G25 Iron Review (Low Handicapper)

[KjBowen]

[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394897683' post='8877023']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1394896493' post='8876951']

As it's been suggested to you a NUMBER of times before, by a number of people, this thread is about the Ping G25 iron.

Why does it (apparently) BOTHER you so much that they love their G25s ?

YOU don't like 'em and won't use 'em. OK, message received and understood. MANY TIMES.

Now how do I say this nicely ??? OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,, go sod off, will ya ?

Oh, and I'm a 6.
[/quote]

This +1000.
Donno - the G25s clearly work and fit a large number of WRXs so just let it go.
Oh and I tried and didn't like the G25s.
[/quote]

You had to throw that you didn't like them.. He is going to be your best friend now

Stage 5 clinger for you lol

[Veners]

[quote name='KjBowenWRX' timestamp='1394827301' post='8872469']
It is so nice to see these babies in my bag.
Picked them up yesterday

G25 4-PW - CFS X-Flex
Gorge Tour 52* SS - CFS X-Flex
Gorge Tour 58* TS - CFS X-Flex w/ Lob wedge grind
[attachment=2118629:image.jpg]
[attachment=2118627:image.jpg]
[/quote]

Great looking set up!

[KjBowen]

[quote name='Veners' timestamp='1394898526' post='8877085']
[quote name='KjBowenWRX' timestamp='1394827301' post='8872469']
It is so nice to see these babies in my bag.
Picked them up yesterday

G25 4-PW - CFS X-Flex
Gorge Tour 52* SS - CFS X-Flex
Gorge Tour 58* TS - CFS X-Flex w/ Lob wedge grind
[attachment=2118629:image.jpg]
[attachment=2118627:image.jpg]
[/quote]

Great looking set up!
[/quote]

THANKS!

[PT1911]

Count me in now I guess.... just picked up a set this morning. I have now completed my whole bag G25 set up! Lol

[KjBowen]

[quote name='PT1911' timestamp='1394899035' post='8877105']
Count me in now I guess.... just picked up a set this morning. I have now completed my whole bag G25 set up! Lol
[/quote]
Welcome

[GTA SOL]

[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO

[GTA SOL]

[quote name='KjBowenWRX' timestamp='1394898525' post='8877083']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394897683' post='8877023']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1394896493' post='8876951']

As it's been suggested to you a NUMBER of times before, by a number of people, this thread is about the Ping G25 iron.

Why does it (apparently) BOTHER you so much that they love their G25s ?

YOU don't like 'em and won't use 'em. OK, message received and understood. MANY TIMES.

Now how do I say this nicely ??? OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,, go sod off, will ya ?

Oh, and I'm a 6.
[/quote]

This +1000.
Donno - the G25s clearly work and fit a large number of WRXs so just let it go.
Oh and I tried and didn't like the G25s.
[/quote]

You had to throw that you didn't like them.. He is going to be your best friend now

Stage 5 clinger for you lol
[/quote]

My bad Bowen - may a plague of shanks infect my short game until I make amens

[KjBowen]

http://youtu.be/nUtgKhFUWms

[Ripken08]

[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

This is for a single round and not an average. And percentages means nothing. What happens if you have a poor drive? Then you have a long approach. Don't you want an easy to hit long iron to increase your chances of getting up and down? I sure do. There are too many variables and you posting %'s from a single 79 means ZERO.

[mantan]

[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I am just finishing this book right now. Interesting read....the overall premise (which honestly was stretched out a lot longer than it needed to be) was how much time amatuers spend worrying about the wrong parts of the their game when it comes to scoring. But it's very well researched and a quick read.

[Oldplayer]

I have had my g25's a month now and am getting an idea of what they can do, ballfilght distances etc.
I bought mine new from a good seller on ebay but went with the reg cfs as i am a reg in every other steel iron shaft. It was a mistake. I should have heeded what others have said in this thread. They really are more like a senior shaft in terms of performance. I was fortunate to get a set of new cfs stiff pulls that came out of some g25's so I had my local guy swap them over. Much better!
It was interesting that the irons with the reg cfs measured at D0 swingweight. With the stiff shafts at the same length straight into the same heads they came out at D4!
All we could come up with was that the stiff cfs was much beefier in the tip section which made a big difference in the swingweight. I am happy to report they play just fine at that sw.

[Foxamus22]

Has anyone upgraded from the razr x to these? Notice a big difference?

[Ripken08]

[quote name='Foxamus22' timestamp='1394999810' post='8884235']
Has anyone upgraded from the razr x to these? Notice a big difference?
[/quote]

Are you the guy in Iowa that wanted to buy my set on Ebay a week or so ago?

[Wooderson]

[quote name='Oldplayer' timestamp='1394924711' post='8879041']
I have had my g25's a month now and am getting an idea of what they can do, ballfilght distances etc.
I bought mine new from a good seller on ebay but went with the reg cfs as i am a reg in every other steel iron shaft. It was a mistake. I should have heeded what others have said in this thread. They really are more like a senior shaft in terms of performance. I was fortunate to get a set of new cfs stiff pulls that came out of some g25's so I had my local guy swap them over. Much better!
It was interesting that the irons with the reg cfs measured at D0 swingweight. With the stiff shafts at the same length straight into the same heads they came out at D4!
All we could come up with was that the stiff cfs was much beefier in the tip section which made a big difference in the swingweight. I am happy to report they play just fine at that sw.
[/quote]

The CFS in stiff flex weigh approximately 10 grams heavier than the regular flex.

[Foxamus22]

[quote name='SHORTBUTSTR8' timestamp='1395001522' post='8884439']
[quote name='Foxamus22' timestamp='1394999810' post='8884235']
Has anyone upgraded from the razr x to these? Notice a big difference?
[/quote]

Are you the guy in Iowa that wanted to buy my set on Ebay a week or so ago?
[/quote]



Nope, sell them already?

[Ripken08]

[quote name='Foxamus22' timestamp='1395003718' post='8884641']
[quote name='SHORTBUTSTR8' timestamp='1395001522' post='8884439']
[quote name='Foxamus22' timestamp='1394999810' post='8884235']
Has anyone upgraded from the razr x to these? Notice a big difference?
[/quote]

Are you the guy in Iowa that wanted to buy my set on Ebay a week or so ago?
[/quote]



Nope, sell them already?
[/quote]

Yes I sold them. Someone who was asking questions was playing Razr X's. Just curious.

[Donno]

[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.

[Donno]

correction...14%...uh oh...

[Phobos]

[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.

[Ripken08]

[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1395044506' post='8888059']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.
[/quote]

Donno's been

[jeffrey r]

Well, without naming names, I can vouch that the 'ignore' button does work. But practically speaking, it only does so much good when said ignored person keeps getting quoted by others...

Back on topic, I am hoping the weather finally cooperates enough up here to get out next weekend. Just chomping at the bit to give my G15's with CFS stiff a good, consistent run. Still thinking this is going to be a very fun season with these in the bag. In very limited time before this turned into the winter from hell, high and straight with the G15's were the order of the day.

[gopherguts]

[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1395044506' post='8888059']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.
[/quote]

Oh no, you didn't !!!

[Donno]

[quote name='SHORTBUTSTR8' timestamp='1395060788' post='8888615']
[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1395044506' post='8888059']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.
[/quote]

Donno's been

[/quote]

Where'd you get that sign...pretty good.

[Donno]

[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1395044506' post='8888059']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.
[/quote]

Don't make this so easy. The average score on the PGA tour is 71.24. Average putts is 1.78 per hole. Therefore, the percentage of putts ALONE to total score is 45%. I posted [b]all [/b]short-game shots at 60%!

[Donno]

[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1395070531' post='8889639']
[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1395044506' post='8888059']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1395025608' post='8887387']
[quote name='GTA SOL' timestamp='1394899291' post='8877121']
[quote name='Donno' timestamp='1394837996' post='8873577']
Hey...the 2 Blokes...at least I post my Hcp unlike you...and as such am willing to take the heat from those who wish to keep their Hcp "[i]classified[/i]". Plus, I have hit a plateau with irons because there's a boat-load of other shots per round that have nothing to do with hitting full 3-PW on the course. Case in point, last round I shot 79. Let's look at the percentages of shots for that round:

14 Drives: 18% of shots
5 shots >150 yd approach: 6% (par 3's, longer approach par 4's)
9 shots 149-120 yd approach: 11%
4 shots <120 yd approach: 5% (4 third shots on par 5's)
47 "other shots": 60% (short-game)

So, 78% of the shots were attributed to the [i]driver and short-game[/i]...approaching 80%....leaving ~20% for irons. Of the 20%, only 6% of all shots were from beyond 150 yards, with 73% of iron approach shots being from inside 150. So 3 out of 4 iron shots were what I would term "[i]short iron shots[/i]". So, if the G25, or equivalent brand X, is thought to somehow help on short-iron shots from inside 150...great, but these are substantially routine shots no matter if hit with an MP4 or the widest-sweet-spot CB. If these shots are not routine, something else is going on that no club can help like tops, chunks, thins, poor alignment, chasing ridiculous pin placements, etc. Based on the percentages, one can't possibly ([i]if one's swing even mildly looks like a golf swing[/i]) contend a G25 "saves the day" vs. brand X, or some blade. Take the emotion out and work off the percentages.
[/quote]

You might want to take a look at a book called 'Every Shot Counts' by Mark Broadie. He's a professor at Columbia Business School who developed the "strokes gained" putting stat used by the PGA tour.

The book uses 10 years worth of stats from pros and amateurs, analysing where players gain and lose strokes against competitors. The findings are interesting and go some way to quashing the theory that you drive for show and putt for dough. The stats show that of the difference between golfers:
- 68% is down to long game
- 17% is down to short game
- 15% is down to putting

For a typical amateur player to make a 10 shot improvement in their score, they need a 2.8 shot (28%) improvement in driving and a 3.9 shot (39%) improvement in their approach play, compared to 1.9 shot (19%) improvement in short game and 1.3 shot (14%) improvement in putting.

Assuming the Profs stats are right, would that not put a premium on improving ones iron play? If the G25s can aid that, then putting them into play over a more bladed club would appear to be a sensible route to take. JMHO
[/quote]

I simply posted the percentages for one round for others to look at and possibly gauge their own percentages...I too think it's important to focus on the shots that contribute to scores, and I will take a look at the book...I like this type of data. Obviously my data was not qualified as being the "universe" of data points...why are people so dumb? I would argue that amateur golfers "long game" is 80% the driver.

So based on the statistics provided, .8 (from above) x .68 = .54, so the 68% for long-game really means 12% for long iron shots, I posted 6% (and they didn't define what a long-game shot is). So the data generally supports my point that people get far too caught up in a handful of long iron shots...buying clubs like they're anti-anxiety pills. Where's the statistics regarding those who play SGIs vs. "harder to hit" clubs? Never see any detailed information. The reason why is because the overall effect is negligible given so many other factors.
[/quote]

By looking at your stats it´s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you wouldn´t have to hit that many short game shots if you hit more greens with your irons.
[/quote]

Oh no, you didn't !!!
[/quote]

Oh Gopher, you know my posts make an otherwise boring thread interesting.

[Donno]

[quote name='jeffrey r' timestamp='1395062186' post='8888749']
Well, without naming names, I can vouch that the 'ignore' button does work. But practically speaking, it only does so much good when said ignored person keeps getting quoted by others...

Back on topic, I am hoping the weather finally cooperates enough up here to get out next weekend. Just chomping at the bit to give my G15's with CFS stiff a good, consistent run. Still thinking this is going to be a very fun season with these in the bag. In very limited time before this turned into the winter from hell, high and straight with the G15's were the order of the day.
[/quote]

How is playing G15's on topic? Even me....Mr. AHole blade lover...thinks the G25's are a significant improvement over G15's and G20's...but...to each their own...not judging...but I would beeline down to GS and do a trade for custom fit G25's in time for the sun popping up. Press the ignore now.

[trapp20]

5 rounds into the G25's. I'd have to agree with an earlier poster that said they take some getting used too. I find that my aim in general is kind of dumbed down. It's not pinpoint accurate like I feel I can get with my MB's or J40's, but I seriously don't care because it's not only close enough, but on average I'm making more solid contact more of the time. I could safely say these irons save [u][b]ME[/b][/u] 3 strokes a round and am confident once I get used to exact yardages that number will go up. I missed a few greens today by less than 2 yards, and went 10 yards deeper into the green twice. A few more rounds and I believe that will all come together.

Big thanks to the OP for starting this thread and the people that have contributed useful feedback. I know there's a lot of guys out there that have made the plunge because of this thread.

[Donno]

[quote name='trapp20' timestamp='1395112774' post='8895061']
5 rounds into the G25's. I'd have to agree with an earlier poster that said they take some getting used too. I find that my aim in general is kind of dumbed down. It's not pinpoint accurate like I feel I can get with my MB's or J40's, but I seriously don't care because it's not only close enough, but on average I'm making more solid contact more of the time. I could safely say these irons save [u][b]ME[/b][/u] 3 strokes a round and am confident once I get used to exact yardages that number will go up. I missed a few greens today by less than 2 yards, and went 10 yards deeper into the green twice. A few more rounds and I believe that will all come together.

Big thanks to the OP for starting this thread and the people that have contributed useful feedback. I know there's a lot of guys out there that have made the plunge because of this thread.
[/quote]

Nice post Trapp...feedback like that helps others. What clubs are you replacing?

[Alpha3]

I have G 20 irons reg graphite, 8.1 index 56yrs, 7 iron about 160, driver ss 95. Fit to standard specs. Really looking at G25 irons. Has anybody tried recoil shafts or other aftermarket reg flex graphite shafts? I'm really looking for a good reason to upgrade to G 25. Since they've been out over a year now how does everyone think they compare to the G20s? Performance wise, I have always liked the look better, but I can't justify the purchase on looks alone. I'm trying to experience some real personal growth here. I can already feel I'm getting weak! Thanks Guys.

[duffer987]

^If you put 'recoil' into the search bar at the top for 'This topic' you'll get a handful of posts on recoils - including specifically regular ones