Iron lofts

[NRJyzr]

11 minutes ago, North Butte said:

My first-hand experience with golf clubs only goes back three decades. Here are the lofts of an off-the-shelf iron set circa 1990 (Titleist DCI):

 

21-24-28-32-36-40-44-48 (8 clubs covering 21-48 degrees, average gap 3.9 degrees)

 

And here are the lofts of an off-the-shelf iron set 30 years later (Rogue X):

 

21-24-27-31.5-36-41-46 (7 clubs covering 21-46 degrees, average gap 4.2 degrees)

 

The longest club in that DCI set was 38-1/2", the longest club in the Rogue X set is 38" so on average the 7 Rogue X irons are a tiny bit shorter but not enough to matter much. 

 

As far as I can tell, the "jacked loft" set stretches out 7 clubs to cover roughly the same loft range was 8 clubs. As a short hitter whose "gaps" are quite small, I like having one fewer clubs for about the same distance range. Maybe someone swinging 30% faster than me would be better off with those 3.9 degree average gaps, I can't say. 

 

BTW, those 8 Titleist DCI irons cost something like $540 back in the day. That would be something like $1,000-$1,100 in today's dollars. The 7 Rogue X irons cost $600 (that's a cast club to cast club comparison) although current Titleist clubs go for more like $1,200 for 7 irons. 

 

At the short end of the set you have a 46deg club instead of 48deg which does somewhat influence your choice of wedges beyond the iron set. At the long end of the range it's a 38" 21deg club instead of a 38-1/2" 21deg one but the Rogue X has far more forgiving clubhead and is 25-30g lighter so I doubt it is harder to hit or shorter than the DCI would have been.

 

The only difference in those two sets, other than the 8-for-7 club change, is THE NUMBERS WRITTEN ON THE SOLE OF THE CLUB. All this complaining, decade after decade, strawman after strawman comes down to complaining about THE NUMBERS WRITEEN ON THE SOLE OF THE CLUB. It really is that simple. 

 

A rather lovely bit of irony.  Ad hominem projection.  LOL

 

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, NRJyzr said:

 

A rather lovely bit of irony.  Ad hominem projection.  LOL

 

I don’t think that term means what you think it means. 

[chipa]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

My first-hand experience with golf clubs only goes back three decades. Here are the lofts of an off-the-shelf iron set circa 1990 (Titleist DCI):

 

21-24-28-32-36-40-44-48 (8 clubs covering 21-48 degrees, average gap 3.9 degrees)

 

And here are the lofts of an off-the-shelf iron set 30 years later (Rogue X):

 

21-24-27-31.5-36-41-46 (7 clubs covering 21-46 degrees, average gap 4.2 degrees)

 

The longest club in that DCI set was 38-1/2", the longest club in the Rogue X set is 38" so on average the 7 Rogue X irons are a tiny bit shorter but not enough to matter much. 

 

As far as I can tell, the "jacked loft" set stretches out 7 clubs to cover roughly the same loft range was 8 clubs. As a short hitter whose "gaps" are quite small, I like having one fewer clubs for about the same distance range. Maybe someone swinging 30% faster than me would be better off with those 3.9 degree average gaps, I can't say. 

 

 

 

People with lower clubhead speeds couldn't hit the DCI 3 and 4 iron any better than Rogue X 5 and 6 irons. The smarter choice is to take advantage of the new technology and balls and always choose higher lofts and as long as a shaft as they can handle. The Rogues are a 1/2" shorter which is going the wrong way, they should be 1/2" longer than standard to help out the slower s.s. golfer or 1" longer than they are now. After all the goal of irons is to hit the club to a certain distance. Hitting a 7 iron that goes 165 to 185 depending on the bounce won't lower one's h.c. If a higher h.c. can't spin the ball enough to keep it from rolling out then he should go to a longer shafter hybrid or fairway wood. Velocity and spin are what is needed to hit approaches that go the correct distance, not stronger lofted and shorter shafted irons that hit the ball with very little spin comparatively speaking.

Edited June 19, 2021 by chipa

[North Butte]

Right. 30 years ago the DCI were good irons although slower swingers would have done will not do use the two longest clubs in the set. 
 

Now the Rogue X have the same loft but are easier to hit, nonetheless slower swingers would do well not do use the two longest clubs in the set. 
 

what exactly are you claiming has changed other than the numbers on the sole?

[Nard_S]

42 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Right. 30 years ago the DCI were good irons although slower swingers would have done will not do use the two longest clubs in the set. 

DCI's were never GI clubs. At that time they were players' CB and really meant for low indexers looking for forgiveness. 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Nard_S

[ChipNRun]

Another downside of loft-jacking. 

 

On 6/17/2021 at 7:17 AM, Stuart_G said:

Tom's (Wishon) objections had nothing to do with playability or the traditional relationships between the club number and lofts.   Whether you care or not about the loft vs label relationships,  you can't deny that a large part of the loft jacking was driven by an attempt to raise sales by increasing distances of the mid irons everyone used to demo prior to a buying.   Tom's biggest complaint was the deceptive nature of that practice.

 

GolfWorks founder and club designer Ralph Maltby discussed a related point on shift in demo irons to easier-to-hit lofts, which have now elevated to 7 irons:

 

Quote

Demo Irons * - Discussion Point

"For years, the #5 iron was the iron of choice to demo. In the last couple of years (circa 2005) manufacturers have shifted to the #6 iron that is obviously easier to hit. ...  I really think this is not good for golfers looking to buy or evaluate new clubs. Look at it this way. Regardless of the Playability of any iron design, the #9 iron will be the easiest to hit. ... Try and always demo the longest iron you can hit, this will give you the most Playability difference feedback.  This is always possible on manufacturers demo days, but not always available in other buyer situations."

 

* From Maltby, Ralph. (2005). The Maltby Playability Factor: Understanding 

Golf Club Dynamics. Newark, OH: Maltby Enterprises Inc., page 84. 

 

[chipa]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

DCI's were never GI clubs. At that time they were players' CB and really meant for low indexers looking for forgiveness. 

 

 

What I read is that they were a copy of the Pings and Tommy Armour 845's (which was a copy of the Pings) but with less offset. I understand compared to the other clubs available at the time that they were conisdered easier to hit.

[Nard_S]

40 minutes ago, chipa said:

 

What I read is that they were a copy of the Pings and Tommy Armour 845's (which was a copy of the Pings) but with less offset. I understand compared to the other clubs available at the time that they were conisdered easier to hit.

Not my experience. I owned the DCI Gold's which had more offset than the Black ones. Came from Ping Eye II. DCI were more "players" oriented than either Eye II's or 845's The long irons were harder to use. The club, shafts were heavier too, full weight DG S300 where Ping had their own slightly lighter version shaft. They also trumpeted being dead center sweet spot which the others did not adhere to. They play more like a modern MB does. It' was a solid players' club. Not a GI club.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Nard_S

[wayne18]

On 6/15/2021 at 6:10 AM, Jmccas said:

Or the Ben Hogan PTX Pros. 4* gaps all through the set. 

Love the 4* gapping of my PTX Pros, had them built 2* weak, -1/4”. For me they are consistent, love the flight and for some reason decisions on club selection seems easier. But that’s just me.

 

PW - 48*

4i - 24*

[Stuart_G]

22 hours ago, agolf1 said:

What I do know for a fact is there are some people that know iron lofts have gotten stronger and they continue to buy a  new set every few years.  Because despite the labeling preferences of some and the truth that it hasn't helped them, it hasn't hurt them either. 

 

Of course the people who do know will still buy new clubs.   Why wouldn't they?

 

But this discussion was never supposed to be about whether or not the change hurts or helps them.  It's about answering the OP's question on WHY they have been changing and why they are so inconsistent.  At least that's the only point I've been focusing on.

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Stuart_G]

23 hours ago, North Butte said:

what exactly are you claiming has changed other than the numbers on the sole?

 

Just an observation (not a judgement) but one thing that is changing is amount of inconsistency across different models in a single year release from one company seems to be growing.   e.g.  7* to 8* difference between the T100's and the T400's. 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Stuart_G

[North Butte]

On 6/14/2021 at 10:57 PM, zrheisler22 said:

Why do Titleist and other manufacturers change the number of degrees of loft between each club through the set? For example the T100 have 3 degrees between the 4/5/6 but 4 between the rest.

To me, you’d want the 4 degrees all the way through to avoid bunching at the top and to have a proper gap to your either 3I/3H/5W.

 

Just a reminder, the original post to start the topic was why the loft increments between long irons are not the same as the loft increments between short irons within the same set. And how those increments manifest as yardage gaps.

 

OP was not asking why a 6-iron in one set has the same loft as a 8-iron in another set. 

[chipa]

20 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Not my experience. I owned the DCI Gold's which had more offset than the Black ones. Came from Ping Eye II. DCI were more "players" oriented than either Eye II's or 845's The long irons were harder to use. The club, shafts were heavier too, full weight DG S300 where Ping had their own slightly lighter version shaft. They also trumpeted being dead center sweet spot which the others did not adhere to. They play more like a modern MB does. It' was a solid players' club. Not a GI club.

 

According to an article I read about John Hoeflich the designer of the 845 there were only traditional irons and Pings at the time, so there weren't "game improvement " and "players" irons designations. 

 

John Hoeflich created the 845 to fit in a niche between the extreme Pings and traditional irons, so he made them smaller with less offset, but of course they were marketed as easy to hit. When John Hoeflich left Tommy Armour he went to Titleist and designed the DCI Gold first, and then the Black. The difference is the black had less offset than the Gold. I understand that both designs were supposed to be easier to hit than traditional irons, but not as large and with as much offset as the Pings.

Edited June 20, 2021 by chipa

[North Butte]

40 minutes ago, chipa said:

 

According to an article I read about John Hoeflich the designer of the 845 there were only traditional irons and Pings at the time, so there weren't "game improvement " and "players" irons designations. 

 

John Hoeflich created the 845 to fit in a niche between the extreme Pings and traditional irons, so he made them smaller with less offset, but of course they were marketed as easy to hit. When John Hoeflich left Tommy Armour he went to Titleist and designed the DCI Gold first, and then the Black. The difference is the black had less offset than the Gold. I understand that both designs were supposed to be easier to hit than traditional irons, but not as large and with as much offset as the Pings.

The 845 had fixed offset rather than progressive IIRC. Maybe less than Ping but throughout the set it looked quite offset to my eye. 
 

But then again my first set of clubs ever were DCI Black so that kind of “calibrated” my perception of offset. 

[Pepperturbo]

On 6/19/2021 at 1:12 AM, Stuart_G said:

Maybe there is misunderstanding.   When I say "jacked",  I"m not talking about them being altered locally at the stores by the sales people.   I'm talking about the OEM's making them stronger a little bit each for each release - slowly making them stronger year after year.  That has been pretty wide spread - although yes, it hasn't been for every model and maybe not every OEM.

I understood you.  I was referring to OEM making clubs with stronger lofts.  All the years I traveled to major cities and three continents, downtime I'd always find a golf store to test out clubs. 

[chipa]

I think distance irons have hurt a lot of high hc scores just because the low spin on the ball almost always assures one will be at 3 putt distance on one's approaches.

 

A few year before the arms race between Callaway and Cobra in the late 90's I played golf with a guy who had a predictable but consistent slice. His best drives back then were 220. However, he played from the forward tees plus he did have a c.b, but not Ping's, so they were a little forgiving. He kept it in play most of the time and was accurate enough with his irons with his high slice to avoid 3 putting. He had a full set of woods back then as this was before hybrids came out. I played at least 15 rounds with this guy and he was always in the mid 80's sometimes getting close to 79. He also used the Texas wedge quite effectively, that also apparently made him a good putter. 

[North Butte]

9 hours ago, chipa said:

I think distance irons have hurt a lot of high hc scores just because the low spin on the ball almost always assures one will be at 3 putt distance on one's approaches.

 

A few year before the arms race between Callaway and Cobra in the late 90's I played golf with a guy who had a predictable but consistent slice. His best drives back then were 220. However, he played from the forward tees plus he did have a c.b, but not Ping's, so they were a little forgiving. He kept it in play most of the time and was accurate enough with his irons with his high slice to avoid 3 putting. He had a full set of woods back then as this was before hybrids came out. I played at least 15 rounds with this guy and he was always in the mid 80's sometimes getting close to 79. He also used the Texas wedge quite effectively, that also apparently made him a good putter. 

That's a pretty good description of my game except I drive it a little shorter and instead of a slice I play more of a block-fade with the irons. I don't 3-putt much and use my putter from everywhere around the greens.

 

I do have a propensity for mixing in some truly awful blow-up rounds to turn "mid 80's" into 90-something. 

 

FWIW, I play to virtually the same handicap with Titleist AP2 or Callaway Rogue X. Maybe a couple strokes better with the distance irons but not enough difference to really matter. For a given loft (say AP2 5-iron and Rogue X 7-iron, both 27 degrees) the distance irons do seem to spin a little less but they also fly a bit higher. So the ball tends to end up about in the same places. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by North Butte

[Noodler]

On 6/14/2021 at 9:30 PM, Lepatrique said:

It’s for yardage gapping. Two main points: 1) a 1* change from 20-21 is a higher percent of the loft (5% change in this example) than a 1* change from 40-42 (2.5% change). And 2) because the swing speed is faster in longer irons vs shorter irons, the impact of 1* loft change is more pronounced (more ball speed). Someone smarter than me can articulate this point more clearly, but I believe these are the two primary reasons. And the end result is - that 5* gap between PW and 9i translates to 10 yards just like the 3* gap from 5i to 4i. At least in theory. 

 

It seems any discussion on iron lofts inevitably devolves into a battle about loft-jacking...  But bringing it back to the OP's original question and this response from @Lepatrique...

 

The reason for the smaller loft gaps in the longer irons than the shorter irons is not about the percentage of loft change (the ball doesn't care about the %) or about the change in club speed (the club lengths are typically evenly incremented, thus you would expect even increments in the lofts).  What this is really about is smash factor (which has not been mentioned).

 

As the lofts get lower, smash factor increases progressively.  The club speed is more efficiently converted into ball speed.  This is why the loft gapping will become smaller in the longer irons.  The change in smash factor is not linear as you move from the short irons into the long irons.  Loft gaps must get smaller in the longer irons to account for the increased efficiency.

 

At the end of the day, it's all really irrelevant though.  Just bend the irons to what works for your swing in the real world.  Ignore the "paper specs".  This is why it's good to have irons that are easily adjustable for loft/lie.

[North Butte]

12 minutes ago, Noodler said:

 

It seems any discussion on iron lofts inevitably devolves into a battle about loft-jacking...  But bringing it back to the OP's original question and this response from @Lepatrique...

 

The reason for the smaller loft gaps in the longer irons than the shorter irons is not about the percentage of loft change (the ball doesn't care about the %) or about the change in club speed (the club lengths are typically evenly incremented, thus you would expect even increments in the lofts).  What this is really about is smash factor (which has not been mentioned).

 

As the lofts get lower, smash factor increases progressively.  The club speed is more efficiently converted into ball speed.  This is why the loft gapping will become smaller in the longer irons.  The change in smash factor is not linear as you move from the short irons into the long irons.  Loft gaps must get smaller in the longer irons to account for the increased efficiency.

 

At the end of the day, it's all really irrelevant though.  Just bend the irons to what works for your swing in the real world.  Ignore the "paper specs".  This is why it's good to have irons that are easily adjustable for loft/lie.

Exacte.

 

And I'd add, in the real world at the point where you can't hit each lower-numbered iron farther than the next higher one just stop your set right there. That might be 26 degrees for one person, 23 for another and 20 for a really high clubhead speed golfer. Use what works. 

[Stuart_G]

58 minutes ago, Noodler said:

The reason for the smaller loft gaps in the longer irons than the shorter irons is not about the percentage of loft change (the ball doesn't care about the %) or about the change in club speed (the club lengths are typically evenly incremented, thus you would expect even increments in the lofts).  What this is really about is smash factor (which has not been mentioned).

 

As the lofts get lower, smash factor increases progressively.  The club speed is more efficiently converted into ball speed.  This is why the loft gapping will become smaller in the longer irons.  The change in smash factor is not linear as you move from the short irons into the long irons.  Loft gaps must get smaller in the longer irons to account for the increased efficiency.

 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.    I personally haven't seen any hard data to support that (on average) smaller loft increments are needed in the longer clubs to get similar distance gaps.    It certainly can be true for some people - but I haven't seen enough supporting data or theory that it's prevalent enough to warrant the OEM's altering the specs.   And if you think about it, if it really were true I think we'd have seen the OEM's diverge from the traditional 4* loft gaps much earlier in the evolution of the specs.  Of course that's just pure speculation.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Noodler said:

At the end of the day, it's all really irrelevant though.  Just bend the irons to what works for your swing in the real world.  Ignore the "paper specs".  This is why it's good to have irons that are easily adjustable for loft/lie.

 

Bingo!  It can vary so much from individual to individual and swing to swing that you should never rely on any assumptions about how loft gaps translate to distance gaps.   That's something everyone really should take time to figure out for themselves and their clubs.