Try to tell me it’s not ego

[nsxguy]

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?

 

I initially answered about the "jacked loft debate".

 

Now a different question.

 

Let me put it this way.

 

If a choice is required between loft or club# on the bottom I'd chose loft.

 

If a choice of loft AND club # on the bottom, that'd be fine too. So I guess my answer is "Yes".

 

The problem is however, that with rare exceptions, the clubmakers are ONLY putting club # on the bottom.

 

Hope this answers your question.

[bnperrone]

5 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

(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?)

Sounds like X100s were a terrible fit for you and were holding you back. Did a professional, reputable fitter put you into the X100s?

 

Regardless, dramatically lower total weight is not a silver bullet. Maybe it was for you, but it's hardly a universal thing.

[FatThinShank]

55 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.

I think everyone understands that cutting it short accomplishes that, what I don’t understand is what that has to do with the topic? The point is that OEMs are selling a set of irons with a 27° 7 iron almost entirely because people who don’t know will think their 7 iron goes farther now. The conversation is comparing stock set to stock set, not some heavily altered club just to prove a point. 
 

if it works for you because of the lighter shafts and launch and whatnot then great, I don’t think anyone is arguing that. If that’s what’s best for you, it sounds like a perfect match then. 

[NRJyzr]

20 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

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

 

Unrelated.  It's a fitting thing.  Nothing to do with the OP's point.

 

[bladehunter]

Yes. Lighter is real speed - if - dispersion doesn’t suffer.  It’s a dance.  They don’t give out trophy’s for speed. 

[pinestreetgolf]

1 hour ago, bnperrone said:

Sounds like X100s were a terrible fit for you and were holding you back. Did a professional, reputable fitter put you into the X100s?

 

Regardless, dramatically lower total weight is not a silver bullet. Maybe it was for you, but it's hardly a universal thing.

No but I played them for a long time. I was in a car accident that injured my shoulder and had surgery. The x100 “feedback” (not sure of correct term) caused soreness with a full weekend of golf.

 

I don’t think it’ll work for everyone. But I don’t know why dropping loft is fake and dropping weight is real. But I suppose we can agree to disagree. To me, everything about a club - including loft - is just a tool to find the right club for a particular player. I don’t support con artists. But I definitely support dropping loft in certain places to get optimal gapping for a given golfer and see absolutely nothing wrong with OEMs offering a large range of loft lineup choices.

 

as an example I think turbulators (TM) are way stupider than jacked lofts but I have a G400 because I kill it. There are way worse offenders in the golf world than jacked lofts as far as tricking the consumer.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[kiwihacker]

I play irons that are now considered 'traditional' lofts even though my 4-GW was considered the old 3-PW when I first started playing in the mid 2000's. So ignoring the number stamped on the bottom I play the following lofts:

 

24/27/31/35/39/43/47/51

 

So 3° loft increments in the long irons and 4° increments in the rest of the set. 

 

Now if I'm buying a modern set of irons I shouldn't care what's stamped on the bottom right? They're all just the same with a different loft stamped on the bottom of the club? Right? Wrong! The 50° gap wedge and 54-56° sand wedge seem to be sacrosanct mainly because a sand wedge needs to be 54-56° to do it's job. No amount of 'tech' can make up for that. But because the longer irons are jacked one to two clubs stronger they suddenly need to increase the loft increments by five or 6 degrees in the scoring clubs to get from the jacked long/mid irons to the 50+° wedges.

 

Here are my 'traditional' lofted irons compared with a couple of contemporary sets. I'm comparing 24° to 51° ignoring the number stamped on the bottom of the club. The 3rd set doesn't even have a 51° club jumping straight from 48° to 54°. Wasn't the 48° PW and the 56° SW the reason they invented the original 52° GW? Lol.

 

24/24/24

27/27/27.5

31/31.5/32

35/36/37

39/41/42.5

43/46/48

47/51/54

51/-/-

[Drivingrangehero]

4 hours ago, pinestreetgolf said:

 

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. 

Some of what you say I have seen, but I think that if you put the lighter shaft into a traditional lofted head, there wouldn’t be much difference loft for loft. I’ll give an example from my own personal experience.
 

I had MP-67s with DGX100 shafts and had a prolonged hiatus due to back injury, arthritis and young kids. I opted to get something lighter, more forgiving, and easier on my body, so I was fit for new clubs (ended up in a HMB)   When I was being fit, the shaft optimizer put me in heavy shafts (I had no interest in heavy.) 

1. KBS C-Taper130X

2. KBS $-Taper 130x

3. DG X100........ etc! 
 

HMB’s with the C-Taper wouldnt work for me because I feel like they were too much effort, although I did like them, I ended up in a Modus 105s with the Mizuno MP-20 HMB’s at D5 swingweight.

 

I see 18.5* launch and I see 68-6900 rpm’s in the HMB 7 iron at 127mph ball speed. If I were to just swap shafts in my MP-67’s the difference would be almost non existent loft for loft I would assume.

 

 I have no way of proving this since I did not do it, but if I put the Modus 105s in my MP-67s,  I ASSUME my spin with a 6 iron would have been around 6900 rpm . I’m assuming this based off me hitting my MP 67’s with DG X100’s and hitting a HMB 7 iron with X100. The HMB 7 iron with the X100 spun around 65-6600 rpm. That is identical to my MP 67 6 iron. So it’s an assumption that isn’t just out of thin air. 

 

The big unknown for me would be that I can NOT attest to the advantage gained or lost from head to head, which may be substantiated if I still had the 67’s still, but I sold them on BST. 
 

I am happy with the HMB’s, but I feel like if I just reshafted the 67’s it would be a lateral move if I am in in peak ball striking form. 

 

I think the title of the thread is unfortunate, but the discussion has its merits. To me it doesn’t matter at all on “jacked vs Traditional” lofts. They both are arbitrary numbers used to aid in remembering what club to pull for said distance you carry it. The only number of significance is the degree of loft. I think that cutting your 3iron down to 5iron length then adjusting the lie angle, adding weight to the head to increase the MOI, it will be a short 3 iron ........................................... until you grind off the 3 and stamp 5 on it, then it will be a 5 iron 😆 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Drivingrangehero
Typo

[bnperrone]

3 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

But I don’t know why dropping loft is fake and dropping weight is real.

 

 

Weight (component weight, total weight, swingweight, MOI) is player-specific in the fitment category for equipment. Loft is a function of physics. Apples and oranges.

 

You gained all that speed because the X100s were not a good fit for you. Maybe they were before your accident, but they aren't now. If you had gone to that super light setup prior to that accident it might've been a total disaster. Your condition changed, so you cannot compare a post-injury solution to your pre-injury baseline. Some people's swing will lose speed if they go too light, and that's before you even get into dispersion, which itself is more important than speed anyway. If you found the balance that is great, but none of this supports any of your statements about loft creep in the industry and the unassailable truth that what used to be a 6-iron is now a 7-iron, etc.

 

Plus, you repeatedly posted about cutting down an iron and also lightening the head, as if that is the process to make it comparable to the starting point. Elsewhere you talk about flattening lie angles when cutting down clubs. You don't seem to realize that shortening the club would require additional headweight and a more upright lie angle to balance the reduction in length. Lightening the shaft would lower the swingweight further. Try it if you want. Take a stock 3-iron from any major OEM. Cut an inch off of it. That's ~6 SW points, generally speaking. To make it like your "5-iron" example you now need to take 14 grams of weight out of the head, 7 grams for each theoretical club difference. Wait until you see what happens to that SW value. Now bend it 1* flat (half a degree for each theoretical club difference on OEM's 1/2" gapping) and see just how the toe now sticks in the ground. But you're gonna balance it all out by going with a much lighter shaft? Sorry, but that also lightens SW. You're stating that you've turned the 3-iron into a 5-iron but really you've ruined it. SW will be unrecognizably different, the shaft will play outrageously stiffer than it started, and the lie angle is way off. I'm no clubmaker, but all that is fairly basic stuff. Your examples make people think you really don't know what you're talking about while you're going off on a tangent that isn't really related to the issue at hand anyway.

[revanant]

The issue with "jacked lifts" is really a question of whether the claimed benefits of iron tech are doing what they say on the tin. 
 

If, when adjusted for loft and length, two very different heads put up indistinguishable numbers, it pokes at the idea that advances in iron tech justify spending money to replace older iron sets. Even worse if the newer iron proves less consistent across good vs bad strikes. 
 

The Mavrik heads had a particularly bad showing in Mark Crossfield's hands. They may still fit @pinestreetgolf very well. But that bad showing complicates the idea that the advances in iron tech showcased by the Mavrik are a real improvement for all golfers. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by revanant

[bnperrone]

34 minutes ago, Drivingrangehero said:

When I was being fit, the shaft optimizer put me in heavy shafts (I had no interest in heavy.) 

1. KBS C-Taper130X

2. KBS $-Taper 130x

3. DG X100........ etc! 

Same happened for me. Those shafts came up at the top of the list for me but they are wrong for my swing. I think their newest algorithm overstates the relationship between speed and ideal weight. Maybe conspiracy-minded, but I think their results also filter heavily to their stock offerings. By comparison, I was fitted into C-Taper Lite X in a traditional fitting performed by a Top-100 clubfitter who has known me for probably a decade and done other clubs for me. None of the results from the optimizer were even close. It's shame really, because it used to be spot-on.

Edited January 31, 2021 by bnperrone
clarity

[Fairways_and_Greens]

I'll take "things that don't matter for 800 Alex"

[CokeZero]

13 hours ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

 

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. 

This is not the point. If you're a baseball player and work out and train and learn to hit the ball further you become a better baseball player. If you just get a hotter ball it means you're exactly the same and the game itself is being distorted. 

 

I'm not disputing that time goes on and things change, that's a given. Technically speaking the specs are in a nice place right now, the best place its been probably since the 70s and I really don't want the ball rolled back. It'll take another ten years for it to work this well, it took 15 years to get this spec to work right at these distances. I went through it once and that's enough. Just make the drivers smaller and put in heavier shafts for us like over 90g. I'd love to go back to something like the 975 series, and leave everything else alone. 

[pinestreetgolf]

16 hours ago, bnperrone said:

 

 

Weight (component weight, total weight, swingweight, MOI) is player-specific in the fitment category for equipment. Loft is a function of physics. Apples and oranges.

 

You gained all that speed because the X100s were not a good fit for you. Maybe they were before your accident, but they aren't now. If you had gone to that super light setup prior to that accident it might've been a total disaster. Your condition changed, so you cannot compare a post-injury solution to your pre-injury baseline. Some people's swing will lose speed if they go too light, and that's before you even get into dispersion, which itself is more important than speed anyway. If you found the balance that is great, but none of this supports any of your statements about loft creep in the industry and the unassailable truth that what used to be a 6-iron is now a 7-iron, etc.

 

Plus, you repeatedly posted about cutting down an iron and also lightening the head, as if that is the process to make it comparable to the starting point. Elsewhere you talk about flattening lie angles when cutting down clubs. You don't seem to realize that shortening the club would require additional headweight and a more upright lie angle to balance the reduction in length. Lightening the shaft would lower the swingweight further. Try it if you want. Take a stock 3-iron from any major OEM. Cut an inch off of it. That's ~6 SW points, generally speaking. To make it like your "5-iron" example you now need to take 14 grams of weight out of the head, 7 grams for each theoretical club difference. Wait until you see what happens to that SW value. Now bend it 1* flat (half a degree for each theoretical club difference on OEM's 1/2" gapping) and see just how the toe now sticks in the ground. But you're gonna balance it all out by going with a much lighter shaft? Sorry, but that also lightens SW. You're stating that you've turned the 3-iron into a 5-iron but really you've ruined it. SW will be unrecognizably different, the shaft will play outrageously stiffer than it started, and the lie angle is way off. I'm no clubmaker, but all that is fairly basic stuff. Your examples make people think you really don't know what you're talking about while you're going off on a tangent that isn't really related to the issue at hand anyway.

 

*whoosh*

 

The issue isn't technically how to do it.  Its that clubs don't have jacked lofts.  Shaft lengths do.  You change the shaft length and all of a sudden I've got a traditional three iron.  You cut it down and I've got a marketing gimmick.

 

Its still 38" long and 21* whether its got a traditional loft and a "short" shaft or jacked loft and standard length.  It seems silly to me to care that someone buys a "5" instead of a "3" cut down and adjusted (how you adjust it doesn't matter) when they are literally the same thing (a 38" long iron with 21* of loft.  Put a 3 on it and its a traditional loft for a player who uses physically shorter irons.  Put a 5 on it and its a jacked loft.  Its the same club.  One just has a 3 and one a 5.  Discussions (or experiments) of loft without shaft length are inane.

 

Standard 38" shaft, 5 stamped on bottom, 21* = horrible and deceptive

-1.5" length 38" shaft, 3 stamped on bottom, 21* = traditional lofts

 

Its the same g*ddamn club! 21/38. To me, being "enraged" at the former and fine with the latter doesn't make much sense.

 

A discussion of loft without a discussion (or, maybe better said given the OP, a presentation of experimental results) of length is pointless.  If those two "identical" six irons in the OP and one is .5" shorter than that club *will be* easier to hit for almost any golfer who isn't a +1.

 

I like the new irons better for a lot of reasons but one of the main ones is that my 165 club is now 36.5" long instead of 37.5" long.  It has an "8" on the bottom instead of a "6" and its close to the same loft, *but the shaft is an inch shorter and that makes it 10x easier to hit* and therefore makes me MUCH better because I'm typically holding a shorter shaft in my hand.  That part of jacking the loft (the only benefit, really) is being completely ignored here and the data omitted from the OP.  Instead, we're told we're all about ego.  I'm about low scores due to shorter shafts.  If that means jacking the loft, as long as I can still spin it enough, I'm all for it.

Edited February 1, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[bnperrone]

16 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

I like the new irons better for a lot of reasons but one of the main ones is that my 165 club is now 36.5" long instead of 37.5" long.  It has an "8" on the bottom instead of a "6" and its close to the same loft, *but the shaft is an inch shorter and that makes it 10x easier to hit* and therefore makes me MUCH better because I'm typically holding a shorter shaft in my hand.  That part of jacking the loft (the only benefit, really) is being completely ignored here and the data omitted from the OP.

It's great that you've managed to find a playing length that gives you center contact more often. That's one big part of why some people play clubs longer than standard and others play at standard and yet others play clubs long. It's always to get more consistent center contact. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you fit into 1" short clubs vs industry norms but you found the one set that comes like that stock. What you seem to gleefully reject from the OP's initial post is that he addressed the length difference between the clubs he compared and it was negligible. The fact that those two clubs played virtually the same for him with the same loft and negligible length difference despite one being GI and the other being blade demonstrates the fact that he was finding the center with both. With center contact the concept of forgiveness is moot. Your own personal example, yet again, really just tells you what works for you, but the discussion is more about overall industry trends. The overall industry trend has not been making clubs longer and longer and longer with the same number on them. If Titleist is an important enough OEM for a conversation about industry trends, look at the chart of their T-series. What are they modifying to give their GI clubs more distance? If you had bought T400s your 36.5" club would not have 29* and it would be your 170 club. Would you have "picked up" distance switching to that set? No. 

 

[pinestreetgolf]

17 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

It's great that you've managed to find a playing length that gives you center contact more often. That's one big part of why some people play clubs longer than standard and others play at standard and yet others play clubs long. It's always to get more consistent center contact. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you fit into 1" short clubs vs industry norms but you found the one set that comes like that stock. What you seem to gleefully reject from the OP's initial post is that he addressed the length difference between the clubs he compared and it was negligible. The fact that those two clubs played virtually the same for him with the same loft and negligible length difference despite one being GI and the other being blade demonstrates the fact that he was finding the center with both. With center contact the concept of forgiveness is moot. Your own personal example, yet again, really just tells you what works for you, but the discussion is more about overall industry trends. The overall industry trend has not been making clubs longer and longer and longer with the same number on them. If Titleist is an important enough OEM for a conversation about industry trends, look at the chart of their T-series. What are they modifying to give their GI clubs more distance? If you had bought T400s your 36.5" club would not have 29* and it would be your 170 club. Would you have "picked up" distance switching to that set? No. 

 

 

Everything you say is true in this post, and I completely agree with it.  I think the data could have been presented better in the beginning and the topic not as inflamatory or insulting, but he's addressed that as well.

 

That said, I don't see why jacked lofts arn't just another tool (like length, weight, etc...) in the toolbox to get a better game.  As you say, I work well with shorter shaft to loft ratios.  You could call that cut-down shafts.  You could also call it lower lofts.  Its two sides of the same coin.  *That* is the part that puzzles me - why loft is treated as something other than just another fitting tool?  Who cares if its a cut down three iron or a normal five iron?  Getting it all right for a particular player is what matters.  It has nothing at all to do with ego, and this WRX stigma for jacked lofts is ridiculous.

Edited February 1, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[Drivingrangehero]

In the Paul Casey WITB it said he had  Mizuno jPX 921 HMP 3+4 iron...... I only see that a 4 iron is made and that a 3 iron is not. Is that a custom make for him then, mislabeled, or are they calling them a 3+4 due to loft and they are occupying that spot in his bag, even though they (ought to be anyways) labeled 4+5 irons? 
 

if Paul had the 4+5 custom stamped to say 3+4, are they now 3+4 irons, or are they really still 4+5 irons with a custom stamp 🤔🧐🤨😝 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Drivingrangehero
Auto correct

[Bye]

24 minutes ago, Drivingrangehero said:

In the Paul Casey WITB it said he had  Mizuno jPX 921 HMP 3+4 iron...... I only see that a 4 iron is made and that a 3 iron is not. Is that a custom make for him then, mislabeled, or are they calling them a 3+4 due to loft and they are occupying that spot in his bag, even though they (ought to be anyways) labeled 4+5 irons? 
 

if Paul had the 4+5 custom stamped to say 3+4, are they now 3+4 irons, or are they really still 4+5 irons with a custom stamp 🤔🧐🤨😝 

 

 

Probably re stamped so he doesn’t have two 5 irons in the bag, like Adam Scott use to. It’s a much better look.

[Drivingrangehero]

14 minutes ago, Bye said:

Probably re stamped so he doesn’t have two 5 irons in the bag, like Adam Scott use to. It’s a much better look.

So what your saying is, he had them place numbers on the bottom  of the club to fit his gapping goals and not confuse him 🤔 

wouldn’t want his caddie to pull the wrong 5 iron...... again 😉 

 

if he were to gap from the top down 4-5-6 would that really change anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Drivingrangehero
Added info

[Bye]

4 minutes ago, Drivingrangehero said:

So what your saying is, he had them place numbers on the bottom  of the club to fit his gapping goals and not confuse him 🤔 

wouldn’t want his caddie to pull the wrong 5 iron...... again 😉 

 

if he were to gap from the top down 4-5-6 would that really change anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

No, just because it looks better than having two irons in the bag with the same number on.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

20 hours ago, bladehunter said:

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.  

I don’t know why this is so hard. I Am NOT saying it goes further because of shaft length. Let me say that again. I am NOT claiming the shaft length makes the 3 iron go farther.

 

what I AM saying is that lofts are jacked or not based on how long the shaft is, not the numeral on the bottom (read the Casey example).

 

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!

[kiwihacker]

6 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

I don’t know why this is so hard. I Am NOT saying it goes further because of shaft length. Let me say that again. I am NOT claiming the shaft length makes the 3 iron go farther.

 

what I AM saying is that lofts are jacked or not based on how long the shaft is, not the numeral on the bottom (read the Casey example).

 

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!

So how is the user of the respective clubs gaining distance by using a 'distance iron'? Why not just use the 3 iron instead of relabelling it a 5 iron. 

[NRJyzr]

42 minutes ago, pinestreetgolf said:

I don’t know why this is so hard. I Am NOT saying it goes further because of shaft length. Let me say that again. I am NOT claiming the shaft length makes the 3 iron go farther.

 

what I AM saying is that lofts are jacked or not based on how long the shaft is, not the numeral on the bottom (read the Casey example).

 

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!

 

I mean no offense, but the one making it difficult is you.  You're tying lofts to club length, they're not related.  Club length is a fitting parameter.

 

Even if you did tie them together, which do you go with?  There's no standard among the various companies.  There's even little within a single company; Ping uses 37.75" for some 5 irons, 38" for others, and even 38.25" shows up as standard.  

 

It gets weirder when you go back not all that far in the past.  Wasn't that long ago that Mizuno and TM still used 37.5" for their 5 iron std length. 

 

It gets even more interesting when you look at the 50s, when a 5 iron was 37" long, with a loft of 33*.  😉

 

[bnperrone]

51 minutes 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!

Where in the marketplace are you finding a stock offering of a 3-iron at 21* of loft and 38" length? Outside of a one-length setup. Also note that in the Mavrik line, the lofts are at 5* gaps from SW-GW-PW-9, then 4.5* gaps from 9-8-7 then 3* gaps from 7-6-5-4. You'll also see that the lengths stay very close in 9-SW despite the widest loft range. They're basically trying to promote a semblance of the one-length concept without freaking people out. It's all driven around a super-strong 7,8, and 9-iron and they're manipulating the rest of the set to work around it. Look at the 4-iron. It's not above typical standard length AND lower lofted. It doesn't retain the same loft/length ratio of what you're describing. For what you describe as your own preferences in shorter loft and confidence, that concept breaks down at the 6-iron and above. 

 

Again, if this works for you then great, but it's a very unique setup and many golfers would struggle because they would have gaps that are too large from 9-iron down and if they bought the 4-iron they'd hit their 4, 5, 6, and 7 irons too close to one another in distance.  

Edited February 1, 2021 by bnperrone
forgot chart

[Drivingrangehero]

If Paul Casey were to gap from the top instead of changing the 4-5 to say 3-4 let’s say he goes the other way, he stamps his traditional 5 iron to say 6-7–8-9-PW-AW-GW-SW-LW.  
 

what difference would it make? 
 

 Let’s take Tiger woods as an example. At one point in his career he had his traditional lofted irons bent 2-3 degrees weak. For argument sake say he hit his traditional lofted 9 iron 150 yards, but since he bent the 9 weak, he had to label it a PW in order to fit the “new industry standard lofting tolerance guidelines” (it’s a hypothetical, indulge please) would he be hitting a wedge, 150yards or a 9 iron? 
 

I get there is deceptive tactics used to fool the uninformed, but the number on the bottom has always been arbitrary. It’s just been placed there to aid the golfer in gapping. It’s never been a  universal standard, even among individual manufacturers, if that were the case, it would be tied to degrees of loft, it isn’t and never has been. We say driver strong 3 3,4,5, heavenwood ....etc, but the norm was Play club, Brassie, Cleek, Spoon, so for the purist why change culture? What is acceptable and what is over the line? 
 

So what makes a 3 iron a 3 iron and a 5 iron a 5 iron........... the Stamp on the bottom. If it says 5, than it’s a 5 IN THAT SET.  If you want to stamp your irons ¥-£-€-$-<— then that is what you’d hit. “What did you hit there?” Oh, I hit my & iron, I was between that and my € iron, but went with the &” 😝 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Drivingrangehero
Added info

[Drivingrangehero]

31 minutes ago, NotThatGuyorAmI? said:

 

 

Clubs are now made for the lowest common denominator: the slow, scoopy, fat hitter.  They may help marginally, and sometimes slow, scoopy, fat hitters can remain relatively happy slow, scoopy, fat hitters who now hit their 5 irons as far as good hitters used to.  Good hitters with the right shafts may get decent gaps.

I think the intent was a marketing pitch to sell clubs as longer than the past set, but I mentioned past culture for a reason when the norms were Mashie, Niblick, Spoon etc......

 

How long will the “jacked loft” remain? 
will the “modern loft” or “Jacked loft” become a replacement of the traditional loft? 
 

To quote Bob Marley “You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all the time, so now YOU see the light” 

In time, we will all see the light! 

They can’t keep this trend up forever. If every manufacturer “loft jacks” then it will become the new standard, and the traditional lofts may be re-hashed as “retro lofts” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  The number really was just an aid to begin with. Now, I would argue that culture and tradition matter. Who will determine that? The manufacturers? The consumers? It would be nice to see a standard across manufacturers. It could only make it easier for the consumer to make informed decisions, but as for now, the manufacturers marketing division hasn’t any interest in that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, NotThatGuyorAmI? said:

The kicker is vertical center of gravity, which is where the real action is.  90 % of golfers hit the ground day first, and 90 % add loft.  So most people do both.  Somebody with a fast swing who adds loft with shaft bend playing a short club at traditional lofts with a very low/rearward COG will hit the ball straight up if he hits it high in the face, so they have to be delofted.

 

Yes, it -is- the kicker, but it's even more interesting....

 

CG's have not been moved lower and farther back as claimed by our OEMs.  There are a great many designs in the 80s or 90s that have very low CGs, that are also at least as far back as claimed of current product, yet weren't made with the strong lofts we see today.

 

Even the 50s MacGregor Winged MT irons had a pretty low CG, and they had a 51* or 52* PW.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

3 hours ago, bnperrone said:

Where in the marketplace are you finding a stock offering of a 3-iron at 21* of loft and 38" length?

 

 

 

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.

Edited February 1, 2021 by pinestreetgolf

[bladehunter]

5 hours ago, pinestreetgolf said:

I don’t know why this is so hard. I Am NOT saying it goes further because of shaft length. Let me say that again. I am NOT claiming the shaft length makes the 3 iron go farther.

 

what I AM saying is that lofts are jacked or not based on how long the shaft is, not the numeral on the bottom (read the Casey example).

 

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!

No.  It’s not. It has the wrong name stamped on it.   Shaft length is not the deciding factor. It plays only a small part. Loft is the key.  

[bladehunter]

33 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.

You could easily order a 21 degree 3 iron an inch short .   With any shaft you want. And  have a good fit.     Needing a 5 on It instead of a 3 is the crazy talk. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by bladehunter