Lofts on modern clubs

[FreddieMac]

Compared to me hitting a 150-yard shot with a Titleist DCI 981 versus me hitting a 150-yard shot with a Titleist 718 AP1, yes there would be a big difference. The modern club would go higher and land softer and also give more consistent distances.

And yes, the old 150-yard club would have "5" on the bottom while the new one would have "6". But that has nothing to do with the performance of the club from the 150 marker.

That is actually astounding...

 

[DataDude]

Forget the number on the bottom of the club loft jacking argument. No one says this club is a driver and my last driver went 220, I just don't get why this one goes 240. Find an iron set you can hit that you like the looks and feel of, then figure out how to play golf with them.

 

[FreddieMac]

Forget the number on the bottom of the club loft jacking argument. No one says this club is a driver and my last driver went 220, I just don't get why this one goes 240. Find an iron set you can hit that you like the looks and feel of, then figure out how to play golf with them.

Sorry, it is the scientist in me. I kinda like to know how it works ... But yes, I get it, hit clubs, get fitted, play golf.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I think we are saying the same thing. In my original response, I mentioned that they should all just start putting the loft on the club, because the iron number doesn't really have any real meaning anymore.

...truce

I would only quibble that the number on the sole never did have any meaning.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

That is actually astounding...

So you're contending that a sorta, kinda cavity back iron from the 1990's performs no better than a high-tech, spring-face, high-COR, high-MOI giant multi-material iron from 2019 on a 150-yard shot?

I've played 'em both and I know which one gets up easier, flies higher and lands softer.

 

[FreddieMac]

So you're contending that a sorta, kinda cavity back iron from the 1990's performs no better than a high-tech, spring-face, high-COR, high-MOI giant multi-material iron from 2019 on a 150-yard shot?

I've played 'em both and I know which one gets up easier, flies higher and lands softer.

No, I am just astounded how far the technology has come in a mere 16 years. Of course I understand the club today is going to be better, just astonished what they can do now.

 

[Jman]

No, I am just astounded how far the technology has come in a mere 16 years. Of course I understand the club today is going to be better, just astonished what they can do now.

You're definitely talking leaps and bounds in that timeframe. Year to year, not so much, but when you hit 5+ years the changes are significant and often a big impact to ones game.

 

[colorado_wade]

I would only quibble that the number on the sole never did have any meaning.

I agree with that 100%...but the announcers on TV constantly remind us when Koepka, DJ, or Rory crushes their 7 iron 190-200+ yards, which makes all the mid/high handicappers of the world wonder what the heck is wrong with their 7 iron

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

No, I am just astounded how far the technology has come in a mere 16 years. Of course I understand the club today is going to be better, just astonished what they can do now.

The kinds of things that have changed in 16 years (really just became commonplace in the last 4-5) like the high-COR face and such are really only advantage to clubhead speed, spin and elevation challenged hackers.

The guys who were already landing 5-irons like a butterfly 16 years ago probably find the spring-face irons more a nuisance than a benefit.

My swing is undoubtedly a bit worse now than when I used to practice every day and take lessons a couple times a month a decade ago. Yet from anywhere outside of 130-140 yards I hit far more really good shots now than I did when I was playing small-headed, heavy-shafted 90's technology irons.

My misses now are all big pulls or slices or chunks. With the old clubs I'd hit pulls, slices and chunks but ALSO I'd sometimes make halfway decent contact and still hit a low bullet with no change at all of stopping on the green. With something like a Ping G400 if you catch it ball-before-turf and get the path anywhere close to right it'll get right up there and fly nicely.

 

[FreddieMac]

The kinds of things that have changed in 16 years (really just became commonplace in the last 4-5) like the high-COR face and such are really only advantage to clubhead speed, spin and elevation challenged hackers.

The guys who were already landing 5-irons like a butterfly 16 years ago probably find the spring-face irons more a nuisance than a benefit.

My swing is undoubtedly a bit worse now than when I used to practice every day and take lessons a couple times a month a decade ago. Yet from anywhere outside of 130-140 yards I hit far more really good shots now than I did when I was playing small-headed, heavy-shafted 90's technology irons.

My misses now are all big pulls or slices or chunks. With the old clubs I'd hit pulls, slices and chunks but ALSO I'd sometimes make halfway decent contact and still hit a low bullet with no change at all of stopping on the green. With something like a Ping G400 if you catch it ball-before-turf and get the path anywhere close to right it'll get right up there and fly nicely.

That is good to know.

 

[-CJ-]

but when you hit 5+ years the changes are significant and often a big impact to ones game.

Is there really an impact at all? The last I saw was the average handicap hasn't gotten any better over 16 years.

 

[Ooophka]

I am not sure what debate I have sparked with this but just look at the difference between the T100s and the T200s. The T100s are 3 degrees less than the T200 across the entire set. My current 7 iron is the equivalent of the T100. My brain tells me ok, I can hit a T200 7 iron further because of the loft, but Titlest, Callaway, Srixon, Mizuno, etc have sets like the T200 loft comparison and claim that they will land as soft as a butterfly with sore feet. Same flight characteristics of my current 7 iron with 5 degrees less loft. I gain distance and lose nothing on height or landing basically. I was basically asking for those playing modern clubs, is this truly the case?

This is such a great topic. I think most of the high-powered irons these days take more into account of launch angle and peak height rather than spin. You will find most of the Game Improvement Irons strong lofted with spin numbers alot lower. What manufacturers are hoping is the height and decent angle will hold the green. However, watch Mark Crossfield's latest review of the T200s. It is the first time I have ever seen him shocked, and somewhat impressed during an iron review. Mark usually just says, if you like the look of the iron, get them, but they don't do anything really different than most other irons. The T200 surprised him because the spin on the "High-Powered" irons were just as good as his Titleist CBs. In fact, he didn't understand how the tech allowed this to happen because its a contradiction. He ends the video by saying he was going to contact his Titleist rep and see if their test was wrong or if this is the new reality with the T200s.

 

[DG_1234]

Is there really an impact at all? The last I saw was the average handicap hasn't gotten any better over 16 years.

Swing is the thing !

 

[Phil75070]

Looking at it a little differently, I don't know if this helps but just comparing the same series of irons just one generation apart:

Apex CF16 8i at 35° loft was basically my 130 club. Today I hit my Apex 19 9i at 38.5° a little longer than that. Higher loft but more distance and higher ball flight due to a lower center of gravity and other design/material improvements.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

There is so much that goes into "average handicap" you couldn't possibly unpack it to say anything at all about one specific, minor factor like the type of iron players use. It's not the same player year on year, the courses don't stay the same, even the course and slope ratings are periodically redone to keep handicaps roughly constant.

If everybody playing SGI irons suddenly got two strokes a round better due to new technology over a period of five years that would be lost in the noise. And I think two strokes a round is probably at the very outside of the realm of plausibility for iron forgiveness.

Still, it does change over time however slowly. I'll loan you my 1951 set of Jimmy Demaret blades and persimmons. Play them for 20 rounds and we'll see if your handicap changes!

 

[-CRW-]

Except again, the chart show a modern set with a "3-iron" that's a special order item and doesn't even show the 48+ degree wedge that comes with standard retail sets.

Do you people ever actually buy golf clubs? Do you not realize that NONE of the clubs in a retail store come in a "3-PW" set nowadays?

Before my current set, I bought a set once a year and all of them were 3-PW. Maybe it's the stores you go to.

And "players" clubs come in weaker lofts because typically the designs haven't changed much. The "players distance", "game improvement", "SGI", etc. all have varying stronger lofts to go with the tech.

And it's not a "different number on the bottom", it's designed to be the same club, but that works better for slower swing speeds through tech (stronger lofts, lower CG, lower spin, higher peak height, steeper descent angle).

 

[JB]

Is there really an impact at all? The last I saw was the average handicap hasn't gotten any better over 16 years.

This is not accurate though. The handicap average has gotten lower over the last decade, by quite a bit.

I’m in Carlsbad this week but can pull the numbers when I return to the office, but it’s fairly substantial especially in the higher numbers.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

If you compare a golf course which is rated at 70.3/135 today to one that would have been rated 70.3/135 twenty years ago, the course rated like that today is a tougher course. Not by a whole lot but over time there is creep in the ratings criteria to reflect gradually increasing capabilities of players, in particular increasing ball performance. Quite rightly so.

If everyone still played butter knives, wooden woods and lumpy rubber-band-wound balls, a bogey golfer would not be shooting the same scores on the same courses as he does today. USGA tries to reflect current reality in the handicap system and course ratings.

 

[FreddieMac]

Is there really an impact at all? The last I saw was the average handicap hasn't gotten any better over 16 years.

This is really not telling from a statistical stand-point. Not sure you can make the correlation that different equipment should equal better handicaps.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

This is really not telling from a statistical stand-point. Not sure you can make the correlation that different equipment should equal better handicaps.

But only if you could compare "better" versus "worse" equipment for the same golfers playing the same courses rated in the same way.

None of those apply to golf handicaps.

 

[FreddieMac]

But only if you could compare "better" versus "worse" equipment for the same golfers playing the same courses rated in the same way.

None of those apply to golf handicaps.

I agree with this. If you take the same person and the intervention is different equipment, you should see a difference if the equipment is better.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I agree with this. If you take the same person and the intervention is different equipment, you should see a difference if the equipment is better.

I kept stats for a while before and after switching from 1990's vintage "players" irons to some modern "shovels". Was pretty convinced it saved me strokes but my estimate was somewhere in the 1-2 strokes per round range. Mostly I seemed to increase the number of times I was on the fringe instead of several yards into the rough or in a bunker.

Did not see any increase in GIR per se. But with my short game, using putter from the fringe a couple more times a round and hacking out of the rough a couple less times was a bit of stroke saving.

About that same time I left the rather rudimentary "cow pasture" course where I learned to play and moved to a longer, more difficult, more upscale country club course. So it was hard to track any long-term trends. My scores overall got higher playing from 6,200 yards on a course with hazards in play instead of 6,000 yards wide open with very little rough and almost no hazards.

 

[Kay-Dee]

Yes, modern game-improvement irons are very different than game-improvement irons from 20+ years ago. Absolutely.

But the lofts are not different. At all. The lofts are the same as they have ever been, everything else (or just about everything) has changed.

The OP was asking if "jacked lofts" was an issue. It is not, there is no such thing.

You're kidding right?? The lofts are absolutely different. Take the Ping Eye 2....golf's first game improvement iron. Here are the lofts in degrees from 5 iron thru PW........28.5, 32,36,40,45,50.5. Ping's current GI irons are the G410, those iron lofts are 23.5, 26.5, 30, 34.5, 39.5, 45. That is a whopping 5% difference in each club. You can also these clubs in the power-spec version and the lofts go to 6 and 7 degree difference. Lofts have absolutely gotten stronger thru the years.

 

[DG_1234]

. Not sure you can make the correlation that different equipment should equal better handicaps.

About 25 years ago the first over size metal woods from Callaway did help amateur players get off the tee box a little bit better, but even that major equipment change did little for 18 hole scoring. For the past 25 years new metal woods and iron designs have helped the 90-shooting amateur make a better shot here or there, but the 18 hole score is still 90 (or worse). When swing technique is full of faults, no equipment is going to make any sort of significant helpful impact to scoring.
The segment of players who have benefited the most from club and ball improvements is Tour pros. They went from a slight mishit causing a tee ball to fly 25 yards off line to now only 10 yards off line. And they went from a slight mishit 8-iron shot being 25 feet from the flag to 15 feet from the flag.
So, while faulty swing amateurs are still shooting 90 or worse, equipment technology has allowed Tour pros to reduce their scoring average by a shot to 1.5 ,maybe 2 shots per round.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

You're kidding right?? The lofts are absolutely different. Take the Ping Eye 2....golf's first game improvement iron. Here are the lofts in degrees from 5 iron thru PW........28.5, 32,36,40,45,50.5. Ping's current GI irons are the G410, those iron lofts are 23.5, 26.5, 30, 34.5, 39.5, 45. That is a whopping 5% difference in each club. You can also these clubs in the power-spec version and the lofts go to 6 and 7 degree difference. Lofts have absolutely gotten stronger thru the years.

Here are the lofts in degrees for a retail set of 3-W Ping Eye2.
21.5, 25, 28.5, 32,36,40,45,50.5

Here are the lofts in degrees for a retail set of 4-U G410
20.5, 23.5, 26.5, 30, 34.5, 39.5, 44.5, 49.5

It's anywhere from 1/2 to 1 degree stronger than the old set. THE LOFTS HAVE NOT CHANGED. Only the numbers on the sole of the club have changed.

You literally can not even BUY a Ping G410 "3" iron. There's no such thing.

And there was literally no such thing as a "gap wedge" in 1983 when the Eye 2 came out.

The sole numbering has changed. Get over it.