OEM's are a big joke. How long before we have a 39 PW?

[JasonPetermann]

Get off my lawn!!!

[chippa13]

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-segment---grumpy-old-man/n9887

[Hack Daddy]

2 hours ago, Davidv said:

Is that right wow thanks for all that great detail. Obviously you missed the point of the response.

 

lol

[Mike_Honcho]

this is what the usga and r&a should be railing against

[Hack Daddy]

2 hours ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

Sorry, but then you really haven't been out much or play with very physically weak players.  That is a pretty bad blanket statement.

 

I can't even

[setter02]

2 minutes ago, Hack Daddy said:

 

I can't even

 

We know you can't...  You've obviously never played with hockey or baseball players that can generate a ton of speed while not being able to break 120.

[Hack Daddy]

6 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

We know you can't...  You've obviously never played with hockey or baseball players that can generate a ton of speed while not being able to break 120.

 

More than you know. The fact of the matter is, a previous hockey or baseball player that can hit a jacked 7i 2 racks is an outlier. I'll spare you an into to stats lesson; but there's no debating for every one of your distance queens, there are hundreds of hacks w the same sticks. 

 

You attempted to say I made a blanket statement and generalization. When in fact, you just swooped in and took first place. 

[setter02]

4 minutes ago, Hack Daddy said:

 

More than you know. The fact of the matter is, a previous hockey or baseball player that can hit a jacked 7i 2 racks is an outlier. I'll spare you an into to stats lesson; but there's no debating for every one of your distance queens, there are hundreds of hacks w the same sticks. 

 

You attempted to say I made a blanket statement and generalization. When in fact, you just swooped in and took first place. 

 

Not really...  I'm also assuming that you don't live in an area where there is a ton of hockey played.  

 

A jacked 7i is just a 5i.  Most who have played at even a decent level can generate 90+ chs with an iron without much effort.  

 

Not sure why you would discount an outlier when this entire forum is a massive outlier compared to the reality of the golfing world...   You seem to be out of your league here...

Edited February 2, 2021 by setter02

[Hack Daddy]

2 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

Not really...  I'm also assuming that you don't live in an area where there is a ton of hockey played.  

 

A jacked 7i is just a 5i.  Most who have played at even a decent level can generate 90+ chs with an iron without much effort.  

 

Not sure why you would discount an outlier when this entire forum is a massive outlier compared to the reality of the golfing world...   You seem to be out of your league here...

 

😎

[NoTalentLefty]

38 degree PW for an older player ? No problem. 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, MattM97 said:

 

Cause there are several different kinds of golfers. These clubs are meant for that really new person to the game who wants to play but may not want lessons right now. The older guy who retired and thinking of picking it up with the game. The grandparent who maybe wants to play with their kids or grandkids. The person with the physical disability or senior that doesn't have the strength or physical ability to get a ball up in the air with tradition loft.

 

I fully believe these people and many others deserve to play and enjoy the game like we do. So why should we hand them something that makes the game harder just cause everyone else is using it? They're not going pro, they're probably playing a local 9 hole at most but if they're enjoying it that's all that should matter. 

 

That's what these clubs are for, it's to get more people into the game, this is a game for everyone to play. Say the newbie starts off with a jacked set of irons gets better, gets a traditional set of irons and gives these to a friend, sibling or cousin that's another person in this game and the cycle continues. 

Doesn’t bother me one bit that beginners equipment exists. I applaud it. The issue is they aren’t marketing it as that. It’s marketed As “ more speed “ and “ more distance “.    It’s getting to where you can’t buy anything but distance off the rack. I fear of a day soon when anything non distance will be no longer made or special order only.  
 

And really all for nothing but $.  I don’t subscribe to the idea that people wouldn’t get hooked on this game without distance irons.  I have a 12 year old who learned the game with a ping anser and a 5 club set of mizuno mp33 in graphite.  And I never once made him play.  
 

 

[Bad9]

3 hours ago, Krt22 said:

 

 

Why in the world would you want to play standard lofts in big game improvement irons? With their larger sole and low CG, they are designed to launch the ball higher.

 

As has been pointed out numerous times in these threads(including by me in the other current thread on this topic) what you state just isn't true. CG's haven't gotten lower with decreased lofts, manufacturers just say they have.

[Sean2]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Doesn’t bother me one bit that beginners equipment exists. I applaud it. The issue is they aren’t marketing it as that. It’s marketed As “ more speed “ and “ more distance “.    It’s getting to where you can’t buy anything but distance off the rack. I fear of a day soon when anything non distance will be no longer made or special order only.  
 

And really all for nothing but $.  I don’t subscribe to the idea that people wouldn’t get hooked on this game without distance irons.  I have a 12 year old who learned the game with a ping anser and a 5 club set of mizuno mp33 in graphite.  And I never once made him play.  
 

 

Everything is distance, which is kinda funny as the USGA and R&A want to dial distance back. I can see the OEM ad now: "Guaranteed to knock 10% off your distance!"

[CasualLie]

1 hour ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

Not sure why you would discount an outlier when this entire forum is a massive outlier compared to the reality of the golfing world...   

 

Now that is one of the best posts ever on GolfWRX.  Bravo!

[Titleist_PT23]

Was it a big joke when PWs broke 50 degree?  This is my biggest gripe with the loft jacking police 🚓 - what makes a 47-49 degree PW "ok?" 🤔🤔🤔

[CasualLie]

Like others have pointed out, I don't care what the 7i or PW loft is, but the gapping through the set can be a bit tricky, but not so much you can't figure it out.

 

And there is no doubt for many single digit handicappers who can hit the ball decent, when it is time to get a little bit of forgiveness, these strong pitching wedges make the rest of the wedge make up a hassle.  I am constantly tinkering with different gap wedges to ....well, too close a gap.  It kind of sucks.

 

But it really is not that tough to figure out a set if you prioritize first the courses you play the most and the distances you need to score on those courses.  Drivers and hybrids have gotten so long, the ball too, that I can go an entire round not really needing long irons; or they are used maybe 2x.  I did a lot of experimenting to re-work the bag that was "traditionally" (what is traditional anymore anyways?) 3W-5W, 3i - 5i (5 clubs) to go 3W, two hybrids and start iron set at 5i, so I saved a club, and that made up the wedge side of the bag which gets used the most.

 

Here's something else to think about.  The forum is a lot of golfers not typical of what you see out there on the range.  I have seen your "average" range rat, not a bad golfer, but certainly not under 5 index, take 8 irons from multiple sets that I knew had different lofts and proceed to hit every 8 iron from the different set as wide as 15 yard gaps.  I am talking about 15 yard gaps between 8 iron shots with the exact same club, and 15 yard gaps from OEM to OEM.  So what difference does it make what set that person gets or what loft the 8 iron is?  I guess you just pick what feels good at that point and roll on with the inconsistency.

 

 

[Krt22]

33 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

 

As has been pointed out numerous times in these threads(including by me in the other current thread on this topic) what you state just isn't true. CG's haven't gotten lower with decreased lofts, manufacturers just say they have.

Have any empirical data to share? How can a Gseries iron with an inch wide sole not have a lower CG than a players cavity?

[Bad9]

18 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Have any empirical data to share? How can a Gseries iron with an inch wide sole not have a lower CG than a players cavity?

The Maltby MPF data is quite clear and are actual measurements of the heads. It goes back 20yrs on most of the more common makes and models. VCOG is the most relevant to this discussion. There VCOG of the Ping G710 is.878 inches(ball centre line in .840) the Eye 2 is  .805(lower than the G710), the G5 is .705(much lower than the G710). The G710 and G5 are 6 iron heads with lofts of 26° and 30° respectively. The S58 has a VCOG of .675, the I210 .913, the Blueprint .827. Similar patterns can be found throughout the date in all brands through the years.

 

And here's a link to a post I made today in the other thread on this issue currently https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1789288-try-to-tell-me-it’s-not-ego/?do=findComment&comment=23380012

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bad9

[bladehunter]

34 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Have any empirical data to share? How can a Gseries iron with an inch wide sole not have a lower CG than a players cavity?

See for yourself. Just looking at ping alone. The i500 is miles higher Vcog than anything else. Which is why it’s a hard to hit iron unless you’re steep and heavy. 
 

The blueprint is right there with any of the wider soles. So close it’s ok to say even.  They are not measurably lower cog. Just aren’t. It’s a lie. 
 

https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

[tigerfan23]

9 hours ago, kiwihacker said:

It's not though. See below my 'traditional' lofts vs a modern set of irons. We'll ignore the number on the bottom and just look at the lofts. 

 

21/21

24/24

27/27.5

31/32

35/37

39/42.5

43/48

47/54

51/-

 

See how the 'traditional' lofts are 3° increments in the long irons and 4° throughout the remainder of the set whilst the modern jacked lofts are 3° then 3.5° then 4.5° then 5° then 5.5° then 6°.

 

So please stop telling me they're the same and it's only the number on the bottom that has changed. 

 

get off my lawn!!!!!!

 

 

[bladehunter]

40 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Have any empirical data to share? How can a Gseries iron with an inch wide sole not have a lower CG than a players cavity?

Now compare ping  to titleist t100.  T100 Vcog is much lower.  And as it says. I see that set launch much higher and quicker. And  they have the narrower sole by far compared to Blueprint 

[Krt22]

36 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

The Maltby MPF data is quite clear and are actual measurements of the heads. It goes back 20yrs on most of the more common makes and models. VCOG is the most relevant to this discussion. There VCOG of the Ping G710 is.878 inches(ball centre line in .840) the Eye 2 is  .805(lower than the G710), the G5 is .705(much lower than the G710). The G710 and G5 are 6 iron heads with lofts of 26° and 30° respectively. The S58 has a VCOG of .675, the I210 .913, the Blueprint .827. Similar patterns can be found throughout the date in all brands through the years.

 

And here's a link to a post I made today in the other thread on this issue currently https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1789288-try-to-tell-me-it’s-not-ego/?do=findComment&comment=23380012

 

 

So do you think the mega wide sole is mainly for those who are super steep and/or chunk most shots?

 

I would say the static lofts still would benefit most ams, since most ams flip and add loft.

[Bad9]

11 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

So do you think the mega wide sole is mainly for those who are super steep and/or chunk most shots?

 

I would say the static lofts still would benefit most ams, since most ams flip and add loft.

In all honesty I have no idea but I tend to think soles width preference is as much about turf conditions as anything. The whole lower CG thing often gets touted as the reason for loft creep and it can easily be shown to be incorrect based on actual phial measurements. If spend some time going through the MPF sheets you would find many of the muscle back blades of all eras have lower CG's than most other clubs. And that includes going back to the days when 5 irons were 30° or more.

[kiwihacker]

5 hours ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

I thought the gist of the thread was that there is no "typical" given the jacking of lofts.  So what is the "typical" length in iron as OEM's vary on that as well.

Well how many companies are producing single length irons? I'm only really aware of the Cobra irons and I read that the single length is the 7 iron length. So I guess if you are looking at say the Speedzone irons you'd look at the normal irons and then compare that to the single length offerings. Yep just checked. The Speedzone SL irons are 37.5 throughout the set the same as the 7 iron in the normal set. 

[Bad9]

2 minutes ago, kiwihacker said:

Well how many companies are producing single length irons? I'm only really aware of the Cobra irons and I read that the single length is the 7 iron length. So I guess if you are looking at say the Speedzone irons you'd look at the normal irons and then compare that to the single length offerings. Yep just checked. The Speedzone SL irons are 37.5 throughout the set the same as the 7 iron in the normal set. 

Back in the late 90's, early 2000's 37.5" was the common length, dare I say standard, 5 iron length.

[setter02]

6 minutes ago, kiwihacker said:

Well how many companies are producing single length irons? I'm only really aware of the Cobra irons and I read that the single length is the 7 iron length. So I guess if you are looking at say the Speedzone irons you'd look at the normal irons and then compare that to the single length offerings. Yep just checked. The Speedzone SL irons are 37.5 throughout the set the same as the 7 iron in the normal set. 

 

I'm a bit embarrassed that you are really only aware of 1 company that makes them when there is at least 4 (or are you not really a wrx guy and only pay attention to the big OEMs?).  Second, if you like your 7i, then you can have the set made to that.  but what if your 6i or 8i is your favorite?  Are they going to tell you that you are SOL?  Come on...

 

if you are going to start googling stuff, maybe go down the rabbit hole a bit more.

[dlygrisse]

9 hours ago, kiwihacker said:

Ok so one more question for those in the "It doesn't matter" camp. Back when I took up the game we were all being advised to swap out our "hard to hit" 3 & 4 irons for hybrids. 

 

So for a newbie golfer buying his first shiny new set of irons you think the guy in the golf shop will recommend he only buy the 7-GW or will he just go ahead and sell him 5-PW/GW i.e. selling him 5 & 6 irons that are the same "hard to hit" lofts as those evil 3 & 4 irons we were advised to toss out?

 

Apparently the number on the bottom does matter. If they're numbered 3 & 4 they're hard to hit but easy to hit if they're numbered 5 & 6. 

When I started playing golf I was told to switch out the 1 and 2 iron for 4 woods and gintys. Same thing really. I remember when I saw my first gap wedge, it was 53 degrees, now they are 45 to 50. 
 

they should flip the script. Make the LW should have a 1 on it, the SW a 2, the 5 iron is now a 9.  The weird part to me is you start counting the set at 4 or 5 now.  Makes no sense. It’s all marketing. 

[kiwihacker]

6 hours ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

I'm a bit embarrassed that you are really only aware of 1 company that makes them when there is at least 4 (or are you not really a wrx guy and only pay attention to the big OEMs?).  Second, if you like your 7i, then you can have the set made to that.  but what if your 6i or 8i is your favorite?  Are they going to tell you that you are SOL?  Come on...

 

if you are going to start googling stuff, maybe go down the rabbit hole a bit more.

Lol.

 

Apologies for having no interest whatsoever in single length irons. 

[kiwihacker]

6 hours ago, Bad9 said:

Back in the late 90's, early 2000's 37.5" was the common length, dare I say standard, 5 iron length.

Its smack in between my 'traditional' 37.75 5 iron and my 37.25 6 iron. 🤷‍♂️

[TLUBulldogGolf]

11 hours ago, NotThatGuyorAmI? said:

The problem with new delofted low/rear COG irons is that if they work (which I doubt) they change the skill set needed to score well from something rare (the ability to strike the ball sitting on the turf a descending blow below its equator before hitting the ground while delofting the club to max ball speed) to something common as dirt, in fact the ability to hit the dirt before the ball then scoop the ball into the air.  

 

As far as I know no prior tech change, whether steel shafts or metals wood or indeed the invention of irons instead of flat pieces of wood, has changed the nature of the basic skill involved.  This change might increase the short term enjoyment of the game for those with short attentions spans, deficient intellect to understand the golf swing, inability to master new skills, high time preference, and a need for instant gratification, dilettantes for short.  Unfortunately for them habituation will occur and that enjoyment will decrease in time.  The intermittent reinforcement that promotes continued interest in the game and is inversely proportional to the ease of the game would be practically nonexistent for most people.  At the same time, the competitive advantage of people who do strike the ball in the more rare manner will be lost, so even if those people enjoy their new clubs, in the end competitively they suffer.  In the mean time the economics of the game will be built around the dilettantes and when their interest collapses, it may take the game with them.  Of course they won’t care.

 

If they don’t work, it’s a scam.  The more hopeful answer.

 

 

460 drivers have had way more of an impact. Most golfers that are any good at all are going to want an iron that lets them be at least a little precise with turf interaction. Just because you can hit them a little fat (if it does work) doesn’t mean it’s optimal or that any decent player is doing that and playing at a decent level.