One length irons WOW!!!

[betarhoalphadelta]

Any swing weight experts here that can check my math? Let's assume for the EQ1-NX I'm fit into DG S300 shafts, and that I go with something like the Golf Pride MCC+4 midsize grip.

 

Head weight: 275g

Shaft length: 38"

Shaft uncut length: 41"

Shaft uncut weight: 130g

Grip weight: 66g

 

According to a calculator I found online, that puts me at about D8. If I was in my current grips (standard @ about 46g), I would be somewhere in the E2 range. Is that accurate? 

 

My current irons are E0. I think going slightly lighter SW might be beneficial, but I feel really comfortable with my current 8i and so I think 38" is a comfortable length for me and helps me retain some clubhead speed in the 4h/5i ranges. I think my grips are too small today (based both on my XL glove size and my typical miss), so larger/heavier grips can help me keep the comfortable length without a crazy swing weight...

[TKS]

15 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Any swing weight experts here that can check my math? Let's assume for the EQ1-NX I'm fit into DG S300 shafts, and that I go with something like the Golf Pride MCC+4 midsize grip.

 

Head weight: 275g

Shaft length: 38"

Shaft uncut length: 41"

Shaft uncut weight: 130g

Grip weight: 66g

 

According to a calculator I found online, that puts me at about D8. If I was in my current grips (standard @ about 46g), I would be somewhere in the E2 range. Is that accurate? 

 

My current irons are E0. I think going slightly lighter SW might be beneficial, but I feel really comfortable with my current 8i and so I think 38" is a comfortable length for me and helps me retain some clubhead speed in the 4h/5i ranges. I think my grips are too small today (based both on my XL glove size and my typical miss), so larger/heavier grips can help me keep the comfortable length without a crazy swing weight...

I'm at 37.5 with the s300 and CP2 midsized grips in the EQ1-NX at D5. Sounds about right.

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 minutes ago, TKS said:

I'm at 37.5 with the s300 and CP2 midsized grips in the EQ1-NX at D5. Sounds about right.

 

Thanks.

[Rich Douglas]

2 hours ago, adamnbomb said:

Curious if those have tried out the one length clubs for a good while have found the short game and more touch shots easier to execute? Watching Bryson it seems the touch shots are his biggest struggle week in and week out.

I've been playing them for 5 years. My short game is better because I can use the same stance and swing for wedges that I use for all my irons. It's sometimes harder to hit flop shots, which is why I carry a traditional LW. I thought sand play would be hard--a flatter swing than normal--but it really isn't very different.

 

As for chipping, I choke down on my wedges to chip anyway, so I do that with these, too. 

[JayMas]

20 hours ago, Rich Douglas said:

There are competing schools of thoughts on this, mostly related to flex and "kick point." Some feel having a more flexible kick point in the lower-lofted irons helps them get into the air. I disagree, feeling that the difference is negligible and you won't see any practical difference.

 

Tom Wishon recommends one shaft--the same shaft--for your entire single-length set. I concur. Otherwise, you're getting into a guessing game with very little upside.

 

As for going from steel to graphite, you have to watch out for changes in the static weight of the shaft, which will also affect swing weight. If you're sensitive to swing weight--I am--it can be very troublesome. When I decided to make the switch, I purchased a new set built around the new shaft and with my target swing weight in mind.

Awesome feedback, thank you!

 

I am sensitive to swing weight as well. The initial driver of this thought was my preference for the D0 weight of my one length hybrid and utility iron. On the surface the shift to the right graphite shaft for the rest of the irons would move the swing weight to that spot as well. Seems appealing to me on the surface. Though moving below D2 for a PW and GW...not sure how that would feel.

[Rich Douglas]

13 hours ago, JayMas said:

Awesome feedback, thank you!

 

I am sensitive to swing weight as well. The initial driver of this thought was my preference for the D0 weight of my one length hybrid and utility iron. On the surface the shift to the right graphite shaft for the rest of the irons would move the swing weight to that spot as well. Seems appealing to me on the surface. Though moving below D2 for a PW and GW...not sure how that would feel.

Do what feels right. Many players use heavier swing weights for the wedges. It doesn't change the greatest value of single-length clubs: putting the same swing on every iron and wedge shot. 

 

As for graphite, I just recently made the switch. I did so by moving from the first generation Wishon single-length irons to the new EQ1-NX. I had them built at D-1.5, which is normal for me. But they just felt too light, probably because the static weight was too light (25g less). So I regripped with Winn Excel grips (my favorites anyway), which bumped them up to D-3. This should have been too much, but they feel just right. 

 

Again, do what feels right. You won't lose the benefits of single-length irons.

[JayMas]

On 5/21/2021 at 10:52 PM, Rich Douglas said:

Do what feels right. Many players use heavier swing weights for the wedges. It doesn't change the greatest value of single-length clubs: putting the same swing on every iron and wedge shot. 

 

As for graphite, I just recently made the switch. I did so by moving from the first generation Wishon single-length irons to the new EQ1-NX. I had them built at D-1.5, which is normal for me. But they just felt too light, probably because the static weight was too light (25g less). So I regripped with Winn Excel grips (my favorites anyway), which bumped them up to D-3. This should have been too much, but they feel just right. 

 

Again, do what feels right. You won't lose the benefits of single-length irons.

Thank you, appreciate the advice! 

[betarhoalphadelta]

@Rich Douglas Do you have any pictures of the set GW and SW from the EQ1-NX, particularly that show sole and grind? Are they both hollow-body like the other irons or are they blades?

 

Where I'm torn on the wedges is that wedge preference tends to have a lot to do with playing conditions, while set SW or set LW (which for EQ1 doesn't exist yet) are by definition a one-size-fits-all proposition. 

 

If I buy different wedges for something in the 54-55* and 60* ranges, that puts the head weight >300g whereas the EQ1 is 275g... I simply can't build them to the same specs without a HUGE jump in swing weight, probably about 14-15 points. Some people like wedges a little heavier than other clubs, but not that big of a difference. I could try to bring swing weight down by building them to much different specs (different shaft, grip, etc), but then they're not going to feel like the rest of the set. 

 

So that's my conundrum right now... If I don't prefer the set wedges--and there currently is no LW, then I can't build wedges to same length and be anywhere near the same feel. 

[Rich Douglas]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

@Rich Douglas Do you have any pictures of the set GW and SW from the EQ1-NX, particularly that show sole and grind? Are they both hollow-body like the other irons or are they blades?

 

Where I'm torn on the wedges is that wedge preference tends to have a lot to do with playing conditions, while set SW or set LW (which for EQ1 doesn't exist yet) are by definition a one-size-fits-all proposition. 

 

If I buy different wedges for something in the 54-55* and 60* ranges, that puts the head weight >300g whereas the EQ1 is 275g... I simply can't build them to the same specs without a HUGE jump in swing weight, probably about 14-15 points. Some people like wedges a little heavier than other clubs, but not that big of a difference. I could try to bring swing weight down by building them to much different specs (different shaft, grip, etc), but then they're not going to feel like the rest of the set. 

 

So that's my conundrum right now... If I don't prefer the set wedges--and there currently is no LW, then I can't build wedges to same length and be anywhere near the same feel. 

They're certainly not blades, but they're not game-improvement, either. They seem to be a player's iron with a slightly thicker topline. 

 

You're right, you can't take a traditional wedge head and put it on a longer shaft without driving the swing weight sky-high. I opted for the sand wedge in both the Sterling and the EQ1-NX. I opted for the LW in the Sterling and kept it with the EQ1-NX. For any shots around the green where I need to open the face significantly (flops and bunkers), I use a traditional 64-degree LW. So, I carry 5 wedges: PW, GW, SW, and LW built to my iron set specs, plus the traditional LW. Because I use those wedges as part of my iron arsenal, I have them all at the same swing weight (D-3) as my irons. The traditional LW is D-5.

 

There's no reason you can't build the single-length wedges with a higher swing weight. That's your call, would not be unusual, and your clubfitter can accommodate it. I'm particularly sensitive to swing weight changes, so I prefer them all the same.

[extrastiff]

17 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

@Rich Douglas Do you have any pictures of the set GW and SW from the EQ1-NX, particularly that show sole and grind? Are they both hollow-body like the other irons or are they blades?

 

Where I'm torn on the wedges is that wedge preference tends to have a lot to do with playing conditions, while set SW or set LW (which for EQ1 doesn't exist yet) are by definition a one-size-fits-all proposition. 

 

If I buy different wedges for something in the 54-55* and 60* ranges, that puts the head weight >300g whereas the EQ1 is 275g... I simply can't build them to the same specs without a HUGE jump in swing weight, probably about 14-15 points. Some people like wedges a little heavier than other clubs, but not that big of a difference. I could try to bring swing weight down by building them to much different specs (different shaft, grip, etc), but then they're not going to feel like the rest of the set. 

 

So that's my conundrum right now... If I don't prefer the set wedges--and there currently is no LW, then I can't build wedges to same length and be anywhere near the same feel. 

Just get the cobra one length wedges. They are nice, and if u can’t chip with 10 degree “s grind” type sole, you can’t chip. 

[THEGOLLUM218]

I am a high handicapper and i totally buy this one length idea and currently looking at Cobra King Forged Tec 5i-GW with the KBS Shaft.

My concern is unable to launch the longer irons as other users here has mentioned. Thus I am looking to add in the Cobra King Utility One length 4H & 5H.

 

If we look at Bryson's setup, he is also currently using utility irons in his "long irons".

As for someone who swings as fast as Bryson and has no problem launching the ball and getting the full distance, would there be any explanation why he would do that?

Should we also adopt to the idea of having bigger head profile in longer irons to maybe have a easier time?

I also own a king F9 one length hybrid and i know it plays shorter compared to my normal length G400 hybrid. I duff my hybrid more than able to hit it so i still prefer an iron 🙂

Someone with some OL experience please advice is this doable.

[NRJyzr]

40 minutes ago, THEGOLLUM218 said:

As for someone who swings as fast as Bryson and has no problem launching the ball and getting the full distance, would there be any explanation why he would do that?

 

Quite likely related to the course conditions for Tour Events.  Most of us don't regularly play on those sorts of courses (though some *do*).

 

[JDCON]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:59 AM, Rich Douglas said:

There are competing schools of thoughts on this, mostly related to flex and "kick point." Some feel having a more flexible kick point in the lower-lofted irons helps them get into the air. I disagree, feeling that the difference is negligible and you won't see any practical difference.

 

Tom Wishon recommends one shaft--the same shaft--for your entire single-length set. I concur. Otherwise, you're getting into a guessing game with very little upside.

 

As for going from steel to graphite, you have to watch out for changes in the static weight of the shaft, which will also affect swing weight. If you're sensitive to swing weight--I am--it can be very troublesome. When I decided to make the switch, I purchased a new set built around the new shaft and with my target swing weight in mind.

Very relevant post. I just bought a set of King Forged One Length and was contemplating reshafting. Sounds pretty straightforward!

[extrastiff]

23 hours ago, THEGOLLUM218 said:

I am a high handicapper and i totally buy this one length idea and currently looking at Cobra King Forged Tec 5i-GW with the KBS Shaft.

My concern is unable to launch the longer irons as other users here has mentioned. Thus I am looking to add in the Cobra King Utility One length 4H & 5H.

 

If we look at Bryson's setup, he is also currently using utility irons in his "long irons".

As for someone who swings as fast as Bryson and has no problem launching the ball and getting the full distance, would there be any explanation why he would do that?

Should we also adopt to the idea of having bigger head profile in longer irons to maybe have a easier time?

I also own a king F9 one length hybrid and i know it plays shorter compared to my normal length G400 hybrid. I duff my hybrid more than able to hit it so i still prefer an iron 🙂

Someone with some OL experience please advice is this doable.

The reason I copied him and went larger head in long irons is because on mishits, I loose more ball speed.  Than I do with a regular length long iron. 

[Rich Douglas]

On 5/26/2021 at 7:37 AM, THEGOLLUM218 said:

I am a high handicapper and i totally buy this one length idea and currently looking at Cobra King Forged Tec 5i-GW with the KBS Shaft.

My concern is unable to launch the longer irons as other users here has mentioned. Thus I am looking to add in the Cobra King Utility One length 4H & 5H.

 

If we look at Bryson's setup, he is also currently using utility irons in his "long irons".

As for someone who swings as fast as Bryson and has no problem launching the ball and getting the full distance, would there be any explanation why he would do that?

Should we also adopt to the idea of having bigger head profile in longer irons to maybe have a easier time?

I also own a king F9 one length hybrid and i know it plays shorter compared to my normal length G400 hybrid. I duff my hybrid more than able to hit it so i still prefer an iron 🙂

Someone with some OL experience please advice is this doable.

About 85% of your distance with a club will come from loft and clubhead design, with the rest delivered by the length of the shaft. Thus, it gets harder to get proper gapping as you move towards the lower-lofted clubs. There will be a point where you cannot hit a particular iron long enough in the air. 

 

Because Cobra builds its sets with a 7-iron length, they typically have those sets go through the 4-iron. Because Wishon builds around an 8-iron length, they stop at the 5-iron. But slower swingers can't even hit those and should consider hybrids instead.

 

Bryson is making his choices for reasons other than distance. As stated elsewhere, this is probably due to course conditions. 

 

"Bigger profile" heads have nothing to do with single-length irons. Cobra is the only company I know that offers multiple options. The other big two, Edel and Wishon, offer one each. Thus, they offer clubs more in line with the game improvement category, rather than max GI.

 

My Wishon EQ1-NX 4-hybrid flies about as far as my traditional hybrid. But that's because of changeable weights in the clubhead--it can be made heavier to compensate for a shorter (and lighter) shaft.

 

There's no reason why you cannot add traditional hybrids. Hit what works for you.

[Rich Douglas]

17 hours ago, Navistar said:

@Rich Douglas read this entire thread over the past couple days and I know there have been discussions on the cobras and their lie angles. What is your thoughts and can they be bent to match if need be? 

No different than with traditional (variable-length) irons. Typically, cast clubs can be bent 2 or 3 degrees without snapping. Forged irons can be bent a bit further. But you can ask your fitter about this. Some will not bend cast irons, or will only bend them a degree or two because they don't want to snap a club.

[Rich Douglas]

1 hour ago, Navistar said:

Some talk about the lies being reverse normal clubs on the cobras?

I don't know what "reverse normal" means. But I do know the Cobras have varying lie angles through the set. The rationale is that the dynamic lie angle (at impact) is different than the club's static lie angle. (The toe pulls the club, or something.)

 

I disagree. Because each club has the same length and static weight, if the dynamic lie angle changes (and I seriously doubt it does significantly), it would change in the exact same way with each club. Therefore, no matter what your preferred lie angle is, the entire set should have the same one. But....

 

A change in lie angle can have cause a change in ball flight. IMHO, it is ideal to have the lie angle cause the club to strike the ground squarely at impact. But if you like the toe to drag (moving the ball right) or heel (left ball flight), I guess you could do that. But to have it programmed into the club's default setup? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

My rules:

• Exact same length for each club in the SL set
• Exact same shaft for each
• Exact same trim for each
• Exact same lie angle for each
• Exact same grip for each
• Exact same offset for each
• Exact same static weight for each
• Exact same ball placement for each

The same for everything except loft and weight distribution within the clubhead.

 

But your mileage may vary.

[omfs27]

Interesting topic. Might give it a try. 

[ojosdegatonegro]

@Rich Douglas would you share the difference in distance between your 4H and 4i shots? My swing is not good enough for woods and conventional hybrids and I have a gap between driver and 4i, so I'm considering a EQ1 4H in order to fill that gap but I don't have a point of reference.

[Rich Douglas]

5 hours ago, ojosdegatonegro said:

@Rich Douglas would you share the difference in distance between your 4H and 4i shots? My swing is not good enough for woods and conventional hybrids and I have a gap between driver and 4i, so I'm considering a EQ1 4H in order to fill that gap but I don't have a point of reference.

Yes. I had the 4I in Sterling, but the 4H in the new EQ1-NX. The hybrid carries farther and flies higher. 

 

The complaint about the Sterling 4-iron was it was just super hard to elevate the shot. You really had to bring it. Even then, it was hard to carry sufficiently farther than the 5-iron and hard to stop.

 

The EQ1-NX 4-hybrid is designed to be added to your single-length set (at an 8-iron length), built to a traditional 4H length, or anything in-between. It has weight ports the fitter can manipulate the club head's weight to fit it to the chosen shaft length to maintain proper static weight and, thus, swing weight.

 

I have mine built to match my single-length set, so it is an 8-iron length. The static weight and swing weight are the same as the rest of my set.

 

I don't know if it flies as far as my traditional 4-iron; I can't be sure since I haven't hit one in more than 5 years. But I think it does. The rest of my single length set performs at similar distances to my last traditional set. But again, I was 5 years younger then (57 vs. 62), so it's hard to say.

 

Bottom line: the EQ1-NX 4H flies farther and higher than the Sterling 4I.

 

Oh, one other thing: The EQ1-NX is designed around an 8-iron length. The Cobra and Edel sets are designed around a 7-iron length. This definitely makes their 4-irons easier to hit. But the difference is so small it might not matter much in actual play.

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 5/25/2021 at 4:36 AM, extrastiff said:

Just get the cobra one length wedges. They are nice, and if u can’t chip with 10 degree “s grind” type sole, you can’t chip. 

 

I missed this reply and I was just about to ask about these wedges.

 

Does anyone know the head weight on the Cobra one length wedge heads?

[extrastiff]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I missed this reply and I was just about to ask about these wedges.

 

Does anyone know the head weight on the Cobra one length wedge heads?

Same as the rest of the one length stuff, 270-275 grams what mine ended up being

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, extrastiff said:

Same as the rest of the one length stuff, 270-275 grams what mine ended up being

 

Thanks. That might simplify everything... 

 

Now I just need to schedule a fitting for the Wishon, and then I can order the Cobra wedges to match the specs of the Wishon irons...

[betarhoalphadelta]

So I was thinking about the SL concept and how one of the ways that they maintain distance gapping is trading mass for speed on both ends of the set. 

On the low-lofted clubs, the shafts are shorter than VL sets and thus speed is lower, but mass is higher than their VL counterpart irons. On the high-lofted clubs, it's the opposite. 

 

So I started wondering exactly what this meant for the kinetic energy of the clubhead? Did these things equal out, such that the amount of mass being removed from the clubhead matched the speed difference due to variable lengths, such that the kinetic energy of the clubhead was relatively consistent across the set?

 

So I took two different sets. The first (VL) was Sub 70 TAIII irons, because I know they're basically tour blades and because they list the head weights in their specs online. The second (SL) was the Wishon EQ1-NX. I then took PGA Tour average speed numbers from the Trackman blog as a baseline for speed.

 

Note that the weight below is converted from g to kg, and speed [velocity] from mph to m/s. 

 

KE = 0.5 * m * v²

 

Iron	Weight (S70)	Speed (S70)	KE (S70)	Mo (S70)	Weight (Wis)	Speed (Wis)	KE (Wis)	Mo (Wis)
4	0.249	42.92	229.30	10.69	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
5	0.256	42.02	226.03	10.76	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
6	0.263	41.13	222.43	10.82	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
7	0.27	40.23	218.53	10.86	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
8	0.277	38.89	209.50	10.77	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
9	0.284	38.00	205.03	10.79	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70
P	0.289	37.10	198.94	10.72	0.275	38.89	207.99	10.70

 

So obviously that did NOT equal out. The additional speed, because the term is squared, plays a much bigger role in measuring kinetic energy than the weight. KE is higher for the faster clubs than the slower clubs, despite the weight difference between them.

 

So I added another point--momentum. 

 

Mo = m * v

 

In momentum, you're not squaring the velocity, and what I see is that when you use the product of club head mass and PGA Tour average speeds, the momentum of each club head is basically constant throughout the set. 

 

I took an average speed of 113 mph and average driver head weight of 210 grams, and then got a KE of 267.9 and a momentum of 10.61. So in this case, momentum remains pretty constant again, while kinetic energy goes up substantially. 

 

The question is... Which one actually is more important for ball speed? The advantage of higher KE is that, well, the clubhead has higher energy. A clubhead can't impart energy to a golf ball that it doesn't have. The advantage of higher mass is that in the collision between heavy clubhead and light ball, a heavier clubhead will be less impacted by the collision with the ball than a lighter clubhead, and potentially more effectively transfers its energy/momentum to the ball than a lighter clubhead. 

 

If you have two clubs with identical loft, will ball speed track with kinetic energy of the clubhead, or with momentum?

 

In other words, will a slower heavier club hit the ball the same distance as a lighter faster club, if they have the same momentum?

 

[Rich Douglas]

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

In other words, will a slower heavier club hit the ball the same distance as a lighter faster club, if they have the same momentum?

 

I'm adept at neither the math nor the physics, but one must wonder why the lightest club in the bag is the longest in terms of distance, while the heaviest is also the shortest in terms of distance.

 

Baseball sluggers used to use really heavy bats, thinking that a heavy bat hits the ball harder and, thus, the ball goes farther. But the truth is, bat speed is more important. Thus, not only did players switch to lighter bats, they also sometimes corked them to make them even lighter than allowed. 

 

There's a limit to this, of course. A driver made of papier-mâché would be even lighter, but it would transfer almost no energy to the ball. So, things like weight--and COR--have something to do with hit. But the things we know that best correlate with distance are swing speed and smash factor, given a club designed around normal parameters.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Yeah, my problem is that I'm an engineer, but I'm an electrical engineer. (Can't spell geek without a EE!)

 

It's been a long time since I've had to do mechanics. 

 

Obviously the biggest reason the lightest club hits the farthest while the heaviest hits the shortest is loft... You can't impart as much energy to a ball striking it at a 50 degree oblique angle as you can with a 6 degree oblique angle (+3* AoA on a 9* driver). You've said as much yourself--85% of distance is loft.

 

I just find it interesting that a SL 5-iron has about 10% less kinetic energy than the VL equivalent, but they go similar distances, right? Some would say that's due to high COR faces, but I don't hear about VL players distance or VL GI irons with springy faces going farther than blades on pure strikes, right? These companies are not just saving high-COR faces for the minute sliver of a market segment that is SL. So it seems that it can't just be COR... 

 

Good point about the bats. I wonder about the correlation between bat weight and bat speed... Lighter bats should have more speed, but without those bats being extra-long (like golf clubs) does that change how much momentum a player can develop? Is the momentum of a lighter bat higher or lower than a heavier bat? You're obviously trading off mass for speed, but which one sees the greater change? It seems with golf clubs based on the examples above, the amount of momentum developed seems to be consistent from driver down to PW. Is that true of baseball? I don't know either way...

[extrastiff]

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Yeah, my problem is that I'm an engineer, but I'm an electrical engineer. (Can't spell geek without a EE!)

 

It's been a long time since I've had to do mechanics. 

 

Obviously the biggest reason the lightest club hits the farthest while the heaviest hits the shortest is loft... You can't impart as much energy to a ball striking it at a 50 degree oblique angle as you can with a 6 degree oblique angle (+3* AoA on a 9* driver). You've said as much yourself--85% of distance is loft.

 

I just find it interesting that a SL 5-iron has about 10% less kinetic energy than the VL equivalent, but they go similar distances, right? Some would say that's due to high COR faces, but I don't hear about VL players distance or VL GI irons with springy faces going farther than blades on pure strikes, right? These companies are not just saving high-COR faces for the minute sliver of a market segment that is SL. So it seems that it can't just be COR... 

 

Good point about the bats. I wonder about the correlation between bat weight and bat speed... Lighter bats should have more speed, but without those bats being extra-long (like golf clubs) does that change how much momentum a player can develop? Is the momentum of a lighter bat higher or lower than a heavier bat? You're obviously trading off mass for speed, but which one sees the greater change? It seems with golf clubs based on the examples above, the amount of momentum developed seems to be consistent from driver down to PW. Is that true of baseball? I don't know either way...

Why do u say the springy faces don’t go farther? (Equal lofts). My anecdotal testing says otherwise.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

44 minutes ago, extrastiff said:

Why do u say the springy faces don’t go farther? (Equal lofts). My anecdotal testing says otherwise.

 

 

I could be completely wrong... My understanding was that on pure strikes, blades and players distance irons of equal length/loft were basically equivalent distance. Is that not accurate?

[lefthack]

32 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I could be completely wrong... My understanding was that on pure strikes, blades and players distance irons of equal length/loft were basically equivalent distance. Is that not accurate?

 

Players distance usually have a foam or gel filled hollow body that causes added distance using face flex. 

 

That's my understanding, I'm no expert.

[lefthack]

6 minutes ago, Navistar said:

No

 

Plugged in golf begs to differ.

 

In a surprising reversal of what we found five years ago, our testing showed that distance irons are longer than blades, even with equal lofts.

For the group average, the blade 6-iron carried 180.9 yards; the distance 6-iron carried 186.3 yards.

 

But that was what they tested and that's how I understood it. Not saying it's the be all, end all conclusion. But I thought the "distance" portion of "players distance" meant something. I could be very wrong and it's purely marketing.