Does anyone still game Ping Eye 2's?

[Arnsybill]

The quality of the Eye 2s is so awesome. I still game mine from time to time.

 

I have a set of Ping G10s. The shaft on the seven-iron snapped under the grip at the top of the backswing... THAT would likely never happen with a ZZ lite shaft.

 

The whole experience with the snapped shaft/Ping customer care was not good. I'm a long-time and loyal customer. It was sad.

[Tim Schoch]

I posted this in another thread but I'll share it here too. I've added a club to my BeCu Ping Eye2 square groove set: a BeCu Ping Eye2+ sand wedge. The Eye2 Wedge is 50.5*, the Eye2 SW is 57.5*, and the Eye2+ SW is a great gap wedge at 53*. Love it.

[behubbard]

FYI.

There's a set of EYE 2 V Groove upside down Kasrten's online EB*Y

[shart6]

I decided I didn't want to give my new son in law a WRX grind or 1985 LPGA Cellular One Ping Eye 2 lob wedge. So I looked on Craigslist yesterday and found a standard one with a catch. I had to buy a copper lob wedge with it for $85. So now I'm thinking I should build a copper set.

[jplroper]

UPS stopped by today, now I to will be playing the Eye 2's.

[Tim Schoch]

UPS stopped by today, now I to will be playing the Eye 2's.

 

Congrats. If you haven't played them before, be patient and swing slow. Soon the look will click in and you'll reap the benefits.

[NoCalHack]

Yeah, some of my favorite irons I've ever played. Used them back in the 90's when I was probably playing my best golf.

 

I don't want to rain on the parade, but iron technology has significantly advanced since then. You can definitely find more forgiving and better playing irons for very little money now. The club heads are really small by todays standards, and the perimeter weighting is not as severe as today's modern clubs. Modern irons also utilize a thinner face to enhance performance. Importantly, the lofts will be way weaker, and the irons are meant to play shorter (heavier heads). As great as they were back in the day, you can do a lot better. Any number of sets from 3-4 years ago will perform better and be cheap as well.

 

If you like them and play them, great. But if you are thinking about getting them because they perform great and are cheap, I'd think a bit more.

[Tim Schoch]

Yeah, some of my favorite irons I've ever played. Used them back in the 90's when I was probably playing my best golf.

 

I don't want to rain on the parade, but iron technology has significantly advanced since then. You can definitely find more forgiving and better playing irons for very little money now. The club heads are really small by todays standards, and the perimeter weighting is not as severe as today's modern clubs. Modern irons also utilize a thinner face to enhance performance. Importantly, the lofts will be way weaker, and the irons are meant to play shorter (heavier heads). As great as they were back in the day, you can do a lot better. Any number of sets from 3-4 years ago will perform better and be cheap as well.

 

If you like them and play them, great. But if you are thinking about getting them because they perform great and are cheap, I'd think a bit more.

 

Totally disagree. Tests show (

) there is little difference between yesterday and today in performance, particularly in GI and cavity backed clubs. In materials, yes. Erase the numbers stamped on your clubs and hit what works. A 7-iron in the 80s is no longer a 7-iron today. That is not progress--it may have crazy design elements, but all I need in Ping Eye 2 is a 6-iron and I'm competing.

 

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance. But their PW is 43*. Sorry, that's a 9-iron to me.

 

I don't find the weight that different on Ping Eye 2 to say AP1s. Graphite makes clubs lighter for sure, but you can put graphite or lite steel in anything.

 

I am not a big advocate of using old clubs, nor am I a hater of new clubs. I love new clubs. But I want the case fairly stated. Old and new are close enough that mid- to high-handicappers can save $900 and still get the performance they need. What they really need is a better swing.

[NRJyzr]

 

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance.

 

That's what the marketing tries to tell us, but it's not actually true. They strengthen the lofts to sell clubs, and nothing more.

 

As long as that line has been foisted on the golf public, if it were true, people would be hitting satellites with their PW by now. LOL

 

Interestingly, I don't think anything modern has a lower CG than MP-14 blades. Which had a 50° PW. And are close to two dozen years old...

[Tim Schoch]

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance.

 

That's what the marketing tries to tell us, but it's not actually true. They strengthen the lofts to sell clubs, and nothing more.

 

As long as that line has been foisted on the golf public, if it were true, people would be hitting satellites with their PW by now. LOL

 

Interestingly, I don't think anything modern has a lower CG than MP-14 blades. Which had a 50° PW. And are close to two dozen years old...

 

Not sure you're basing your claims on stats and construction.

 

I'd rather believe the expert articles on this subject. I hit the AP1 43* PW and it is a bullet. I compared it to the Ping Eye 2 9-iron (at 45*) , the Apex Plus 9-iron (at 42*), the Mizuno MP-53 9-iron (at 42*), and the 2001 Hogan Apex Edge 9-iron (at 42*). Hundreds of balls in three different sessions. No difference in distance. (Flight was determined by shaft, all steel, same flex) The AP1 PW is the new 9-iron. Loft = distance, regardless of how old the club heads are. Shaft makes difference in flight and distance, for sure.

 

The Ping Eye 2 PW at 50.5* loft and god knows what offset is the easiest club I have ever hit to get high and to the appropriate length. But this requires you get comfortable with major offset, which a lot of players don't.

[NRJyzr]

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance.

 

That's what the marketing tries to tell us, but it's not actually true. They strengthen the lofts to sell clubs, and nothing more.

 

As long as that line has been foisted on the golf public, if it were true, people would be hitting satellites with their PW by now. LOL

 

Interestingly, I don't think anything modern has a lower CG than MP-14 blades. Which had a 50° PW. And are close to two dozen years old...

 

Not sure you're basing your claims on stats and construction.

 

I'd rather believe the expert articles on this subject. I hit the AP1 43* PW and it is a bullet. I compared it to the Ping Eye 2 9-iron (at 45*) , the Apex Plus 9-iron (at 42*), the Mizuno MP-53 9-iron (at 42*), and the 2001 Hogan Apex Edge 9-iron (at 42*). Hundreds of balls in three different sessions. No difference in distance. (Flight was determined by shaft, all steel, same flex) The AP1 PW is the new 9-iron. Loft = distance, regardless of how old the club heads are. Shaft makes difference in flight and distance, for sure.

 

The Ping Eye 2 PW at 50.5* loft and god knows what offset is the easiest club I have ever hit to get high and to the appropriate length. But this requires you get comfortable with major offset, which a lot of players don't.

 

I'm basing my claims on the posts of Tom Wishon

 

The CG information is published by GolfWorks in their MPF Iron Ratings section

 

edited to add:

 

Actual Vertical CG of the following irons:

Titleist AP1, 2016 version, 6 iron: 0.763"

Mizuno MP14, not sure if 5i or 6i: 0.687"

Ping Eye2, also not sure if 5i/6i: 0.805"

Ping ISI, which for me hit higher than Eye2+: 0.838"

 

And for fun, the Wilson D100 irons, with their 43° PW: 0.869" (which is higher than the midpoint of a golfball)

[Bad9]

I

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance.

 

That's what the marketing tries to tell us, but it's not actually true. They strengthen the lofts to sell clubs, and nothing more.

 

As long as that line has been foisted on the golf public, if it were true, people would be hitting satellites with their PW by now. LOL

 

Interestingly, I don't think anything modern has a lower CG than MP-14 blades. Which had a 50° PW. And are close to two dozen years old...

 

Not sure you're basing your claims on stats and construction.

 

I'd rather believe the expert articles on this subject. I hit the AP1 43* PW and it is a bullet. I compared it to the Ping Eye 2 9-iron (at 45*) , the Apex Plus 9-iron (at 42*), the Mizuno MP-53 9-iron (at 42*), and the 2001 Hogan Apex Edge 9-iron (at 42*). Hundreds of balls in three different sessions. No difference in distance. (Flight was determined by shaft, all steel, same flex) The AP1 PW is the new 9-iron. Loft = distance, regardless of how old the club heads are. Shaft makes difference in flight and distance, for sure.

 

The Ping Eye 2 PW at 50.5* loft and god knows what offset is the easiest club I have ever hit to get high and to the appropriate length. But this requires you get comfortable with major offset, which a lot of players don't.

 

I'd be interested to read some of the expert articles you refer to. Do you have any links? Tom Wishon has outlined a number of times over the years his belief that the loft creep is a marketing ploy, as NRYzer says. If you search this site he states it many times. I would be interested to see the articles you reference.

[Tim Schoch]

I

About the new club faces. That's why the AP1 lofts are so strong, their new face technology hits the ball too high unless they lower the lofts and, surprise, they also gain distance.

 

That's what the marketing tries to tell us, but it's not actually true. They strengthen the lofts to sell clubs, and nothing more.

 

As long as that line has been foisted on the golf public, if it were true, people would be hitting satellites with their PW by now. LOL

 

Interestingly, I don't think anything modern has a lower CG than MP-14 blades. Which had a 50° PW. And are close to two dozen years old...

 

Not sure you're basing your claims on stats and construction.

 

I'd rather believe the expert articles on this subject. I hit the AP1 43* PW and it is a bullet. I compared it to the Ping Eye 2 9-iron (at 45*) , the Apex Plus 9-iron (at 42*), the Mizuno MP-53 9-iron (at 42*), and the 2001 Hogan Apex Edge 9-iron (at 42*). Hundreds of balls in three different sessions. No difference in distance. (Flight was determined by shaft, all steel, same flex) The AP1 PW is the new 9-iron. Loft = distance, regardless of how old the club heads are. Shaft makes difference in flight and distance, for sure.

 

The Ping Eye 2 PW at 50.5* loft and god knows what offset is the easiest club I have ever hit to get high and to the appropriate length. But this requires you get comfortable with major offset, which a lot of players don't.

 

I'd be interested to read some of the expert articles you refer to. Do you have any links? Tom Wishon has outlined a number of times over the years his belief that the loft creep is a marketing ploy, as NRYzer says. If you search this site he states it many times. I would be interested to see the articles you reference.

 

I thought I added a link in the post to an informal test. it's below. Experts are everywhere, including Titleist's site, as well as others in threads on this site I've read.

 

Keep in mind, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't care about any of it, except how I hit the ball and the results I get. However, when others simply say this is all a marketing ploy, it is a bit of a specious oversimplification that I tried to correct.

 

If it's a marketing ploy, it's a bad one. Lower lofts to make clubs more hittable in a GI set? Doesn't make sense. Or do they think because they put PW on a club that no one will check the lofts. Marketing doesn't make people stupid. In fact, it should do the opposite to inform you and help you decide to buy a product.

 

Instead of marketing, I think what they are trying to do with stronger lofts is redefine what a PW and all other clubs are. AP1s have a PW @43 and a W @47. They are simply lengthening the bag.

 

Like I said, I don't care. I hit what I hit and I know my distances and the lofts that get the ball there. If I'm playing a Ping Eye2 PW I know it won't go as far as my Hogan because the loft is only 50.5. So I pull the 9-iron. Easy.

 

Here's a link to the fun test I reference above. I have performed many tests just like this with similar results.

 

Link to review and very good comments at the end:

http://www.golfwrx.c...-716-ap1-irons/

[Cwebb]

 

If it's a marketing ploy, it's a bad one. Lower lofts to make clubs more hittable in a GI set? Doesn't make sense. Or do they think because they put PW on a club that no one will check the lofts. Marketing doesn't make people stupid. In fact, it should do the opposite to inform you and help you decide to buy a product.

 

 

It's real simple. They know that for the average player, if they hit one companies same numbered iron further on demo day when deciding to make a purchase, it will leave a positive impression. They equate this to "hitting it better". All the companies know this and have been "forced" to do the lower lofts in order to "stay competitive" on the all important demo day. (sales)

 

Believe it or not, the average player doesn't check the loft specs or care why they are lower lofts

[NRJyzr]

 

If it's a marketing ploy, it's a bad one. Lower lofts to make clubs more hittable in a GI set? Doesn't make sense. Or do they think because they put PW on a club that no one will check the lofts. Marketing doesn't make people stupid. In fact, it should do the opposite to inform you and help you decide to buy a product.

 

 

It's real simple. They know that for the average player, if they hit one companies same numbered iron further on demo day when deciding to make a purchase, it will leave a positive impression. They equate this to "hitting it better". All the companies know this and have been "forced" to do the lower lofts in order to "stay competitive" on the all important demo day. (sales)

 

Believe it or not, the average player doesn't check the loft specs or care why they are lower lofts

 

One only need look at the King Cobra irons from the 90s and their 43° PW.

 

It's not just the average golf public, though. See the effects in the occasional post on WRX from time to time...

[ppl4golf]

A good set of irons covers the distance range (typically 100-200yds) and has good yardage gaps and is supposed to be consistent in delivering them.

 

Older sets cover the gaps better in my experience...I gotta enjoy hitting through the set 4 to PW...vs hitting a 190 6-iron, 195 5-iron, 197yds 4-iron in the newer sets because of the diminished return.

 

Yes, a 200-yd high soaring 6-iron or a 150-year PW is fun but that’s not what’s important in a set of irons.

[Bad9]

 

If it's a marketing ploy, it's a bad one. Lower lofts to make clubs more hittable in a GI set? Doesn't make sense. Or do they think because they put PW on a club that no one will check the lofts. Marketing doesn't make people stupid. In fact, it should do the opposite to inform you and help you decide to buy a product.

 

 

It's real simple. They know that for the average player, if they hit one companies same numbered iron further on demo day when deciding to make a purchase, it will leave a positive impression. They equate this to "hitting it better". All the companies know this and have been "forced" to do the lower lofts in order to "stay competitive" on the all important demo day. (sales)

 

Believe it or not, the average player doesn't check the loft specs or care why they are lower lofts

 

I would say this applies to most players including many low handicaps and likely even some pros. I would take the expertise of Tom Wishon over either of the "expert articles" referenced to say otherwise.

[Tim Schoch]

The topic is loft manipulation for marketing purposes. So do most of you think yes it is all marketing and no tech?

[Conrad1953]

I clicked in expecting to read wonderful tales of exploits with Eye 2s.

 

??????????????????

[Tim Schoch]

Yeah well, sometimes you get what you don't expect. The general topic took a sidebar tour into rather familiar and tedious territory. Not really a surprise, and not really with any resolution either.

 

I'm ready to move on. My first great experience with Ping Eye2s was in 1986 when I bought them. Thrilled to the bone. And I bought them because I was about to be sent to PGA West for a week's worth of lessons with Hank Haney, having won the Golf Illustrated contest at that time. Hank liked the Ping Eye2s, as well. In short, at the end of the week, I was shooting in the mid-80s not the mid-90s. So now, every time I take out an Eye2, I fall in love with the offset all over again.

[Conrad1953]

Yeah well, sometimes you get what you don't expect. The general topic took a sidebar tour into rather familiar and tedious territory. Not really a surprise, and not really with any resolution either.

 

I'm ready to move on. My first great experience with Ping Eye2s was in 1986 when I bought them. Thrilled to the bone. And I bought them because I was about to be sent to PGA West for a week's worth of lessons with Hank Haney, having won the Golf Illustrated contest at that time. Hank liked the Ping Eye2s, as well. In short, at the end of the week, I was shooting in the mid-80s not the mid-90s. So now, every time I take out an Eye2, I fall in love with the offset all over again.

 

Glad to hear it Tim. I have a few Becu Eye 2 wedges (W and S). I take them to

the course now and then. Played with a WRX friend recently and he brought his

Eye 2 1 iron along for us to hit on the range.

[Tim Schoch]

How did you like the 1-iron? They are really a rush when you hit them pure.

[shart6]

I clicked in expecting to read wonderful tales of exploits with Eye 2s.

 

??????????????????

 

Here you go. I almost had a hole in one Sunday with the five iron. Two chip ins with the sand wedge, one Saturday one Sunday. And almost hit goose standing 10 feet to the left of the ping on a par three Saturday with a seven iron.

[willie991]

Picked up a set of Eye 2's today. Perfect condition. All same serial numbers. All original shafts with shaft bands. 3-PW w/ZZ Lites. E-mailed Ping and they left the factory June 1989. They're in the bag for tomorrow's round. Still have a set of Eye 2+ BeCu's 3-LW. Requested build date in the same e-mail to Ping. May 1999 on the BeCu's. There's still the feeling that Karsten is looking down and smiling every time he sees someone walking to the first tee with a set of his Eye 2's in the bag.

[chisag]

One only need look at the King Cobra irons from the 90s and their 43° PW.

 

It's not just the average golf public, though. See the effects in the occasional post on WRX from time to time...

 

 

... I played with this young heavy set kid in his early 20's out in LA when the King Cobra's first came out. He loved them because he was hitting his PW 160+ yards. Nobody was making gap wedges back then and he really struggled from 150-100. I told him his pw is just a 1* stronger 9 iron and he said "who gives a sh!t?!? I am longer than everyone I play with now. Distance is King!" He had the game to shoot in the 70's but shot in the upper 80's because he was obsessed with distance and always tried to take one club less than he needed so on a par 3 he could say "What did you hit? and when I replied 7 iron he would say "I hit a pw!" He didn't seem to care that I hit the green and he missed it as long as he was even with or longer than me using 2 clubs less.

[NRJyzr]

One only need look at the King Cobra irons from the 90s and their 43° PW.

 

It's not just the average golf public, though. See the effects in the occasional post on WRX from time to time...

 

 

... I played with this young heavy set kid in his early 20's out in LA when the King Cobra's first came out. He loved them because he was hitting his PW 160+ yards. Nobody was making gap wedges back then and he really struggled from 150-100. I told him his pw is just a 1* stronger 9 iron and he said "who gives a sh!t?!? I am longer than everyone I play with now. Distance is King!" He had the game to shoot in the 70's but shot in the upper 80's because he was obsessed with distance and always tried to take one club less than he needed so on a par 3 he could say "What did you hit? and when I replied 7 iron he would say "I hit a pw!" He didn't seem to care that I hit the green and he missed it as long as he was even with or longer than me using 2 clubs less.

 

I used to play with a couple guys who had a bit of that in them, but they would marvel at what I was hitting, because I was longer than them. And, when someone longer than me started playing with us, they did the same with that guy.

 

For a lot of folks, distance really is king, no matter who has it. LOL

[TomWishon]

The topic is loft manipulation for marketing purposes. So do most of you think yes it is all marketing and no tech?

 

Bet the farm and all the tea in China that the trend to lower loft on irons was done and is still being done as a means to sell more sets on the basis of "wow I hit these irons farther than my old ones so I am buying them" . I guarantee you this because, 1) I have been designing clubheads since 1986 and have lived through the loft changes and seen it; 2) in having designed over 350 different head models, of which around 150 or so were iron sets from every possible material and form of technology, I have robot tested and human tested virtually every type of iron that has been made. So I know it, I have seen it and I can guarantee you that the drop in loft was not done for any science/technology reason but was done because of the desire to have a competitive advantage in sales. And like the string of dominoes, once the first company breaks ranks and lowers loft, the others have to do the same or risk their irons being labeled as "too short" in distance.

 

Want the business side of the proof? I lived through this and so here are the facts of life of iron loft.

 

Back before the early 1980s, the predominant form of making irons was by forging. Investment casting began as a means to make clubheads as early as the mid 60s (Confidence Golf Co, Ping, were the first) but it did not take over as the predominant form of making irons until the late 70s going into the early 80s. Prior to this time if you were a golf company making forged irons, you could have a forging factory make the raw forgings but you as a company had to do all the hard labor work to turn the raw forging into the finished heads. Same for woods - prior to the early 80s the majority of wood models were made from trees and each golf company had to do all the production steps in house. So before the 80s if you wanted to be in the golf club business, you had a serious investment to make in manufacturing both equipment wise and expertise/labor wise.

 

That all changed completely when investment casting took over as the predominant form of making clubheads in the 80s. While one or two of the big companies tried to set up their own in house casting operation, it was soon found that this was not the way to go. Too expensive and too much production expertise and experience was required to set up and run your own casting operation. Casting companies that had previously made aerospace or other commercial industry parts became the places that golf companies dealt with to have their inv cast heads made. As such this meant if you wanted to be in the golf club business you no longer had to make the heads yourself in house. You contracted with an outside casting company to make your clubheads. Your own company only had to have an assembly operation so the main focus could be on SALES AND MARKETING to sell the clubs.

 

At the same time in the 80s, the game underwent another huge increase in participation. Golf was cool and tons more people were taking up the game. This of course created an instant increase in demand for clubs. That surge in growth in the game coupled with the fact it was much cheaper to start up a golf club company thanks to investment casting caused the number of golf club companies to literally DOUBLE during the decade of the 80s.

 

Now think about it from a business perspective. . . . .

 

If you own a golf company and all of a sudden you see the number of competitors double, what do you do? Boy you better figure out a way to increase demand for your clubs or someone else is going to beat you to the punch. So what do you do in the 80s to increase demand for your clubs? Well for one you could increase your advertising and marketing. But that costs a lot of money with no real guarantee it will increase demand.

 

How about doing whatever you can do to make your clubs hit the ball farther?

 

It has ALWAYS been a well known fact in the golf industry that "Distance Sells More Clubs Than Any Other Factor". Give most golfers a club they hit longer than the club of the same number in their present set and most will want to buy it. It's always been that way in this business and likely always will. If you doubt this, just read the theme of almost every advertisement for a new golf club model over the past 50 years.

 

In the 80s with investment casting having taken over as the predominant form of clubhead production, the real science of what in a clubhead design can make it better was just in its fledgling stages. Golf companies back then were just becoming aware of the MOI of a clubhead as a scientific way to improve off center hit distance. No one in golf knew about things like COR or thin face design. Even graphite shafts were in their infancy with very little knowledge of torque and only a light awareness of the effect of shaft weight on the swing characteristics.

 

But what they did know about distance were two things - loft and length. Lower the loft and you hit it farther. Make the clubs longer and you could possibly swing the club faster and from that possibly hit the ball farther.

 

From the dawn of the introduction of steel shafts in the 1920s until the 1980s, there really were unofficial standards in the game for loft and for length. They were not drawn up and voted on, but it was a fact during this time that almost every single golf company followed the same length and loft for each club number they made. 5 irons were 32* loft and 37.5" in length - every iron changed in loft by 4* and in length by 1/2". Drivers for men were 43" and for women, 42".

 

BOOM - all of a sudden one company got the "brilliant idea" to change the loft of their 5 iron to 30* and increase its length to 38". Drivers for men became 43.5" and off we went. That was in the 80s and it was the start of the gradual drop in iron lofts and increase in driver lengths that still is going on today.

 

Interestingly this excuse of "the new technology of our new iron requires the loft to be lower" also began in the 80s. Back then it was the claim that since investment casting opened the door to cavity back irons taking over as the most popular style of iron design, the "new" cavity backs had a lower center of gravity than the previous blade irons so the lofts had to be lowered.

 

No one back then questioned this, but hey, in good time it was shown that son of a gun, almost every cavity back iron had a HIGHER CG than a blade iron of the same number !! And that is still true today.

 

The merry go round started in the 80s and continued because of course, once you saw your competitor lower the lofts of their irons and increase the length of their drivers, you had to do the same or else risk being relegated to the trash heap of competition for sales.

 

And here we are - I believe I saw that one of Taylor Made's iron models now has a 5 iron with a loft of 21.5* ???? Compared to 30 some years ago when every 5-iron was 32*? And loft gaps in the low number end of the set are now 2* when everything used to be 4*? Loft gaps have had to increase to 5* at the high number/wedge end of the set to prevent having to add one more wedge. Back in the 80s we went 9, PW, SW with 4* gaps in loft. Now we have 9, PW, GW, SW and if they aren't 5* apart in loft you'd need another wedge in there between the PW and SW.

 

And yet from pure science it is known that the proper way to loft gap a set for most golfers would be to have 5* gaps at the low number end, then going to 4* at the high number wedge end of the set. But you won't see that because the transition from where we are with loft gaps today would be so utterly confusing that most golfers would bail on such sets. Pull out a yellow pad and start writing down lofts like this and you will soon see that you can't guarantee golfers would not lose distance with some of their iron numbers compared to what they play in their strong loft sets now. And that wouldn't work from a sales standpoint. Hence you will never likely see an iron set made with the loft gaps done the right way.

 

So what you have with the strong loft models are sets in which a TON of golfers will never hit the 4 iron, the 5 iron and many not be able to hit the 6 iron either very well because that 6 iron is really a 4 iron from a few decades ago.

 

Numerous posts on similar threads take the opinion of "who cares" - let the golfer play whatever he wants to play and leave the companies alone. Fine, I am all for golfers playing whatever they want to play. It's one reason when I designed clubheads I always had 5, 6, 7 or more different models of irons to choose from.

 

What matters in this is the claim from the companies. The claims that "oh we had to do this so you would not hit the ball sky high"

R I G H T. . . . . Maybe for the guy with the 100+mph 5 iron speed. But then hey, if you have a 100mph iron speed, you already have so much ball speed and spin that high shots with ANY clubhead are likely a given unless you have a -5* angle of attack into the ball.

 

But how about the 20 million or so golfers who LOVE this game but have an average iron speed of 70-75mph. That guy cannot typically hit any iron with a loft under 28* high enough to really carry and fly properly for his speed because of science - low loft in an iron requires higher ball speed to really work properly.

 

Anyway, that's the history of low lofts and longer drivers. It was born from a huge increase in competition for sales of golf clubs at a time when it became much less expensive and easier to form a new golf club company. It did not come from technology requiring lofts to be lower or lengths to be longer. It exists because the companies all know that DISTANCE SELLS.

[chisag]

... When I was teaching full-time I had two high school students, one played #2 and the other played #5. The #5 was a better golfer in every way, other than mental approach to the game. The #5 was obsessed with distance and I just could not get him to overcome it. I taught the rangers/starters at our local course so I played there for free, often teaming up with my 2 high school students. I stopped telling #5 what I was hitting and had the #2 keep the information from him too, but he would look in our bags and see the missing clubs. Very good swing, decent short game for his age and solid ball striker but he all too often over swung just enough to hit errant shots because he insisted on taking less club and hitting it further.

 

... Contrast with the #2 player that took instruction well and steadily improved. I convinced him to take more club in certain situations, and although it still got to him a little when his friend needled him about being shorter, by taking one more club he was swinging smoother when between clubs and hitting it closer. He was #1 his senior year and got a full ride to a D1 school and the #5 player never improved or got any scholarship offers. All because of his obsession with distance.

[Tim Schoch]

The topic is loft manipulation for marketing purposes. So do most of you think yes it is all marketing and no tech?

 

Bet the farm and all the tea in China that the trend to lower loft on irons was done and is still being done as a means to sell more sets on the basis of "wow I hit these irons farther than my old ones so I am buying them" . I guarantee you this because, 1) I have been designing clubheads since 1986 and have lived through the loft changes and seen it; 2) in having designed over 350 different head models, of which around 150 or so were iron sets from every possible material and form of technology, I have robot tested and human tested virtually every type of iron that has been made. So I know it, I have seen it and I can guarantee you that the drop in loft was not done for any science/technology reason but was done because of the desire to have a competitive advantage in sales. And like the string of dominoes, once the first company breaks ranks and lowers loft, the others have to do the same or risk their irons being labeled as "too short" in distance.

 

Want the business side of the proof? I lived through this and so here are the facts of life of iron loft.

 

Back before the early 1980s, the predominant form of making irons was by forging. Investment casting began as a means to make clubheads as early as the mid 60s (Confidence Golf Co, Ping, were the first) but it did not take over as the predominant form of making irons until the late 70s going into the early 80s. Prior to this time if you were a golf company making forged irons, you could have a forging factory make the raw forgings but you as a company had to do all the hard labor work to turn the raw forging into the finished heads. Same for woods - prior to the early 80s the majority of wood models were made from trees and each golf company had to do all the production steps in house. So before the 80s if you wanted to be in the golf club business, you had a serious investment to make in manufacturing both equipment wise and expertise/labor wise.

 

That all changed completely when investment casting took over as the predominant form of making clubheads in the 80s. While one or two of the big companies tried to set up their own in house casting operation, it was soon found that this was not the way to go. Too expensive and too much production expertise and experience was required to set up and run your own casting operation. Casting companies that had previously made aerospace or other commercial industry parts became the places that golf companies dealt with to have their inv cast heads made. As such this meant if you wanted to be in the golf club business you no longer had to make the heads yourself in house. You contracted with an outside casting company to make your clubheads. Your own company only had to have an assembly operation so the main focus could be on SALES AND MARKETING to sell the clubs.

 

At the same time in the 80s, the game underwent another huge increase in participation. Golf was cool and tons more people were taking up the game. This of course created an instant increase in demand for clubs. That surge in growth in the game coupled with the fact it was much cheaper to start up a golf club company thanks to investment casting caused the number of golf club companies to literally DOUBLE during the decade of the 80s.

 

Now think about it from a business perspective. . . . .

 

If you own a golf company and all of a sudden you see the number of competitors double, what do you do? Boy you better figure out a way to increase demand for your clubs or someone else is going to beat you to the punch. So what do you do in the 80s to increase demand for your clubs? Well for one you could increase your advertising and marketing. But that costs a lot of money with no real guarantee it will increase demand.

 

How about doing whatever you can do to make your clubs hit the ball farther?

 

It has ALWAYS been a well known fact in the golf industry that "Distance Sells More Clubs Than Any Other Factor". Give most golfers a club they hit longer than the club of the same number in their present set and most will want to buy it. It's always been that way in this business and likely always will. If you doubt this, just read the theme of almost every advertisement for a new golf club model over the past 50 years.

 

In the 80s with investment casting having taken over as the predominant form of clubhead production, the real science of what in a clubhead design can make it better was just in its fledgling stages. Golf companies back then were just becoming aware of the MOI of a clubhead as a scientific way to improve off center hit distance. No one in golf knew about things like COR or thin face design. Even graphite shafts were in their infancy with very little knowledge of torque and only a light awareness of the effect of shaft weight on the swing characteristics.

 

But what they did know about distance were two things - loft and length. Lower the loft and you hit it farther. Make the clubs longer and you could possibly swing the club faster and from that possibly hit the ball farther.

 

From the dawn of the introduction of steel shafts in the 1920s until the 1980s, there really were unofficial standards in the game for loft and for length. They were not drawn up and voted on, but it was a fact during this time that almost every single golf company followed the same length and loft for each club number they made. 5 irons were 32* loft and 37.5" in length - every iron changed in loft by 4* and in length by 1/2". Drivers for men were 43" and for women, 42".

 

BOOM - all of a sudden one company got the "brilliant idea" to change the loft of their 5 iron to 30* and increase its length to 38". Drivers for men became 43.5" and off we went. That was in the 80s and it was the start of the gradual drop in iron lofts and increase in driver lengths that still is going on today.

 

Interestingly this excuse of "the new technology of our new iron requires the loft to be lower" also began in the 80s. Back then it was the claim that since investment casting opened the door to cavity back irons taking over as the most popular style of iron design, the "new" cavity backs had a lower center of gravity than the previous blade irons so the lofts had to be lowered.

 

No one back then questioned this, but hey, in good time it was shown that son of a gun, almost every cavity back iron had a HIGHER CG than a blade iron of the same number !! And that is still true today.

 

The merry go round started in the 80s and continued because of course, once you saw your competitor lower the lofts of their irons and increase the length of their drivers, you had to do the same or else risk being relegated to the trash heap of competition for sales.

 

And here we are - I believe I saw that one of Taylor Made's iron models now has a 5 iron with a loft of 21.5* ???? Compared to 30 some years ago when every 5-iron was 32*? And loft gaps in the low number end of the set are now 2* when everything used to be 4*? Loft gaps have had to increase to 5* at the high number/wedge end of the set to prevent having to add one more wedge. Back in the 80s we went 9, PW, SW with 4* gaps in loft. Now we have 9, PW, GW, SW and if they aren't 5* apart in loft you'd need another wedge in there between the PW and SW.

 

And yet from pure science it is known that the proper way to loft gap a set for most golfers would be to have 5* gaps at the low number end, then going to 4* at the high number wedge end of the set. But you won't see that because the transition from where we are with loft gaps today would be so utterly confusing that most golfers would bail on such sets. Pull out a yellow pad and start writing down lofts like this and you will soon see that you can't guarantee golfers would not lose distance with some of their iron numbers compared to what they play in their strong loft sets now. And that wouldn't work from a sales standpoint. Hence you will never likely see an iron set made with the loft gaps done the right way.

 

So what you have with the strong loft models are sets in which a TON of golfers will never hit the 4 iron, the 5 iron and many not be able to hit the 6 iron either very well because that 6 iron is really a 4 iron from a few decades ago.

 

Numerous posts on similar threads take the opinion of "who cares" - let the golfer play whatever he wants to play and leave the companies alone. Fine, I am all for golfers playing whatever they want to play. It's one reason when I designed clubheads I always had 5, 6, 7 or more different models of irons to choose from.

 

What matters in this is the claim from the companies. The claims that "oh we had to do this so you would not hit the ball sky high"

R I G H T. . . . . Maybe for the guy with the 100+mph 5 iron speed. But then hey, if you have a 100mph iron speed, you already have so much ball speed and spin that high shots with ANY clubhead are likely a given unless you have a -5* angle of attack into the ball.

 

But how about the 20 million or so golfers who LOVE this game but have an average iron speed of 70-75mph. That guy cannot typically hit any iron with a loft under 28* high enough to really carry and fly properly for his speed because of science - low loft in an iron requires higher ball speed to really work properly.

 

Anyway, that's the history of low lofts and longer drivers. It was born from a huge increase in competition for sales of golf clubs at a time when it became much less expensive and easier to form a new golf club company. It did not come from technology requiring lofts to be lower or lengths to be longer. It exists because the companies all know that DISTANCE SELLS.

 

Wow, Tom, thank you so much for taking the time to educate me and the board here. You're a great guy.

 

I've been a marketing professional all my life, mostly on the creative copywriting side, not the advertising business side. My job as a copywriter representing a product or client is to tell the truth to the right target audience. Now, this might be the absolutely truth, or it might involve using my expertise to tell a biased form of the truth that will be perceived as universal truth. If it is the truth or perceived as the truth, same thing, as long as it benefits whoever you are trying to reach with the benefit they desire and need.

 

I say all that because I guess I want to believe that the golf club manufacturers and their marketing teams are telling us the truth. The game of golf has its roots in the truth, and clubs are part of that experience. I guess it is naive to think there isn't competition for my dollars and various forms of the truth coming at me from different sources. But are they lying to me about their technology? Probably not totally, and probably I am not reading the wordage closely enough.

 

As a golfer and and consumer what matters to me is not distance from my irons, but accuracy. Not forgiveness, because you could get a forgiving toe hit that will go just as far into the lake as if you hit it pure. I'm talking about confidence in direction, distance control, and shaping (high/low, draw/fade). Anyway.

 

I had a set of the AP1s and the 43-degree PW. Yup, it went farther. Just as far as my Hogan 9-iron. That made my brain explode and I sold them.

 

I'm going to share your post with my son, who plays to a 7 and is about to search for new clubs.

 

Many thanks.

[TomWishon]

 

Wow, Tom, thank you so much for taking the time to educate me and the board here. You're a great guy.

 

I've been a marketing professional all my life, mostly on the creative copywriting side, not the advertising business side. My job as a copywriter representing a product or client is to tell the truth to the right target audience. Now, this might be the absolutely truth, or it might involve using my expertise to tell a biased form of the truth that will be perceived as universal truth. If it is the truth or perceived as the truth, same thing, as long as it benefits whoever you are trying to reach with the benefit they desire and need.

 

I say all that because I guess I want to believe that the golf club manufacturers and their marketing teams are telling us the truth. The game of golf has its roots in the truth, and clubs are part of that experience. I guess it is naive to think there isn't competition for my dollars and various forms of the truth coming at me from different sources. But are they lying to me about their technology? Probably not totally, and probably I am not reading the wordage closely enough.

 

As a golfer and and consumer what matters to me is not distance from my irons, but accuracy. Not forgiveness, because you could get a forgiving toe hit that will go just as far into the lake as if you hit it pure. I'm talking about confidence in direction, distance control, and shaping (high/low, draw/fade). Anyway.

 

I had a set of the AP1s and the 43-degree PW. Yup, it went farther. Just as far as my Hogan 9-iron. That made my brain explode and I sold them.

 

I'm going to share your post with my son, who plays to a 7 and is about to search for new clubs.

 

Many thanks.

 

TIm, thanks for sharing your experience. When you made the comment - using my expertise to tell a biased form of the truth that will be perceived as universal truth - really made me think about how much your professional field must have changed in the last 15-20 yrs !

 

It's not really what the OEM golf companies with big marketing campaigns tell you in their advertising that matters. It's what they do not tell you and ignore completely.

 

I had the pleasure to know Bob Kuntz, one of the co-founders of the Golf Collectors' Society. Bob used to put on talks and seminars at various golf events and functions, enlightening golfers about the history of every aspect of the game from clubs to publications to art to you name it. One of his best was when he would get up and tell everyone he was depressed with his own game because he was not hitting his driver 397 yards like all the golf ball ads said he should be !

 

At which point he then showed slides of one ball maker's ads in golf publications over a 20+ year period. "This year's Spalding Dot is 4.3 yards longer !!" "This years Dot is now 3.6 yds longer!" And so on. . . He added up all the successive years of new ads, all claiming the new model ball was longer than before and when added to his driver distance, it came out to the point that based on the ads, he should be hitting his driver 397 yards !!

 

So, was Spalding lying in their ads? Or how about any company that makes a numerical distance increase claim for the ball or club they are selling? As I have been told, truth in advertising law only requires the company to have one incident of their claim being true. So heck, they can go out and find one golfer who hits their new ball 4.2 yds farther than he hit whatever ball he had before and they are covered. Or stage a hit test in which they can show the distance increase and they are covered. Or a golfer who hits this new driver 12 yds longer than his old one without saying a thing about how ill fit the old driver was for whatever reason(s). And when it comes to distance, every golfer knows it is easy to manipulate test conditions or test data to the company's advantage. Who's going to catch them on it? Golf's not that important for a "whistleblower" former employee to step up with proof of any manipulation of claims. That might get a resounding "yawn" from the golfing masses. And then they all go on ooohing and aaahing about the next new club or ball product.

 

So the claims for specific performance of a product made by big golf companies are not lying in the sense of a complete fabrication. Not at all.

 

But remember, the marketing is all about the ball, or the clubhead or occasionally the shaft or grip. That's where the whole attention of marketing is placed in golf equipment. Not HOW the club is made or HOW it could be made to perform better. Yes, the components on their own might lead to this or that golfer improving his performance. But the head, shaft, grip have to eventually be put together to make a finished club. And that's where it ends with the big golf companies in the form of them NOT telling you things about equipment that could help you improve your play.

 

Ever read or listened to copy that went like this . . . . . . . ?

 

"The new shorter length of our XYZ Driver will have you hitting more fairways, more accurately and even with more distance because you'll hit the ball more on center with more control !"

 

"Our new ABC Fitting System will ensure you get the set makeup best for your game. No more buying irons in your set that you can't hit well enough to put in the bag! You'll only need to buy the irons you need and not a full set ! "

 

"Our new MNO Shaft Fitting Sensor technology will enable you to wade through the confusion of thousands of shafts at a huge range in price to find THE right shaft for your swing at THE most economical price!"

 

Hate to say it because it makes me sound like an old curmudgeon but this all really took a turn for the worst from a "the consumers come FIRST" point of view when Ely Callaway took his company public back in the early 90s. Prior to that time, no golf company was larger than around $70 million in annual revenue. The top 5 companies in the game had combined annual revenues of around $250 million. Ads were quite mellow, competition was friendly, and a new club model could last for 2 to 3 years before it saturated the market and moved aside for the next new model. Retailers made decent margins and at the industry trade shows employees of the golf companies really were friends who looked forward to seeing each other.

 

But then Ely walked into the golf industry with his depth of consumer marketing experience from other industries and it all changed. He in fact called the golf equipment industry "a very ripe orchard of low hanging fruit".

 

He finds a little known company called S2H2 backed by two very good club engineers, starts Callaway Golf and as quick as possible, takes the company public to raise all sorts of cash to be used in a much larger and more consumer claim targeted marketing campaign. Almost immediately Callaway became both the first $100 million/year company and the first publicly traded company in golf equipment. Then it was $200 mill, $400 mill and onward from there.

 

Some of the other leading companies at the time saw this and realized if they did not follow, they'd risk being left in the dust. By the early 00s thetop 5 golf equipment companies had combined annual revenues of over $3 billion and 4 of the 5 were publicly traded or subs of larger publicly traded corporations. Each of the 4 with the real pressure to keep stock prices up. And the 5th who remained private just had the pressure to keep up with the others. Ad copy became more hype and sensational to excite more demand, new models could only last 6 months to 1 yr before saturation set in, and the one year or less product life cycle put huge pressure on retailers to control their inventory because the $300 new driver in March became the $149 close out in October. "Distance Sells" was still the driving mantra behind the marketing so driver lengths got longer and iron lofts continued to get even lower.

 

Unfortunately that was when it became far more about the short term success of the companies than the well being of the consumer golfer. But because few of the tens of millions of consumer golfers knew that 45-46" drivers, 23* #5 irons, and standard off the rack clubs were not the best for their game, and because the image campaigns of the big companies bred brainwashed trust from the consumers, no one has or can really take them to task on this shift in priority in their business model from consumer first to bottom line first.

 

Anyway, it is what it is, and not unlike how it has evolved in many other industries in the world today. I just rail on about it in golf equipment because I think it is so important for golfers to know this stuff so they can have a chance to get the best bang for their golf equipment bucks and in the process have a chance to play a little better and enjoy this great game a little more.