Why are irons getting stronger lofts?

[Golf 'N Gator]

The bolded is very true. When I first got my own clubs, my uncle was asking me why I got a 50* wedge instead of a 52 or 53. I told him it was because my PW was 44* and his mind was blown. He still assumed all PW's were around 47* or so. The casual golfer doesn't know or care what the lofts are for each club.

To the question at hand, I think this really boils down to marketing. Having one OEM's club be "longer" than another's is huge. I remember seeing something on the TM site for either the Burner or Burner 2.0 irons saying how much longer they were compared to the competition. From what I recall, they said the TM 7 iron was I think 8 yards longer than my VR 7 iron. The thing is that they didn't say was that the TM was lofted 2* stronger than my Nike. To me it's making club longer without having to really get into detail as to what makes them longer technology wise. The average consumer will be wowed at how much farther they'll be able to hit an iron and brag to their friends. And that sells irons. Ego still plays a HUGE role in this game.

Ego in golf is the number one thing that holds thousands of people back from their actual potential. Chasing distance sells. Always has and more than likely always will even though very few people actually gain anything when buying the latest and greatest. Some of the best players I know have several clubs in their bags that are several years old. That is the guy that worries me the most.

 

[Tbox]

Ego in golf is the number one thing that holds thousands of people back from their actual potential. Chasing distance sells. Always has and more than likely always will even though very few people actually gain anything when buying the latest and greatest. Some of the best players I know have several clubs in their bags that are several years old. That is the guy that worries me the most.

That is a very true statement.

 

[Schanker]

It's not all marketing. Technology does have a pretty substantial portion behind it. They keep putting the COG in these game improvement irons lower and lower in order to give the average golfer a higher ball flight. If they kept the loft of a pitching wedge at 50 degrees like it used to be back in the 80's with the same COG, the ball would launch straight up and balloon and go nowhere. In order to give the ball its optimum flight for that club, yet still launch at the angle they want, they have to strengthen the lofts.

This is the reason as to why they are getting stronger. A new 8i now goes as far as the old 7i but the 8i is launching higher than the old 7i because of technology, even if the lofts are both say 35*. I personally feel that my old 8i(ping eye2) and newer 8i (TM burner) hold the green about the same, but my new 8i goes 15 yards further. I think ball technology has also aided in this.

 

[Rusty]

It's not all marketing. Technology does have a pretty substantial portion behind it. They keep putting the COG in these game improvement irons lower and lower in order to give the average golfer a higher ball flight. If they kept the loft of a pitching wedge at 50 degrees like it used to be back in the 80's with the same COG, the ball would launch straight up and balloon and go nowhere. In order to give the ball its optimum flight for that club, yet still launch at the angle they want, they have to strengthen the lofts.

So instead they give you a gap wedge that balloons up and goes nowhere? That really doesn't make any sense. If the pitching wedge balloons up, then adjust the shaft and/or COG so that it doesn't....you don't have to just start calling your 9 iron a pitching wedge instead.

 

[Rusty]

Im not missing the point. People are stating strong lofts are part of marketing when they're part of design. That's not marketing. Since it would fail as marketing and they arent using it.... why are you saying it is? THEY'RE NOT USING IT lol. They dont need to mention it because its not part of their campaign.

No there isnt a standard ballflight but there is such a think as a bad high ballflight. Its not just loft and shafts that go into iron design.

Yes, you are totally missing the point....The stronger lofts are being driven by a desire to market distance. The OEMs don't want to advertise the stronger lofts as a means to provide greater distance, they want to market their technology. They are hoping consumers overlook the higher lofts, and the vast majority do. But the reason they are doing it is so that a given numered club will hit the ball farther than some other company's club with the same number on the sole.

Okay, I agree there can be too much height in ball flight. If you have a 9 iron that hits the ball too high, how does calling it a Pitching wedge change anything?

 

[JF]

I always knew the new ones had stronger lofts, but just after reading this thread did I put 2 and 2 together and realize that this is exactly why I am so amazed when I hit irons like the RAZR XF and RBZ. There might be some tech involved in the 50 yard gain, but it's really the lofts...

 

[coolbreeze]

I always knew the new ones had stronger lofts, but just after reading this thread did I put 2 and 2 together and realize that this is exactly why I am so amazed when I hit irons like the RAZR XF and RBZ. There might be some tech involved in the 50 yard gain, but it's really the lofts...

No its not, its the tech and the lofts.

 

[Hawk]

LOL at 50 yard gain. Seriously though. Thin faces have a good deal to do with increased ball speed as well. Again, you may be sacrificing something in consistency and accuracy. It really doesn't matter in the long run. Both have their place and can be there when people shoot lower scores.

 

[Rusty]

This is the reason as to why they are getting stronger. A new 8i now goes as far as the old 7i but the 8i is launching higher than the old 7i because of technology, even if the lofts are both say 35*. I personally feel that my old 8i(ping eye2) and newer 8i (TM burner) hold the green about the same, but my new 8i goes 15 yards further. I think ball technology has also aided in this.

That does not explain the stronger lofts. Based on your hypothetical, a new 8 iron and an old 7 iron, have the same 35* loft. You left this out, but they also have the same shaft length. Not surprisingly, they hit the ball the same distance. But you think the newer club is justified in being an 8 iron because it hits the ball higher? Why not just be happy that you have higher ball flight, softer landing 7 iron? You can have all the same club designations, but get a higher ball flight out of them.....and you still won't be able to hit a 20* iron, whether you call it a 2 or a 3.

 

[Rusty]

No its not, its the tech and the lofts.

Yes, there is definitely some tech that is providing extra distance, and better ball flights. The arbitrary application of numbers to the soles of clubs is just marketing, though.

 

[coolbreeze]

Yes, there is definitely some tech that is providing extra distance, and better ball flights. The arbitrary application of numbers to the soles of clubs is just marketing, though.

But the numbers on the bottom of the clubs have always been arbitrary and are only there so you know which club to hit from your bag.

 

[adwillingham]

Not targeted to anyone in particular, but I don't get why anyone truly cares what the loft of a 7 iron is. The Rules of Golf don't specify what a 7 iron is. What difference does it make if my 7 iron is 20 degrees of loft or 35.

John Daly played a 2 degree Driver...no one said it wasn't a Driver.

This came up when the Burner 2.0s came out, and it doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did then.

 

[JB]

But the numbers on the bottom of the clubs have always been arbitrary and are only there so you know which club to hit from your bag.

This is correct. The idea that a specific iron needs to be a specific loft is not really accurate. The iron #s are not chosen by loft, but more so by other factors including launch. Hence the reason that many clubs are being stronger lofted. The same reason that the classic irons that do not launch the ball higher than in years past, are not strong lofted.

The marketing side of it is a bonus to the companies of course, but it is not the reason that it started.

 

[Hawk]

Not targeted to anyone in particular, but I don't get why anyone truly cares what the loft of a 7 iron is. The Rules of Golf don't specify what a 7 iron is. What difference does it make if my 7 iron is 20 degrees of loft or 35.

John Daly played a 2 degree Driver...no one said it wasn't a Driver.

This came up when the Burner 2.0s came out, and it doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did then.

I agree, Donne. I just play what I like, and that has included both sides of the spectrum. They both have pros and cons in my experience.

 

[Renren89]

Not targeted to anyone in particular, but I don't get why anyone truly cares what the loft of a 7 iron is. The Rules of Golf don't specify what a 7 iron is. What difference does it make if my 7 iron is 20 degrees of loft or 35.

John Daly played a 2 degree Driver...no one said it wasn't a Driver.

This came up when the Burner 2.0s came out, and it doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did then.

The issue for me is the gaps it creates with the wedges and having to buy a new one.

My current set of irons has the gap wedge at 50* which I hit about 90 yards. I hit my sand wedge about 75-80 yards.
The wilson di11's have the gap wedge at 46.5* so if I do get them I would also be looking at either taking the gap wedge from my current set or buying a 50/51* wedge to fill the gap

 

[adwillingham]

The issue for me is the gaps it creates with the wedges and having to buy a new one.

My current set of irons has the gap wedge at 50* which I hit about 90 yards. I hit my sand wedge about 75-80 yards.
The wilson di11's have the gap wedge at 46.5* so if I do get them I would also be looking at either taking the gap wedge from my current set or buying a 50/51* wedge to fill the gap

First of all, I'll say I had never looked at the specs on the Di11's, but it looks like in that set, the GW being 46 deg is a product of having only 3.5 deg gaps between each club. So you're cramming more clubs between the 19 deg and 46 deg area.

That is a pure choice for the consumer. If you want the smaller gaps throughout the set, then yeah, you're going to have to compensate somewhere (in this case an extra wedge).

If that is an issue to you, don't buy the Di11s...but it's not a travesty that Wilson did that in the first place anymore than a Corvette being different than a Hyundai.

 

[Griff]

After the SCOR testing I picked up the habit of not even referring to "PW" or "SW". Caught myself muttering, "hit the 33" when I was 155 out. That's the i20 7I. Yeah, I'm a golf nerd.

 

[Renren89]

First of all, I'll say I had never looked at the specs on the Di11's, but it looks like in that set, the GW being 46 deg is a product of having only 3.5 deg gaps between each club. So you're cramming more clubs between the 19 deg and 46 deg area.

That is a pure choice for the consumer. If you want the smaller gaps throughout the set, then yeah, you're going to have to compensate somewhere (in this case an extra wedge).

If that is an issue to you, don't buy the Di11s...but it's not a travesty that Wilson did that in the first place anymore than a Corvette being different than a Hyundai.

Their "3i" is 18*

The Di11's have the same amount of clubs between 18-46 degrees (9. They go 3i at 18* to GW at 46* while the RAC's have 2i at 18* and PW at 45*) as my rac's so I don't really see the need to have to compensate somewhere.

 

[oiler3535]

This thread got me curious, and I looked up the lofts of the new RBZ irons and compare them to my old x-20s. The PWs are both 45°, but as the irons get longer so does the difference. My 4i is 24°, whereas the RBZ 4i is 20°. The gaps in my short irons are 4°, and once it gets to 7i, they move to 3°. The RBZs start at 5° differences and move slightly lower from there. It was interesting to look at.

Who was (is?) the pro that gets just ° numbers on his irons? Can't remember, but think it's a great idea. And IMO, I definitely think it's mainly marketing.

 

[adwillingham]

Their "3i" is 18*

The Di11's have the same amount of clubs between 18-46 degrees (9. They go 3i at 18* to GW at 46* while the RAC's have 2i at 18* and PW at 45*) as my rac's so I don't really see the need to have to compensate somewhere.

Well, given the lofts of the Di11, assuming you want to keep your hybrids as is, you could probably go 6i through AW (since the DI11 5 iron is 25 deg) and add a 50 deg.

I guess mainly what I'm saying is that there is no one right way to make up a set of 14 clubs. FW and Hybrid manufacturers don't all produce exactly the same lofts, so irons aren't alone in that regard.

Everyone just has to make whatever choices are right to them, but whether or not the clubs of the same loft are considered 5i through PW or 6i through AW is meaningless.

 

[JF]

After the SCOR testing I picked up the habit of not even referring to "PW" or "SW". Caught myself muttering, "hit the 33" when I was 155 out. That's the i20 7I. Yeah, I'm a golf nerd.

I always refer to wedges by loft (beyond PW). Some people do the same, some people call me nuts. I'd do the same if I wanted to take the time to find out exactly and memorize my iron lofts.

 

[MWard]

This thread got me curious, and I looked up the lofts of the new RBZ irons and compare them to my old x-20s. The PWs are both 45°, but as the irons get longer so does the difference. My 4i is 24°, whereas the RBZ 4i is 20°. The gaps in my short irons are 4°, and once it gets to 7i, they move to 3°. The RBZs start at 5° differences and move slightly lower from there. It was interesting to look at.

Who was (is?) the pro that gets just ° numbers on his irons? Can't remember, but think it's a great idea. And IMO, I definitely think it's mainly marketing.

That was Ryan Moore back when he was with Scratch Golf.

 

[Super Tuna]

That was Ryan Moore back when he was with Scratch Golf.

Yurp and I wish more OEM's let you do it as a custom option. I'd be alllll over that.
I'm hoping it's something Scratch's Armoury will let you do when it fires up.

 

[Tmex]

Yes, you are totally missing the point....The stronger lofts are being driven by a desire to market distance. The OEMs don't want to advertise the stronger lofts as a means to provide greater distance, they want to market their technology. They are hoping consumers overlook the higher lofts, and the vast majority do. But the reason they are doing it is so that a given numered club will hit the ball farther than some other company's club with the same number on the sole.

Okay, I agree there can be too much height in ball flight. If you have a 9 iron that hits the ball too high, how does calling it a Pitching wedge change anything?

You must no understand the term marketing and the fact you won't find stronger lofts anywhere in print. Find one for me. If you read my posts you would also realize I said distance is a marketing ploy hut lofts aren't. And until you prove otherwise you're missing the point.

 

[Scrap Iron]

This is just my two cents so take it for whats it's worth.
I think with game improvment irons being easier to launch in the air and being more forgiving company's were able to lower the lofts in the irons and still provide the consumer with the ease of use and provide extra distance that most golfers are looking for. I think the marketing of one company having the longest irons and compare your current 6 iron to our 6 iron and other stragies of the like are just a byproduct but a clever one to latch onto.

Most "players irons" are about 3 degrees weaker give or take and I dont recall an add claiming them to be longer. Think of the Taylormade MB's and the RBZ's same family and different worlds on approach.