Best tour level graphite iron shafts

[speeder717]

Currently playing Aerotech 95 stiff... Anything better these days? Who is playing what on tour?? Doesnt seem to be much in the steelfiber world any longer. 

[Golfingfanatic]

The MMT Taper seems to be en vogue these days. But the steelfibers are still an amazing product imo.

[phizzy30]

MMT are the "it" thing these days on tour and I can see why.  I believe that they are the best composite shafts out on the market atm.  Better than the Catalyst, Recoil protos(have them), Steelfiber and MCI shafts IMO.  Btw, I've tested all but the Catalyst shafts.  I have an uncle that has them in his irons.  Not a fan of how they feel.  As far as Steelfibers go they are good shafts and there are a number of LPGA gals that have them in their bag. 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, speeder717 said:

Currently playing Aerotech 95 stiff... Anything better these days? Who is playing what on tour?? Doesnt seem to be much in the steelfiber world any longer. 

 

If the low launch, stiffer profile of the i-series steelfibers are a good fit for you, I doubt you'll find anything better.   Most of the PGA tour pros who were playing the steelfibers went back to steel shafts.   The one pga tour player I'm aware of that is playing the MMT's is Abraham Ancer - so I'd hardly call that any kind of trend (not that I'd ever advise an am to play anything just because a tour player is using it).   It's a more of a low-mid to mid launch profile so isn't really an apples to apples comparison with the steelfibers anyway.  More comparable to the Recoils.  Of course the fact that it's twice the price means that all the talk about them is in a pretty limited circle of players willing to spend that much.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Stuart_G

[animalgolfs]

Just something you'll have to play around with unfortunately.....I've tried quite a few

 

Presently on 110 Recoil F5 ssx1 with Proto Wedge f4

 

Last part of last year I was playing SF125 in my wedges 

 

My swing speed in under 100-- I have a weird release due to psoriatic arthritis

 

It all depends on your release/load and what weight is right

[phizzy30]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

If the low launch, stiffer profile of the i-series steelfibers are a good fit for you, I doubt you'll find anything better.   Most of the PGA tour pros who were playing the steelfibers went back to steel shafts.   The one pga tour player I'm aware of that is playing the MMT's is Abraham Ancer - so I'd hardly call that any kind of trend (not that I'd ever advise an am to play anything just because a tour player is using it).   It's a more of a low-mid to mid launch profile so isn't really an apples to apples comparison with the steelfibers anyway.  More comparable to the Recoils.  Of course the fact that it's twice the price means that all the talk about them is in a pretty limited circle of players willing to spend that much.

I have a set of Recoil protos in my old set.  I can tell you that they launch higher than the MMT.  If I remember correctly, Scott Brown and slew of other lesser known pros play them.  And yes, you are correct in saying that the MMT is mid-low launch. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by phizzy30

[Thayneil]

several  LPga girls playing the Steelfibre J (japan) series

 

Ariya  J  plays 108 X!

[animalgolfs]

16 minutes ago, Thayneil said:

several  LPga girls playing the Steelfibre J (japan) series

 

Ariya  J  plays 108 X!

She hits the ball father than me....I've accepted that fact 

 

She's younger, fitter, oh yeah- tour pro.....she'll kick my a**

[Stuart_G]

12 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

I have a set of Recoil protos in my old set.  I can tell you that they launch higher than the MMT.  If I remember correctly, Scott Brown and slew of other lesser known pros play them.  And yes, you are correct in saying that the MMT is mid-low launch. 

 

How the player reacts to the feel (both stiffness and particularly shaft weight and swing weight) has the potential to play a much bigger role in the actual launch/spin than the designed or published stiffness profile.   That's part of the subjective nature of shaft/club fitting.   And if someone sensitive to the feel of the shaft fits into a certain type of profile, they tend to do best sticking with similar profiles.

 

Of course, there is more to feel than the published launch characteristics - which tend to focus more on the tip stiffness than the butt/mid stiffness.  So it's only a generalization.

 

If one really wanted to see the launch/spin difference independent of that subjective feel response by the player you'd need to do a comparison with robot testing.  But that would really be just a test for the sake of scientific curiosity.  The subjective effects are real and something the player being fit needs to take into account.  You just can't assume just because it's true for one person that it will be true for everyone.

 

 

 

[r3www]

Mmt felt way better than steel fibers to me

[llaw999]

MMT felt better and seems to launch higher than steelfiber for me. 

 

MMT also felt more stable against recoil 95. 

 

My elbows love the MMT and the stability is there so overall I’m impressed!

 

Only problem is they are back ordered until god knows when. Trying to get a couple more wedge shafts.

Edited May 19, 2021 by llaw999

[golf9596]

I’ve had a few sets with Steelfibers and truly like the shafts. The lighter weight helps now and they don’t balloon.  

[pccasstpro]

I just rebuilt a set of Mizuno MP-18mb’s for my dad with Steelfiber 110cw’s in Reg. He is in love with them. I have used the SF 110 X in my hybrids for the past 5 or so years and would love to experiment with a full set in the future.

 

[Ri_Redneck]

I am an Aldila RIP Tour player and IMHO, for firm control feel, SF i Series is the only option at the moment. I also have a set of Recoil Protos that are close. Everything else feels a little loose to me.

 

BT

[Pepperturbo]

Steelfiber i95 & i110 are still the most used graphite shafts on all tours, and I have both sets.  But Mitsubishi's MMT and Tensei AV White AM2 are making inroads, as is Fujikura Pro & MCA.   I currently play Tensei AV White AM2.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[golftech]

I’m still impressed with the Accra iSeries Tour 100i’s, the shafts I’ve played for the past season.  Similar mid to low ball flight as my all time favorites Aldila NV MLTI pro-105‘s, but the Accra’s have slightly softer feel without giving up any control.  The MCI and SteelFiber neither worked for me.

 

[hobbstc]

Love my MMTs. Just switched out of rifles into them. Took about an hour to get used to the weight difference and now I’m good to go. I don’t feel I’m losing out at all to a steel shaft and my arms feel good after 18 again. 

[phizzy30]

Played Royal Vista today.  East/North.  Was 1 over after the first 9.  Ended up shooting 76.  Flushed a lot of irons into the greens.  Not a lot of draw spin which is my usual flight.  MMT for me rarely balloon into the wind.  The Recoil Protos would at times.  Just so stable and smooth.  Also forgot to mention that Rickie uses the MMT's as well.

Edited May 20, 2021 by phizzy30

[ShowMe]

On 5/18/2021 at 5:05 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

How the player reacts to the feel (both stiffness and particularly shaft weight and swing weight) has the potential to play a much bigger role in the actual launch/spin than the designed or published stiffness profile.   That's part of the subjective nature of shaft/club fitting.   And if someone sensitive to the feel of the shaft fits into a certain type of profile, they tend to do best sticking with similar profiles.

 

Of course, there is more to feel than the published launch characteristics - which tend to focus more on the tip stiffness than the butt/mid stiffness.  So it's only a generalization.

 

If one really wanted to see the launch/spin difference independent of that subjective feel response by the player you'd need to do a comparison with robot testing.  But that would really be just a test for the sake of scientific curiosity.  The subjective effects are real and something the player being fit needs to take into account.  You just can't assume just because it's true for one person that it will be true for everyone.

 

 

 

Sure, but a shaft that is designed to launch higher than another shaft, for example, will launch higher for most everybody using it regardless of how it feels.  Very few people are sensitive enough to feel for it to override how a shaft is designed to perform.

[ShowMe]

On 5/19/2021 at 1:54 PM, Ri_Redneck said:

I am an Aldila RIP Tour player and IMHO, for firm control feel, SF i Series is the only option at the moment. I also have a set of Recoil Protos that are close. Everything else feels a little loose to me.

 

BT

Not too many, if any, graphite shafts that are more stout than the RIP Tours, IMO.

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Sure, but a shaft that is designed to launch higher than another shaft, for example, will launch higher for most everybody using it regardless of how it feels.  Very few people are sensitive enough to feel for it to override how a shaft is designed to perform.

 

No, actually it wont.   Feel based changes to the swing can be much bigger than the effect of the shaft design (which isn't typically that large for most - and much less in iron shafts than in woods).   And second, the designed shaft characteristics only effect the results for those with a late enough release.   The designed launch characteristics will have no effect at all for those with an early release.   When the shaft unloads early, there is little to no forward bend left in the shaft at impact and no dynamic loft added.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Stuart_G

[BackNineCollapse]

11 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Sure, but a shaft that is designed to launch higher than another shaft, for example, will launch higher for most everybody using it regardless of how it feels.  Very few people are sensitive enough to feel for it to override how a shaft is designed to perform.

 

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No, actually it wont.   Feel based changes to the swing can be much bigger than the effect of the shaft design (which isn't typically that large for most - and much less in iron shafts than in woods).   And second, the designed shaft characteristics only effect the results for those with a late enough release.   The designed launch characteristics will have no effect at all for those with an early release.   When the shaft unloads early, there is little to no forward bend left in the shaft at impact and no dynamic loft added.

 

Just to expand on what Stuart said, we did a study where we compared expectation vs. shaft design.  After a warm up, we had people 'get a baseline' by hitting two different shafts (single manufacturer, marketed as high and low launch, same weight and flex rating) telling them they were the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked.)  We were using a GC4 LM, and justified the change by saying the clubhead stickers weren't reading, so needed to swap clubs.  We then had them hit the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked) telling them one was high launch the other low.  The difference in dynamic loft delivered between the high and low launch scenario was 2.2 times larger when hitting the same shaft (with the expectation they were different) compared to hitting different shafts (with the expectation they were the same).  Participants were also asked to rate how the shafts felt in each scenario.  In the first scenario, there was almost no reported difference in feel between the actual high and low launch shafts, while in the second (actually identical shaft), typical comments were made (i.e. low launch shaft was more 'stout', 'stable', 'firm', etc.).

 

We have done the same with flex, and the results were similar, though not as pronounced.  We suspect that markedly different flexes (we compared R and X) provide more proprioceptive feedback than different flex profiles, leading to more adaptive changes.  It is notable though that launch parameters still changed more when hitting the same shaft (expecting them to be different) than when hitting the different shafts (R to X).

[Pepperturbo]

11 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Sure, but a shaft that is designed to launch higher than another shaft, for example, will launch higher for most everybody using it regardless of how it feels.  Very few people are sensitive enough to feel for it to override how a shaft is designed to perform.

There's a semblance of truth there, but wouldn't use the words "sensitive" and "very few", but add its price and mechanics driven, not purposely manipulated as a result of sensitivity.

 

Example, Ventus Velocore Red 5 series "S" in my Driver, by design, provides a higher trajectory than Blue or Black.  Yet, with my mechanics I hit Red like others hit the two latter shafts.  A few friends that have hit Red and saw similar trajectory, and they have very different mechanics.  Go figure that one...

 

With inexpensive graphite iron shafts, mid-low bend really lite 60-95g graphite shafts typically are high trajectory shafts designed to pick up SS and distance, with those I agree.  But that isn't the case with shafts like Steelfiber i95cw.  Trajectory wise, for me, they are the same as i110cw.  Higher grade more costly graphite shafts made for better or tour players, tend to adapt to user mechanics, even my current 2-SW Tensei AV White AM2 shafts adapted to my swing.  Least that's how I see graphite.   

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, BackNineCollapse said:

 

 

Just to expand on what Stuart said, we did a study where we compared expectation vs. shaft design.  After a warm up, we had people 'get a baseline' by hitting two different shafts (single manufacturer, marketed as high and low launch, same weight and flex rating) telling them they were the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked.)  We were using a GC4 LM, and justified the change by saying the clubhead stickers weren't reading, so needed to swap clubs.  We then had them hit the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked) telling them one was high launch the other low.  The difference in dynamic loft delivered between the high and low launch scenario was 2.2 times larger when hitting the same shaft (with the expectation they were different) compared to hitting different shafts (with the expectation they were the same).  Participants were also asked to rate how the shafts felt in each scenario.  In the first scenario, there was almost no reported difference in feel between the actual high and low launch shafts, while in the second (actually identical shaft), typical comments were made (i.e. low launch shaft was more 'stout', 'stable', 'firm', etc.).

 

We have done the same with flex, and the results were similar, though not as pronounced.  We suspect that markedly different flexes (we compared R and X) provide more proprioceptive feedback than different flex profiles, leading to more adaptive changes.  It is notable though that launch parameters still changed more when hitting the same shaft (expecting them to be different) than when hitting the different shafts (R to X).

 

Very interesting.  How many people were tested and what were the demographics of those players (handicaps, swing speed relative to the flex, age, etc..)?

 

The placebo effect isn't really what I was describing but it certainly can be just as real for some.

[ShowMe]

12 hours ago, BackNineCollapse said:

 

 

Just to expand on what Stuart said, we did a study where we compared expectation vs. shaft design.  After a warm up, we had people 'get a baseline' by hitting two different shafts (single manufacturer, marketed as high and low launch, same weight and flex rating) telling them they were the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked.)  We were using a GC4 LM, and justified the change by saying the clubhead stickers weren't reading, so needed to swap clubs.  We then had them hit the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked) telling them one was high launch the other low.  The difference in dynamic loft delivered between the high and low launch scenario was 2.2 times larger when hitting the same shaft (with the expectation they were different) compared to hitting different shafts (with the expectation they were the same).  Participants were also asked to rate how the shafts felt in each scenario.  In the first scenario, there was almost no reported difference in feel between the actual high and low launch shafts, while in the second (actually identical shaft), typical comments were made (i.e. low launch shaft was more 'stout', 'stable', 'firm', etc.).

 

We have done the same with flex, and the results were similar, though not as pronounced.  We suspect that markedly different flexes (we compared R and X) provide more proprioceptive feedback than different flex profiles, leading to more adaptive changes.  It is notable though that launch parameters still changed more when hitting the same shaft (expecting them to be different) than when hitting the different shafts (R to X).

Your study is flawed.  By presetting expectations, you do not get objective results.  For example, if you tell them a shaft is high launch, regardless of whether it is or not, they could subconsciously (or even consciously) alter their swing to try and make it lower launching.  And vice versa.

 

In a truly objective test, you wouldn't tell them whether a shaft is high or low launching.  You would just look at the results and see if they matched the design characteristics of the shaft.  Did the low launching shafts launch lower than the high launching shafts.

[ShowMe]

19 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

No, actually it wont.   Feel based changes to the swing can be much bigger than the effect of the shaft design (which isn't typically that large for most - and much less in iron shafts than in woods).   And second, the designed shaft characteristics only effect the results for those with a late enough release.   The designed launch characteristics will have no effect at all for those with an early release.   When the shaft unloads early, there is little to no forward bend left in the shaft at impact and no dynamic loft added.

I would argue it's more swing speed based, than feel based.  The higher the swing speed, the more the shaft design will affect ball flight.

 

Now, you could argue that higher swing speeds typically have later releases.  I would then counter by asking if that's causation or correlation.  For example, DeChambeau has the fastest swing speed on the tour and uses a shaft that is designed to launch very low, but he does not have a particularly late release with that Moe Norman-like swing compared to his peers.  Whereas Sergio has a much later release, but uses a shaft that is not designed to launch as low as Bryson's.

 

For me, here's what I know by way of an example.  A Diamana Whiteboard always, and by always I mean always, has a noticeably lower launch than a Diamana Blueboard of the same weight.  And I only swing my driver 104mph and don't have a particularly late release.

Edited May 23, 2021 by ShowMe

[ShowMe]

11 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

There's a semblance of truth there, but wouldn't use the words "sensitive" and "very few", but add its price and mechanics driven, not purposely manipulated as a result of sensitivity.

 

Example, Ventus Velocore Red 5 series "S" in my Driver, by design, provides a higher trajectory than Blue or Black.  Yet, with my mechanics I hit Red like others hit the two latter shafts.  A few friends that have hit Red and saw similar trajectory, and they have very different mechanics.  Go figure that one...

 

With inexpensive graphite iron shafts, mid-low bend really lite 60-95g graphite shafts typically are high trajectory shafts designed to pick up SS and distance, with those I agree.  But that isn't the case with shafts like Steelfiber i95cw.  Trajectory wise, for me, they are the same as i110cw.  Higher grade more costly graphite shafts made for better or tour players, tend to adapt to user mechanics, even my current 2-SW Tensei AV White AM2 shafts adapted to my swing.  Least that's how I see graphite.   

For me, the i95cws fly at the same height as my i80cws, but the i110cws flight significantly lower.

 

As I postulated to Stuart in another post, it's likely that the higher the swing speed, the more the shaft design will affect ball flight.  I suspect that someone with a high swing speed would definitely see a difference in flight between the Red and the Blue or Black.

[phizzy30]

38 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

For me, the i95cws fly at the same height as my i80cws, but the i110cws flight significantly lower.

 

As I postulated to Stuart in another post, it's likely that the higher the swing speed, the more the shaft design will affect ball flight.  I suspect that someone with a high swing speed would definitely see a difference in flight between the Red and the Blue or Black.

Yep.  Black launches the lowest for me no question, spin is super low.  Blue launches around 2 degrees higher on average(still very flat trajectory), spin numbers are marginal compared to Black.  Red is the highest launching of the bunch but does not balloon(so stable) and spin rates increased by 300 rpm. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by phizzy30

[Stuart_G]

5 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Your study is flawed.  By presetting expectations, you do not get objective results. 

 

It's not flawed in the context of investigating the subjective nature of the results or that the designed characteristics of the shaft are not always a dominant factor in the results.

 

 

5 hours ago, ShowMe said:

I would argue it's more swing speed based, than feel based.  The higher the swing speed, the more the shaft design will affect ball flight.

 

The real question is do you have any data or even a valid theory to support your argument?   The physics of the swing and how the stiffness of the shaft influences the results through the amount of forward bend is not that complicated and fairly well known and easily tested with robot data.   It's really just how the feel of the shaft can influence the swing and the results (the subjective human factor) that gets extremely complicated.

 

 

Quote

Now, you could argue that higher swing speeds typically have later releases. 

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

Quote

For me, here's what I know by way of an example.  A Diamana Whiteboard always, and by always I mean always, has a noticeably lower launch than a Diamana Blueboard of the same weight.  And I only swing my driver 104mph and don't have a particularly late release.

 

If you talking about your results, then that's a pretty small sample size to support any argument.  Nor does it indicate whether or not those results come directly from the forward bend of the shaft at impact vs some subjective influence to your swing from the different feel. A slightly more 'flippy' swing is actually a common subjective response from softer shaft for certain individuals.

 

But the bottom line is that for each individual when selecting a shaft, it doesn't really matter how much is subjective or objective.  Both effects are real and a valid thing to consider for the fitting. 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Stuart_G

[BackNineCollapse]

10 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Your study is flawed.  By presetting expectations, you do not get objective results.  For example, if you tell them a shaft is high launch, regardless of whether it is or not, they could subconsciously (or even consciously) alter their swing to try and make it lower launching.  And vice versa.

 

In a truly objective test, you wouldn't tell them whether a shaft is high or low launching.  You would just look at the results and see if they matched the design characteristics of the shaft.  Did the low launching shafts launch lower than the high launching shafts.

 

The study was designed specifically to test the effect of expectation on results.  We do robot testing to quantify the actual effect of shaft properties on launch parameters (spoiler, there's almost no effect regardless of CHS/release pattern, etc.)  For a vast majority of golfers, nearly all of the changes in launch parameters are due to how they react to a shaft (by changing their delivery based on kinesthetic feedback), and not from the shaft itself altering clubhead orientation.  Shafts do have an effect, but it's very small (which is not to say it's not important, just that the magnitude is vastly overestimated by basically everyone).

 

People vary in how sensitive they are to shaft differences.  Some people are very sensitive, some are closer to robots.  This too is malleable.  We did a study where after collecting baseline data, people were randomized to seeing our robot data vs. not.  The people that saw the robot data (showing shafts have very little effect), subsequently had much less variation in their launch parameters when swinging markedly different shaft profiles.

 

Being shaft sensitive is a good thing, it opens up fitting options.  And based on our data, I apologize for this post, as you are probably less sensitive now.