladehunter]

16 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

Yeah, I think the real "disagreement" here is how important the number on the bottom is.

 

So, I guess dropping the combative tone and hoping to get the question answered by those who think the loft thing is an issue, I've got two clubs I could do with this tomorrow and jump on a trackman with both and post the results (more of a thought experiment, but I can actually do it if requested).

 

I cut my old, traditionally lofted j40 3 iron down to 38" (currently 39.5").  Its 21*.  I then swingweight it to its old swingweight, which wouldn't be too hard.

My Mavrik 5 iron is 38" with 21* of loft.

 

So both clubs are identical (38"/21*).  One says "3" on the bottom, and one says "5".

 

It baffles me that one of those has a "jacked loft" and one has a "true" loft.  They're identical.  Does anyone doubt these would play the same way?

 

This is why the bladhunter et al jacked loft debate/hate baffles me.  They are just shorter traditional irons.  Its a zero sum game.  Its like telling me your sick of 4/8 being written as 3/6.  Its math.  You can convert any loft into traditional or not by messing with the length and vice versa.

 

I don't like this topic because I can't tell you how many times I play an event or join a random group and get "hey, whoa, why are you playing those?" comments from people.  Its like people go in cycles from "cool, new Mavrik irons!" -> "the lofts are jacked!  lol, what idiots!" -> "no good player would ever use these, they use blades! -> "wtf are you doing with these bro?". 

 

It very rarely gets discussed that jacked lofts can allow people who want a very flexible, light (and tip flexible) shaft for health or other reasons (shoulder surgery) keep the ballflight down.  There are massive advantages to it besides conning the masses out of cash, and after about a week you see no playing differences between "jacked" (<- not really, because you can make it identical with length) and traditional iron specs.  But it allows you to hit a 7 iron that says 5 on the bottom for some reason with a shaft that really fits you and keeps the ball *down*.  If I put 65 gram high launching graphite into my old 48* PW it would go to the moon.  This gives my fitter another tool to fit my unique game and profile and situation.  Its just weird to me that people find that offensive.

I do appreciate the constructive tone first off. 
 

 

second. I’ve never made fun of anyone for what they play , I find the opposite was true in my beginner days.  But it wasn’t me and you , so no point hashing that out.  
 

I truly don’t get your analogy here.  I agree. The twin lofted clubs will play the same.  That’s my gripe. If your 5 is a 3.  Then you must have more on the bottom end to make them work. Yes ? Which is more cost. Plus the hallucination of your 5 iron going as far as the 3.   Cutting the 3 down an inch won’t make it fly that much less.  I’d guess 3 yards or so. If you achieved this with a 5 iron shaft to keep the shafts intended profile , I’d bet it flies same distance.    
 

in short. The gripe is the 5 on the 3 iron.  Remove it And add loft signal and nobody gripes.    

[NRJyzr]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I do appreciate the constructive tone first off. 
 

 

second. I’ve never made fun of anyone for what they play , I find the opposite was true in my beginner days.  But it wasn’t me and you , so no point hashing that out.  
 

I truly don’t get your analogy here.  I agree. The twin lofted clubs will play the same.  That’s my gripe. If your 5 is a 3.  Then you must have more on the bottom end to make them work. Yes ? Which is more cost. Plus the hallucination of your 5 iron going as far as the 3.   Cutting the 3 down an inch won’t make it fly that much less.  I’d guess 3 yards or so. If you achieved this with a 5 iron shaft to keep the shafts intended profile , I’d bet it flies same distance.    
 

in short. The gripe is the 5 on the 3 iron.  Remove it And add loft signal and nobody gripes.    

 

I'm thinking approximately the same thing.  The scenario Pine describes sounds good if the club number has meaning in the shot, but it really doesn't.  I hit my 39* club approximately 148-150 yards, and that's true regardless of whether it says "7" or "8" on the sole.  Change the length a bit and the results may change slightly if I change the club length, but that's true in all instances, not just switching from weaker lofts to stronger, or vice versa.

 

It doesn't make sense to me to think differently about two shots that are the same, because the number on the soles are different.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by NRJyzr

[chippa13]

Sets used to sell as 3-PW. Now they sell as 4-GW/AW. There is no difference in the number of clubs.

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, chippa13 said:

Sets used to sell as 3-PW. Now they sell as 4-GW/AW. There is no difference in the number of clubs.

 

Which do you buy?

[bnperrone]

15 hours ago, agolf1 said:

The more you miss the more some of these designs can help retain ball speed.  Out of the middle nothing else matters.

This could've been the first point made and it could've been a 1-response thread. OP had almost the same numbers because he was flushing both irons at the time. Period. 

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, bnperrone said:

This could've been the first point made and it could've been a 1-response thread. OP had almost the same numbers because he was flushing both irons at the time. Period. 

 

It's a separate discussion, one that's really about MOI.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by NRJyzr

[bladehunter]

Just now, bnperrone said:

This could've been the first point made and it could've been a 1-response thread. OP had almost the same numbers because he was flushing both irons at the time. Period. 

Right. So sell on forgiveness, not supposed distance gains. One is true. One is not. 

[chippa13]

Just now, NRJyzr said:

 

Which do you buy?

When I bought my previous set in 2003 it was 3-PW and then I found the matching SW to finish the set. The current set bought in 2014 was 4-AW and then I found the matching SW to complete that set. 

[Sean2]

I think "conventional wisdom" is a bit overrated, as well as being a bit of an oxymoron. 

[NRJyzr]

2 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

When I bought my previous set in 2003 it was 3-PW and then I found the matching SW to finish the set. The current set bought in 2014 was 4-AW and then I found the matching SW to complete that set. 

 

It hasn't always been that way, and there still some signs of it.  The increase in 3* loft gaps is something that I don't care for.

 

Using Ping as an example....  the S55 is one of the sets I don't think I could play at stock lofts, because of the number of clubs with 3* gaps.  They've stretched that out a bit more with the i200 and i210.

 

Essentially, why carry 10 clubs to cover a range of lofts where you could easily carry 9?

 

[pinestreetgolf]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

I do appreciate the constructive tone first off. 
 

 

second. I’ve never made fun of anyone for what they play , I find the opposite was true in my beginner days.  But it wasn’t me and you , so no point hashing that out.  
 

I truly don’t get your analogy here.  I agree. The twin lofted clubs will play the same.  That’s my gripe. If your 5 is a 3.  Then you must have more on the bottom end to make them work. Yes ? Which is more cost. Plus the hallucination of your 5 iron going as far as the 3.   Cutting the 3 down an inch won’t make it fly that much less.  I’d guess 3 yards or so. If you achieved this with a 5 iron shaft to keep the shafts intended profile , I’d bet it flies same distance.    
 

in short. The gripe is the 5 on the 3 iron.  Remove it And add loft signal and nobody gripes.    

no the point is that cutting an inch and a half off a tradition 3 iron literally makes it identical (21*\38”) to my jacked loft five. Exactly the same. Yet you guys would still call one traditional and one not, right? Even though both are 21/38?

 

So my question is if you have a traditional 3 iron and cut it down (so it’s identical to a “jacked” 5) is it no longer considered a traditional loft? Or is it a cut down traditional loft club?

 

the change in length on distance is irrelevant. I’m pointing out how there are TWO ways to make a jacked loft iron - decrease the loft OR cut the shaft. Yet nobody seems to have an issue with doing the second despite the fact that it has the same results. So if OEMs kept traditional numbers but just shortened the shafts and lightened the heads - they’d still be “jacked lofts”, right?

 

I don’t understand how the OP could discuss this without shaft length in the discussion.

[bnperrone]

59 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

The increase in 3* loft gaps is something that I don't care for.

That's not really a new thing. 845s went 18-21-24-27 in 2-5 irons in the 80s. My MP32s went 24-27-30 in 4-6 in early 2000s.

 

That said, I couldn't agree more with you. I cannot understand the need to jam the top of the bag like that. I'm at 4* gaps from PW to 22* 4-iron and I don't think I'd do anything else. I imagine some people like the help on the longer irons getting them in the air, but for me the consistency in loft gapping translates directly into more utility through the set.

 

FWIW when Terry Koehler revived the Hogan brand he did so with 4* gaps being promoted through the set and lofts instead of numbers on the bottom. He promoted consistency and logic instead of distance. He also went DTC to make it more affordable. Unfortunately it didn't take off and they had a BK and came out with private equity owners and traditional numbers on the bottom. There's a thousand reasons why it could've gone wrong so it isn't fair to pin it on any one thing, but it's solid evidence to show that the major companies are marketing for what sells.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, pinestreetgolf said:

This is why the bladhunter et al jacked loft debate/hate baffles me. 

 

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.

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

no the point is that cutting an inch and a half off a tradition 3 iron literally makes it identical (21*\38”) to my jacked loft five. Exactly the same. Yet you guys would still call one traditional and one not, right? Even though both are 21/38?

 

So my question is if you have a traditional 3 iron and cut it down (so it’s identical to a “jacked” 5) is it no longer considered a traditional loft? Or is it a cut down traditional loft club?

 

the change in length on distance is irrelevant. I’m pointing out how there are TWO ways to make a jacked loft iron - decrease the loft OR cut the shaft. Yet nobody seems to have an issue with doing the second despite the fact that it has the same results. So if OEMs kept traditional numbers but just shortened the shafts and lightened the heads - they’d still be “jacked lofts”, right?

 

I don’t understand how the OP could discuss this without shaft length in the discussion.

It’s a cut down traditional 3 iron.  Some short guys play it that way.

 

you can’t call that jacked loft. That’s just a fitted 3 iron. For a 5 ft 4 guy. Assuming he plays 1/2 inch stepped irons.  
 

Shaft length is a fitting tool. Not a determining factor in club name.  I’m 6 ft 3 with long legs.  My irons from 7-LW step 1/4 inch each.  So my. Pw is nearly same as 9 iron and so on. Why ? So I can reach the ball.  My long irons are standard. I don’t need a 42 inch 3 iron.   Does this cause gapping issues ?  Nope. It actually repairs them.  With a standard length set I hit 7 iron down very short distances, because of poor contact etc. 

 

so no. Shortening the shaft wouldn’t cause me to gripe about the mislabeled clubs. It’s the mislabeling that causes that. I’m very much a fan of the one length idea. Since I essentially play that from lob wedge to 7 iron.  

[bnperrone]

13 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

I don’t understand how the OP could discuss this without shaft length in the discussion.

I see two reasons. First, he stated that both clubs were within 1/4" in length, which is pretty darn close. Second, there isn't that much range in what OEMs are offering in terms of standard lengths. 38" 5-iron is basically the bulk of what's out there, PXG is probably the longest with their 0211 5-iron being 38 3/4" at 21* loft. However, their ST 5-iron is 38 1/4" at 26* loft. Shortest standard offering was probably Mizuno's MP-18 with 37 3/4" 5-iron length.

 

It's just not what OEM's are doing with the bulk of their offerings. OP wasn't talking about the full range of what is possible in ordering clubs very long or very short with dramatic manipulation to stock head weights, lie angles, etc. He was talking about common offerings in the marketplace.

[NRJyzr]

17 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

That's not really a new thing. 845s went 18-21-24-27 in 2-5 irons in the 80s. My MP32s went 24-27-30 in 4-6 in early 2000s.

 

That said, I couldn't agree more with you. I cannot understand the need to jam the top of the bag like that. I'm at 4* gaps from PW to 22* 4-iron and I don't think I'd do anything else.

 

Those sort of lofts *were* born of loft creep, but it's funny that it's not in the 80s, but in the early 70s or late 60s when lofts were moved forward from the 52* PW while keeping the 2 iron at 20* (or 21*). 

 

I suppose it's more accurate to say it started in the 40s or 50s, when the 1 iron moved away from being the 20* club to the 18* or 17* club, and everything moved forward a club, with the "pitching iron" created in that 53*/52* loft.  Personally, I find it less interesting when it's just one club gap at the top, that most folks don't use, than when it's three or more gaps at the top of the set.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by NRJyzr

[bnperrone]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Those sort of lofts were born of loft creep, but it's funny that it's not in the 80s, but in the early 70s or late 60s when lofts were moved forward from the 52* PW while keeping the 2 iron at 20* (or 21*). 

 

I suppose it's more accurate to say it started in the 40s or 50s, when the 1 iron moved away from being the 20* club to the 18* or 17* club, and everything moved forward a club, with the "pitching iron" created in that 53*/52* loft.  Personally, I find it less interesting when it's just one club gap at the top, that most folks don't use, than when it's three or more gaps at the top of the set.

 

Fair point. We're saying the same thing with different scope of the topic. And yes, the loft creeping stronger in the short-mid irons did certainly contribute to squeezing lofts at the top, because otherwise people would've revolted against long irons with too little loft to get in the air. You're absolutely right on that. I'm viewing this more through the lens of what I'd consider a modern equipment era. To me that starts with the advent of cavity-backs as a mainstream option, which is why I chose the 845. That also happens to be my first set of "full-size irons" having been handed down from my dad to my brother then to me. Since I'm not much of a historian I stick to what I've experienced. If we were talking about driver tech I wouldn't really be looking farther back than when titanium started.

 

Incidentally, my uncle-in-law played competitively and must not have ever sold a single club he ever owned, so he's got a pretty substantial room full of sticks. One winter we were visiting them and he and I decided to grab some old sticks and hit their range. It is wild to pick up some of those old blade 1-irons and 2-irons and wood woods and everything. I've never seen a bigger duck hook than my first swing with one of those wood drivers. The equipment really drives how you have to swing it. It was neat but it's also why I put all that stuff into a totally different category.

[pinestreetgolf]

40 minutes ago, 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.

my question is (was?) this - would you be fine if the clubs were identical to now (the jacked lofts clubs) but the correct number for the loft was on the bottom they just cut the shaft down and lightened the head. In other words a 3 iron was still the 21* club, it was just an inch and a half shorter with a much lighter shaft and head but it said “3” on it or would you be griping about shaft length creep or weight creep?

 

nobody is just jacking lofts. There are a ton of other changes irons have undergone (my grips are 48g and my shafts are 65g - my swing speed went up about 2.5 mph over x100s with 60g grips - is that “real” speed?)

Edited January 31, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

my question is (was?) this - would you be fine if the clubs were identical to now (the jacked lofts clubs) but the correct number for the loft was on the bottom they just cut the shaft down and lightened the head. In other words a 3 iron was still the 21* club, it was just an inch and a half shorter with a much lighter shaft and head but it said “3” on it or would you be griping about shaft length creep or weight creep?

Right.  I think the answer is no.  Loft plays way more factor than shaft length in distance. Which is why’s single length 3 iron doesn’t need to be 10 degrees to fly the correct length with a 6-7 iron shaft length.