One length irons WOW!!!

[extrastiff]

7 hours ago, lefthack said:

 

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.

I’m pretty sure navistar is saying the same thing.

 

There are many ways to make the ball fly farther, but a lot of my testing came down to “sgi” clubs launching higher and spinning less. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Yeah, guys, thanks for the correction. 

 

I searched and found that Plugged In Golf article as well and it showed consistent distance gains at equal loft for players distance irons. 

 

So, back to the topic... Does that mean that we'll basically never see one length blades? Is the loss of speed in the low-lofted irons just too much to overcome without face tech?

[lefthack]

I think it might come down to swing speed. If you swing fast enough to get a 3 iron blade up at 7 iron length, good on you. I can't seem to get a graphite shafted standard length 3 iron blade much past my 4 iron. 🤣

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, lefthack said:

I think it might come down to swing speed. If you swing fast enough to get a 3 iron blade up at 7 iron length, good on you. I can't seem to get a graphite shafted standard length 3 iron blade much past my 4 iron. 🤣

 

Hence my questions over whether kinetic energy in the head or momentum of the head were the controlling factor. 

 

If it were momentum, a 3i blade at 7i length and 7i head weight should be identical to a 3i blade at 3i length and 3i head weight. Based on the table I posted above, at PGA Tour speeds the momentum of all heads is roughly the same.

 

However, if it is kinetic energy, then single length is at a disadvantage because there is about 10% more KE in a 3i at 3i length/head weight/speed than 3i at 7i length/head weight/speed. 

 

Hence high COR is needed to transmit what energy exists from the head to the ball, and a blade will suffer too much distance loss because of a lack of COR. 

[kleydejong]

6 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

So, back to the topic... Does that mean that we'll basically never see one length blades? Is the loss of speed in the low-lofted irons just too much to overcome without face tech?

 

 

I mangled and frankensteined a set of Mizuno t zoids to have uniform 270g headweight and uniform lie angle. In the end they were pretty close to blades.

 

I currently play the pinhawks 5-pw. I put them in the same set of shafts I had in the Mizuno experiment.

 

The Mizuno's had extreme ball flight problems. The 21* 3 iron was a stinger machine. Probably 140 carry and 70 yds of roll on a fairway. Very unplayable for me. The wedges played okay. The pinhawk long irons are much better.

[Rich Douglas]

On 6/7/2021 at 8:26 PM, 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?

All things being equal, a perfectly struck shot with a perimeter weighted iron or a blade would see no difference.

 

But things are NEVER equal.

 

The idea of a "sweet spot" is a convenient construct, but an incorrect one. There is not a sweet spot, just varying degrees of misses. The more perfect the shot, the less one must rely on compensating factors (like perimeter weighting). 

 

And that used to be the whole story. But not anymore. Manufacturers are in an ever-lasting quest to hype more distance for irons--a silly concept since you don't want your irons to go farther; you want them to go the correct, anticipated distance for each one. Want to hit a 7 iron farther? Pull the 6 iron instead. Problem solved. (Even more so with single-length clubs!) They do it because these claims--true or false--resonate with golfers big-time. Let's look at a couple that matter here.

 

First, manufacturers for years have been jacking lofts and lengthening clubs to make them appear longer. This is bad news for most players. 

 

Second, and at least less deceitful, is increasing the club's COR. This was all the rage in drivers until the USGA and R&A capped it. But until about a decade ago, irons didn't approach the COR limit. They still don't, but manufacturers have found ways (like the TM Rocketbladz) to give them more COR--spring-like effect. (This was also the basis for the low-lofted clubs in the Wishon Sterling irons.) But that's just pouring rocket fuel into a Ford Pinto.

 

Back to the point, yes, a perfectly struck ball with a blade should travel as far as a non-exotic perimeter-weighted iron. But as soon as you move from that hypothetical "sweet spot" even a little bit, you start seeing dramatic differences. This is why blades are perceived to be shorter. Because, in real life, they usually are because of our always imperfect strikes.

[Rich Douglas]

On 6/8/2021 at 7:01 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

Yeah, guys, thanks for the correction. 

 

I searched and found that Plugged In Golf article as well and it showed consistent distance gains at equal loft for players distance irons. 

 

So, back to the topic... Does that mean that we'll basically never see one length blades? Is the loss of speed in the low-lofted irons just too much to overcome without face tech?

No. You can design such a set. But they would be so unforgiving it would be a waste of time for all but the most incredible ball-strikers.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Got my fitting schedule for next Thursday with a Wishon shop. Woo!

[kleydejong]

I am slowly stepping my way forward in tech in the single length world.  I have been gaming the Pinhawks in 5-PW.  I believe that some of the benefit of single length comes with commitment over time.  I didn't really notice a lot of change in ball striking or statistics at first.  But I have been playing these Pinhawks steady since March and am really feeling like the benefit is showing.  It is still early to really tell, but my scoring average and GIR statistics are improved.  I usually spend 15 minutes hitting balls with a 7 iron into a net in my back yard, and I really feel like I'm grooving a consistent feel.  So with that commitment I want to see if an uptick in technology also helps.  The Pinhawks don't look particularly good, have very bleh feel, and are fairly outdated in tech. 

 

I have been working on some swing changes in the last few years.  Big time early extender here.  Learning to rotate and hit the ball with more of a body driven motion has been made easier in my mind by using SL clubs.

 

The F7's seem to be a little fresher in tech.  I perceive that Cobra has made several tweaks to the overall formula since these, but I appreciate the static lie angle.  I will be putting them into a set of FST 115 shafts cut to 37" at stiff flex.  I'm excited!

 

 

6 iron is moderately chunky, but not terrible.  My driver swing speed is about 106 mph and I have not always had success launching a 37" club at 20* to maybe 24* of loft.  So I think this might be a good starting point for me. 

 

 

 

The PW looks great!  I have some concern the CG is going to be fairly low and launch quite high. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boggyman]

Early Father’s Day gift from our son. 34”. Unfortunately it’ll be 3 weeks till I get back to shore  to use it! 

[Buzzkill]

I’d try a one length set if build was based on wedge length.

[extrastiff]

55 minutes ago, Buzzkill said:

I’d try a one length set if build was based on wedge length.

I may be one of the few pioneering this lol. I have clubs and info,pm me
what’s ur swingspeed? If low speed, might not work great.

 

Edit: actually it would, but would be short distances. Would prob need to have a lot of high lofted woods 

 

On 6/9/2021 at 4:43 PM, Rich Douglas said:

No. You can design such a set. But they would be so unforgiving it would be a waste of time for all but the most incredible ball-strikers.

I’d agree, 7 iron is already hard enough to hit.  A mishit, blade 5 iron-loft, 7 iron length, would prob not look great. Low speed, low loft, low expectations. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by extrastiff

[boggyman]

1 hour ago, boggyman said:

Early Father’s Day gift from our son. 34”. Unfortunately it’ll be 3 weeks till I get back to shore  to use it! 

Wrong topic, sorry guys!!

[Stanks]

Looking forward to see what Bryson and Cobra come out with. Their new Hybrid is looking good and I'm hoping they bring that simple look to the new one lengths. Crazy colors, carbon fiber, and neon pop is cool but, Rickie has the styling down with his MBs in the copper finish or the DBM black. 

[Rich Douglas]

2 hours ago, Stanks said:

Looking forward to see what Bryson and Cobra come out with. Their new Hybrid is looking good and I'm hoping they bring that simple look to the new one lengths. Crazy colors, carbon fiber, and neon pop is cool but, Rickie has the styling down with his MBs in the copper finish or the DBM black. 

Nothing personal, but I've always been mystified by players concerned with how a club looks. This doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make me right. You should play whatever you want.

 

Personally, I'm all about the performance. That's why I could love the ugliest of irons (Cleveland VAS 792) and hate the beautiful ones (both Mizuno blade sets I've played). My thinking is that you don't really see the club during its performance--the swing. Now, some people will say they like to look down at the club at address and feel confident. Okay, but what makes people feel confident varies tremendously. Some like a compact head with little offset, others like to look at a can't-miss shovel, and most are somewhere in-between. 

 

Again, YMMV.

[Stanks]

22 hours ago, Rich Douglas said:

Nothing personal, but I've always been mystified by players concerned with how a club looks. This doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make me right. You should play whatever you want.

 

Personally, I'm all about the performance. That's why I could love the ugliest of irons (Cleveland VAS 792) and hate the beautiful ones (both Mizuno blade sets I've played). My thinking is that you don't really see the club during its performance--the swing. Now, some people will say they like to look down at the club at address and feel confident. Okay, but what makes people feel confident varies tremendously. Some like a compact head with little offset, others like to look at a can't-miss shovel, and most are somewhere in-between. 

 

Again, YMMV.

None taken, brother!  To each their own, for sure. 

I see you play the Wishon 1 Lengths and, to me, those are just really ugly looking (from not ever seeing them in person). I've played some ugly clubs. And I can't do it anymore. Fresh off a set of Ping Eye2 and though they were forgiving, had a ton of offset, and played pretty well, they weren't for me. I couldn't get past that look. 

[lefthack]

23 hours ago, Rich Douglas said:

Nothing personal, but I've always been mystified by players concerned with how a club looks. This doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make me right. You should play whatever you want.

 

 

For me performance is important, but if I don't like looking at it, then how it performs is irrelevant. There is a line between looks and performance.

 

<edit> Take the Taylormade Spider putter. It could actually putt for me, I still wouldn't put that thing anywhere near my bag. 🤣

Edited June 13, 2021 by lefthack

[Rich Douglas]

4 hours ago, Stanks said:

None taken, brother!  To each their own, for sure. 

I see you play the Wishon 1 Lengths and, to me, those are just really ugly looking (from not ever seeing them in person). I've played some ugly clubs. And I can't do it anymore. Fresh off a set of Ping Eye2 and though they were forgiving, had a ton of offset, and played pretty well, they weren't for me. I couldn't get past that look. 

 

You know what's pretty? Seeing the ball land and stop near the hole. No one cares what you used to do it, nor have I every heard anyone discount another's shot because of the type of iron used to hit it.

 

The EQ1-NX irons have a slimmer topline and almost no offset (2 degrees). That appeals to a lot of players. Also, a lot of people say they look better in person than in the photos. To me, none of it matters so I can't tell the difference anyway. And again, what might be off-putting to one player can give confidence to another.

 

I don't question why people play the game or what they use, so good on you for knowing what you like.

 

Oh, wait a minute. That's not entirely true. I still shake my head at the balls some players use. Rocks that don't really fly farther on full shots (anymore, with the advent of multilayer balls and urethane covers) and are horrible around the greens. But they're cheap! Or the junk people pull out of their bags to hit a tee shot over water. Hey, there's a reason that ball went in the drink! It's a crummy ball. Tee up a brand new Titleist ProV1 (or something similar) and take a confident swing. Pay eighty bucks in greens fees to hit Top Flites everywhere but towards the target.....

[Stanks]

On 6/13/2021 at 2:05 PM, Rich Douglas said:

 

You know what's pretty? Seeing the ball land and stop near the hole. No one cares what you used to do it, nor have I every heard anyone discount another's shot because of the type of iron used to hit it.

 

The EQ1-NX irons have a slimmer topline and almost no offset (2 degrees). That appeals to a lot of players. Also, a lot of people say they look better in person than in the photos. To me, none of it matters so I can't tell the difference anyway. And again, what might be off-putting to one player can give confidence to another.

 

I don't question why people play the game or what they use, so good on you for knowing what you like.

 

Oh, wait a minute. That's not entirely true. I still shake my head at the balls some players use. Rocks that don't really fly farther on full shots (anymore, with the advent of multilayer balls and urethane covers) and are horrible around the greens. But they're cheap! Or the junk people pull out of their bags to hit a tee shot over water. Hey, there's a reason that ball went in the drink! It's a crummy ball. Tee up a brand new Titleist ProV1 (or something similar) and take a confident swing. Pay eighty bucks in greens fees to hit Top Flites everywhere but towards the target.....

But the problem with you're whole argument is...I don't care what others thinks about my equipment. I'm playing what looks and feels good to me. It's always nice to get some compliments but, I'm not going out and searching for them. Every course or club has that stereotypical guy that waves his PXGs around or his new Scotty Cameron Circle T yada yada yada. It's cool for that guy. 

The EQ1-NX irons you have, I'd love to look at them in person. I don't know if I have ever seen a set in person. I'd most definitely give them a look and a try any day. 

 

I'm a little worried that you're overtly worries about other people. If I am having a bad day and not hitting them right and have to cover a hazard and have a "found" or junk ball in the bag, what's the problem with swapping it out? It's my round. You're just there to watch and cheer me on, should you wanna do so. 

 

Back on topic. Bryson just did another video and this time it was on the Cobra Tour truck. Didn't see any hints of the new irons but, I'd like to still see or hear about them. I want better shaft options for us "off the rack" people. 

[Rich Douglas]

13 hours ago, Stanks said:

But the problem with you're whole argument is...

It's not an argument. It's just an opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I made that very clear in my post. I even addressed some things that make appearance matter to some golfers, acknowledging that others may see it differently.

 

Why does everything have to be an argument? 

[MrHateCoffee]

I finally bit the bullet and bought a set of Pinhawks.  I really struggle with any iron longer than a 7 so this should be a good fit for me.  My clubs won't get here for another month but I can't wait.

 

I really wanted to try out the Cobra one length sets but they don't have any trial clubs due to high demand.

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by MrHateCoffee

[Stanks]

7 hours ago, Rich Douglas said:

It's not an argument. It's just an opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I made that very clear in my post. I even addressed some things that make appearance matter to some golfers, acknowledging that others may see it differently.

 

Why does everything have to be an argument? 

It absolutely doesn't. It's just how I read it was all. No worries.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Had my fitting and ordered the EQ1-NX set yesterday.

 

4h, 5i-GW. Playing at my 9i length of 37.5", so "standard" 6i length. Modus3 120 in stiff, with GP MCC+4 midsize grips.

 

They do the fitting with the 5i for SL as that's the point at which so many players struggle with SL. For me? I've never hit so many 5i in the middle of the face in a row in my life. Seems like playing it 2" shorter than my current 5i makes a difference lol.

 

 

Typical was about 190 carry and 205 with rollout, which is about my 5i distance today. The EQ1-NX is about a club stronger lofted than my 5i, so it would be better to compare to my 4i, so it's a little shorter than my current distance. That said, my current 3/4/5i dispersion is terrible and I'm nearly as likely to hit those clubs 100 yards as 200+, whereas this was SO consistent to swing that I think I'll actually find the face. As long as the 4h can be my 220 club, I'll have all the distance I've got today with my irons as that's my 3i.

 

[Rich Douglas]

Well, the lob wedge experiment is over. It's out of the bag.

 

I originally purchased the Sterling lob wedge, version 2, when it was introduced. It was great for partial-swings in the fairway, but it was difficult to use around the greens. So I put it away. Then I took it out. Then I put it away. Then I took it out. Then I put it away. Then I took it out, put it in the bag, pulled my traditional Ping 3H, put in a 64-degree LW (along with the Sterling 60-degree LW) and the experiment was on.

 

Then it was off.

 

Findings: First, I decided the 64-degree traditional-length LW was just too aggressive. I just couldn't get used to the shorter ball flights, leaving everything short. So I pulled it, returning to the Ping 3H and relying on the Sterling LW for lobs and such around the green. But I just couldn't hit it, hitting about every third shot (chips, pitches, lobs, sand shots) sideways. I couldn't figure it out. I wasn't shanking it; I was blading it and, because the blade was open, the ball went sideways. Ah, I realized. The LW, at 36.5", had a lie angle that was too flat. With my normal angle of attack, I was shallowing out the swing and blading it. So, back in storage for it (for good) and my traditional 60-degree LW is back in play. I miss hitting the Sterling LW from the fairway, but it was always sketchy around the greens.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Speaking of wedges, I just bit the bullet and ordered some. 

 

Ended up with Sub70 wedges, their 286 model in 52/56 and the JB model in low bounce 60. I didn't want to build them to the same length as the EQ1-NX due to swing weight, but because I'm so tall ended up at 36.75", which is the current length of my 60/14 and only 3/4" shorter than the EQ1 build. I asked them to cherry-pick the lightest heads to keep swing weight down, which might save a few points.

 

Either way, rather than progressive length in the wedges, all three will be built to 36.75", all with the same Modus 120 shaft and GP MCC+4 midsize grip as the EQ1-NX.

 

They're standard lie (63.5) which is the same standard lie for the EQ1-NX. I'll plan on doing a loft & lie session with a fitter once everything arrives. 

 

The big question for me will be how much I want to use these new wedges as full-swing clubs, because I've now got a compressed gap between the EQ1 set GW (50*) and the strongest Sub70 (52*). If I gap the set for full-swings with the 52/56/60, I may end up having the EQ1 GW and potentially even the PW bent strong. The EQ1 maintains 4* gaps through 9i (40*) and then goes to 5* gaps for PW (45*) and GW (50*). Perhaps bending the PW to 44* and the GW to 48* will give me more consistent [and possibly tighter] gapping throughout the bottom end of the bag. 

[TKS]

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Speaking of wedges, I just bit the bullet and ordered some. 

 

Ended up with Sub70 wedges, their 286 model in 52/56 and the JB model in low bounce 60. I didn't want to build them to the same length as the EQ1-NX due to swing weight, but because I'm so tall ended up at 36.75", which is the current length of my 60/14 and only 3/4" shorter than the EQ1 build. I asked them to cherry-pick the lightest heads to keep swing weight down, which might save a few points.

 

Either way, rather than progressive length in the wedges, all three will be built to 36.75", all with the same Modus 120 shaft and GP MCC+4 midsize grip as the EQ1-NX.

 

They're standard lie (63.5) which is the same standard lie for the EQ1-NX. I'll plan on doing a loft & lie session with a fitter once everything arrives. 

 

The big question for me will be how much I want to use these new wedges as full-swing clubs, because I've now got a compressed gap between the EQ1 set GW (50*) and the strongest Sub70 (52*). If I gap the set for full-swings with the 52/56/60, I may end up having the EQ1 GW and potentially even the PW bent strong. The EQ1 maintains 4* gaps through 9i (40*) and then goes to 5* gaps for PW (45*) and GW (50*). Perhaps bending the PW to 44* and the GW to 48* will give me more consistent [and possibly tighter] gapping throughout the bottom end of the bag. 

I've found some hacks that have helped me with EQ1-NX wedges. I'm getting perfect gapping and control with the EQ1-NX GW & SW. I had problems with pulled shots and distance control on full and less than full swings. 

1. Play them one inch shorter: Tip trim G/S wedges shafts one inch add 9grams to weight port.

2. Larger grips. Jumbomax XL Ultralights for me. Helps take the hands out of the motion, less likely to pull, and improved distance control.

3. G/S wedges are no longer OL treat them accordingly with ball positions 

4. EQ1-NX Wedges soles are extremely versatile.

Looking forward to the coming EQ1 LW.

Edited June 24, 2021 by TKS
Clarity

[Rich Douglas]

4 hours ago, TKS said:

I've found some hacks that have helped me with EQ1-NX wedges. I'm getting perfect gapping and control with the EQ1-NX GW & SW. I had problems with pulled shots and distance control on full and less than full swings. 

1. Play them one inch shorter: Tip trim G/S wedges shafts one inch add 9grams to weight port.

2. Larger grips. Jumbomax XL Ultralights for me. Helps take the hands out of the motion, less likely to pull, and improved distance control.

3. G/S wedges are no longer OL treat them accordingly with ball positions 

4. EQ1-NX Wedges soles are extremely versatile.

Looking forward to the coming EQ1 LW.

As soon as you make your wedges shorter, you've excluded them from the single-length dynamic. Do what you want, of course, but it's worth it to point this out. (We all do this at one end of the spectrum or the other--or both.) I struggled with the LW for more than two years of intermittent use, but I never could get it to work around the greens. And almost everyone maxes out the set on the low-loft side. Tom Wishon recognizes this and didn't even include a 4-iron in the EQ1-NX lineup. (But you can build the EQ1-NX 4-hybrid to the same single length specs, which I did.) But that's it; above that you have to use traditional clubs.

 

Same with grip changes. As long as you're okay with some grips being different from others, go for it. But it can interfere with the single-length dynamic. Also, be aware of changes to swing weights caused by changes in grip weights.

 

I'm going to pass on the EQ1-NX lob wedge. As I've discovered with the Sterling LW, it's just too flat (and too long) to do anything with them around the greens. Too bad, because I love hitting it from the fairway.

 

There are few objectively right or wrong moves with single-length irons, so YMMV.

[Tax77]

Finally committed to play my F9s every round this season, best I've played in years. Im short so they aren't stock, 5-GW, 36.75 and bent 2 weak. They're perfect, zero problems putting the 5 up in the air. I can't give up my old sand wedge or hybrid, to much trust but the irons are locked in.

[TKS]

15 hours ago, Rich Douglas said:

As soon as you make your wedges shorter, you've excluded them from the single-length dynamic. Do what you want, of course, but it's worth it to point this out. (We all do this at one end of the spectrum or the other--or both.) I struggled with the LW for more than two years of intermittent use, but I never could get it to work around the greens. And almost everyone maxes out the set on the low-loft side. Tom Wishon recognizes this and didn't even include a 4-iron in the EQ1-NX lineup. (But you can build the EQ1-NX 4-hybrid to the same single length specs, which I did.) But that's it; above that you have to use traditional clubs.

 

Same with grip changes. As long as you're okay with some grips being different from others, go for it. But it can interfere with the single-length dynamic. Also, be aware of changes to swing weights caused by changes in grip weights.

 

I'm going to pass on the EQ1-NX lob wedge. As I've discovered with the Sterling LW, it's just too flat (and too long) to do anything with them around the greens. Too bad, because I love hitting it from the fairway.

 

There are few objectively right or wrong moves with single-length irons, so YMMV.

Rich, I get it. 

The wedges on OL have been a sticking point. Of the builds that I have done (both Sterlings and EQ1-NX) my records show a 60/40 split of golfers staying VL (60%) with a wedge or two. 

Nevertheless, I'm always working with experiments on how to tweak a piece of gear - the coming EQ1-NX LW is in my sights. I've already worked on an 55* EQ1-NX SW bent to 58* with good success. The excellent radius of the soles of the EQ1's seem to work better than the Sterling LW soles.

[Rich Douglas]

8 hours ago, TKS said:

Rich, I get it. 

 

What's important is not that you get what I'm saying, but that you get what YOU'RE DOING. You obviously do.

 

I can't get past the flat lie angle of a single-length LW. In my case, it doesn't matter how the head is designed. My LW is even 2 degrees upright (because all my irons are) and I can't make it work. I'm sure what you're doing will work for you.