I'm calling it now: the number of graphite/composite iron shafts played on the men's tour doubles next year

[me05501]

I recently bought a set of Z Forged irons on MMT 125S to try. I LOVE the shafts. Also love the heads up to about the 7 iron. Beyond that I need a bit more speed and forgiveness than the blades offer. 

 

I was *this* close to having the set broken down and re-using the shafts but that seemed like bad karma for such a nice set of clubs. I ended up buying 6-PW shafts and my set will be ZX7 6-7 and Z Forged 8-PW. I'll move that other set along so someone else can try them. 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Was rolling through YT on the holiday week and came across this:

 

 

Head to head test with Matt for his gamers (PX 6.5), LA Golf, and MMT. 

 

Interesting takeaways:

 

1. The measured metrics as a whole were VERY similar across the shafts. Speed, launch, spin, carry, etc. As in basically right on top of each other. Ball flight, etc, were pretty much identical too. 
2. The LA Golf was about 5g lighter than the others, and Matt had trouble finding the sweet spot with that shaft. 
3. Ian was talking about consistency, and mentioned that when PUREing shafts, the graphite shafts tend to be much more consistent across the board than steel. 
4. The important one: Matt's averages were the same pretty much across the board, but the MMT had a significant improvement in standard deviation across almost all the metrics. Which for a guy with his speed and skill, you're not trying necessarily to get "more" in your numbers, you just want them the exact same every time. Seemed the MMT was the winner there. 

 

Obviously this is a small sample size. Probably not enough to be statistically significant. But I could see a high-skill player looking at a video like that where the standard deviation of the MMT was much better, and be much more willing to give graphite a try. And if the construction of the shaft leads to tighter tolerances on the consistency of the produced shaft (such as Ian suggested from the PUREing machine), it would tend to make you think club-to-club would be even more consistent too. 

 

 

 

[uW0tM8]

I love graphite, but here’s why I see tour players (mostly) staying with steel:

 

Launch angle & peak height. Comparing X100 to MMT 125TX, difference is about 2* higher launch coming from the MMTs, and a higher peak height (similar ball speed, swing speed, marginally higher spin from MMTs. Dispersion for me was no different. Granted, I’m not a pro lol). Assuming this is the same for most people across the board (not always the case obviously), pros would take issue with not hitting their usual trajectories. You could always strengthen the lofts to bring trajectory back down, but then you run into issues when you get down to the wedges (rough ex: if you go from 52-56-60 to 50-54-58 to compensate for the higher launch, it completely alters how you play chips and pitches around the greens.) 
 

Maybe other graphite iron shafts will perform more similarly to the tried-and-true steel, but this is my current opinion based on my limited testing.

 

Comparing a different steel shaft to MMTs might yield different results, so take my opinion with a grain of salt lol.

 

Update: After watching the video with Matt and Ian at TXG, seems pretty clear that graphite shouldn’t give a default higher launch angle. Seems to simply be my experience, not a rule of thumb. Either way, really enjoy this topic! 

Edited December 28, 2022 by uW0tM8

[Red4282]

11 minutes ago, uW0tM8 said:

I love graphite, but here’s why I see tour players (mostly) staying with steel:

 

Launch angle & peak height. Comparing X100 to MMT 125TX, difference is about 2* higher launch coming from the MMTs, and a higher peak height (similar ball speed, swing speed, marginally higher spin from MMTs. Dispersion for me was no different. Granted, I’m not a pro lol). Assuming this is the same for most people across the board (not always the case obviously), pros would take issue with not hitting their usual trajectories. You could always strengthen the lofts to bring trajectory back down, but then you run into issues when you get down to the wedges (rough ex: if you go from 52-56-60 to 50-54-58 to compensate for the higher launch, it completely alters how you play chips and pitches around the greens.) 
 

Maybe other graphite iron shafts will perform more similarly to the tried-and-true steel, but this is my current opinion based on my limited testing.

 

Comparing a different steel shaft to MMTs might yield different results, so take my opinion with a grain of salt lol.

Do you have other evidence they launch higher other than your experience? I dont think thats the same for everyone across the board.

[uW0tM8]

18 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Do you have other evidence they launch higher other than your experience? I dont think thats the same for everyone across the board.

I don’t. I just meant to highlight my experience comparing the “gold standard” X100 to the MMTs which were designed to mimic the X100. If there was a graphite shaft that was designed based on the PX 6.5 for example, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will launch 2* higher. Lots of variables, very interesting topic! 

[mosesgolf]

I recently switched to Steelfiber i95s and LOVE them.  Every bit as good as steel, perhaps 1/2 club longer and just as consistent.  But the big bonus was the vibration dampening-my elbow pain is gone.