Lofts on modern clubs

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.

Sure, I agree with this, no doubt, but Tour pros play a totally different version of golf. The biggest difference for tour pros is off the tee. If you go back in time I bet you would find that tour pros from the 70s and 80s short-game and iron play is not very different than today. I could be wrong but what I see with tour pros is the long game is different now. They are hitting irons 30 yards longer it seems today. Lot of that is conditioning, but most of it is the ball and equipment.
 
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.

This is incorrect. It’s not the numbers on the bottom that have changed. The lofts have changed. And as stated previously, it was done so that today’s stronger 7i can perform like an optimal 7i for someone with slower swing speeds. It does so by more than the strengthened loft (cg, launch, spin, peak height, descent angle).
 
This is incorrect. It’s not the numbers on the bottom that have changed. The lofts have changed. And as stated previously, it was done so that today’s stronger 7i can perform like an optimal 7i for someone with slower swing speeds. It does so by more than the strengthened loft (cg, launch, spin, peak height, descent angle).

But you can buy a set with the SAME LOFTS as a set made in 1983. Not only "can" you buy them, it's what are right there on the shelf, dead stock.

If a set bought today and a set bought 25 years ago have the SAME LOFTS then the lofts sure as hell haven't changed. The only difference is the numbers on the sole.

I have held a Ping Eye 2 side by side with a modern Ping G-series. The Eye 2 with the "5" on the sole and the new club with "6" on the sole are virtually indistinguishable. Same loft, same length, same lie, same weight. Both are the third-longest club in their respective sets.

But hey, those number are different sure as anything. I can see where the actual difference is. Why can't you?
 
But you can buy a set with the SAME LOFTS as a set made in 1983. Not only "can" you buy them, it's what are right there on the shelf, dead stock.

If a set bought today and a set bought 25 years ago have the SAME LOFTS then the lofts sure as hell haven't changed. The only difference is the numbers on the sole.

Wouldn’t you say it’s an awfully big stretch to say the “only” difference is the number on the sole?
 
You can still buy irons with lofts that have not changed a great deal from 30 years ago. My 1980 pitching wedge is 48° and my Srixon Z765 pitching wedge comes stock at 46°. Mine is bent to 47. I hit my 1980 PW only a yard or two shorter than my 2018 Srixon. I also score the same with my old set of irons when I take them out a few times each year. Technology, especially with the ball, shafts, and driver/wood forgiveness, has helped but it’s still a damn hard game. I would guess that a set of Eye 2’s from 1982 are more forgiving than the irons I’m playing.
 
Wouldn’t you say it’s an awfully big stretch to say the “only” difference is the number on the sole?

It's the only specification that differs. Loft, lie, length, weight, flex of the shaft. Even the basic overall size of the club is the same.

There's a lot more technology packed into a G400 which is why that's what people play now instead of Eye 2's (not to mention the grooves).

But it's pretty clearly intended for a "6" iron now to do the same job as a "5" iron did back then. Modern irons do that job better (for hackers like me at least) but it's still a club to hit whatever shot one hits with a 27-ish degree iron.
 
It's the only specification that differs. Loft, lie, length, weight, flex of the shaft. Even the basic overall size of the club is the same.

There's a lot more technology packed into a G400 which is why that's what people play now instead of Eye 2's (not to mention the grooves).

But it's pretty clearly intended for a "6" iron now to do the same job as a "5" iron did back then. Modern irons do that job better (for hackers like me at least) but it's still a club to hit whatever shot one hits with a 27-ish degree iron.

I just don’t think it’s that simple.

Launch changed.
Spin changed.
Forgiveness changed.
Ball speed changed.
Consistency changed.

The list is pretty long.
 
As I say, the results are better. I'm never going back to playing 20th-century technology.

But the LOFT did not change. Or if it did was by a degree or so.
 
It's the only specification that differs. Loft, lie, length, weight, flex of the shaft. Even the basic overall size of the club is the same.

There's a lot more technology packed into a G400 which is why that's what people play now instead of Eye 2's (not to mention the grooves).

But it's pretty clearly intended for a "6" iron now to do the same job as a "5" iron did back then. Modern irons do that job better (for hackers like me at least) but it's still a club to hit whatever shot one hits with a 27-ish degree iron.

You are completely missing launch conditions, which is why the number on the bottom has nothing to do with this issue.

When I hit a players 7i I see around 40 yards of peak height and 176-178 carry. When I hit most of the same lofted clubs in a GI or SGI design the peak height jumps to 50+ yards and carry to 200+.

The idea is that a guy with an 85 mph club speed can hit a GI 7i close to the same distance as a high speed player can hit a players 7i, and with similar launch conditions.
 
Lofts aren’t getting “jacked”? Isn’t it Callaway who just released a 27° 7 iron? Against a “traditional” 34° (Hogan Blacks) that could be 40 yards. Or more. It’s the reason Rory can hit a 9I 180 yds with little trouble. They are marketing distance to the mid-high handicapper. Low CG and thin faces give the high launch plus distance people will pay $$$ for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here are my thought on it. And remembering a lot of my launch numbers from back then. Yeah, I remember most of them (wife says my brain is hardwired to retain useless information.)

Differences between the Mizuno MP37's I played 15 years ago, to the Srixon Z565's I currently game.

Lofts: the Z's are anywhere from 1* to 4* stronger.
MP37 Z565
3-21* 3-20*
4-24* 4-22*
5-27* 5-24*
6-31* 6-27*
7-35* 7-31*
8-39* 8-35*
9-43* 9-39*
pw-47* pw-44*
Length: The Srixons are 1/4" longer shafted from the factory than my old Mizzys. Fact
Launch: Actually launch angles are about the same. Both launch at around 18* with a 7i, but I'm 15+ yds longer with today's tech due to higher ball speed and a little less spin.
Handicap: I was actually a lower index back then. But I think that has more to do with me and less to do with the clubs.
 
Last edited:
You are completely missing launch conditions, which is why the number on the bottom has nothing to do with this issue.

When I hit a players 7i I see around 40 yards of peak height and 176-178 carry. When I hit most of the same lofted clubs in a GI or SGI design the peak height jumps to 50+ yards and carry to 200+.

The idea is that a guy with an 85 mph club speed can hit a GI 7i close to the same distance as a high speed player can hit a players 7i, and with similar launch conditions.

So what, specifically, if your complaint?

The OP asked if he ought to be worried about "jacked lofts" being a problem when he moves on from DCI 981's to more recent irons. I told him there was no such problem and loft for loft the newer clubs were most likely going to hit the ball similar distances except higher with less spin.

Are you agreeing with me that there's no problem from "jacked lofts"? Or are you disagreeing and saying that there is a problem with "jacked lofts"? If so, what is the problem.
 
Lofts aren’t getting “jacked”? Isn’t it Callaway who just released a 27° 7 iron? Against a “traditional” 34° (Hogan Blacks) that could be 40 yards. Or more. It’s the reason Rory can hit a 9I 180 yds with little trouble. They are marketing distance to the mid-high handicapper. Low CG and thin faces give the high launch plus distance people will pay $$$ for

Are you saying that high launch plus more distance is a bad thing? That it is somehow costing the mid-high handicapper strokes to be able to hit the ball higher and farther?

If the guys on TV lied and claimed that Rory's 180 shot was hit with a "7-iron" would that solve the problem? If so, how big a problem can it be if simply changing the number on the bottom of the club fixes it?
 
Lofts aren’t getting “jacked”? Isn’t it Callaway who just released a 27° 7 iron? Against a “traditional” 34° (Hogan Blacks) that could be 40 yards. Or more. It’s the reason Rory can hit a 9I 180 yds with little trouble. They are marketing distance to the mid-high handicapper. Low CG and thin faces give the high launch plus distance people will pay $$$ for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rory plays musclebacks. He it’s it that far because he’s Rory Effing McIlroy.

For the 1,000,000th time, lofts HAVE to get stronger to keep the launch within the optimal window. Is a partial effect of that more distance? Of course, but in a higher launch and more forgiving package than those “traditional” lofts offer.
 
Rory plays musclebacks. He it’s it that far because he’s Rory Effing McIlroy.

For the 1,000,000th time, lofts HAVE to get stronger to keep the launch within the optimal window. Is a partial effect of that more distance? Of course, but in a higher launch and more forgiving package than those “traditional” lofts offer.

I don't work the ball. Not even to try and hit it higher or lower on purpose. I just pick whatever club is closest to going the distance I need with a normal swing.

All I really know about the club tech-and-specs stuff is this. With something like a G400 the "window" I hit on a 150 yard shot is one that was simply unavailable to me 20 years ago no matter what the loft or number of the iron.

Back then, 150 or worse yet 160 yards with water in front of the green meant hitting low bullets that were not going to stop on the green under any circumstance. I would routinely lay up from 160 if I had a forced carry.

Now I just pull out a "6" iron and it goes as high as my 120-yard 9-iron shots flew back in the day. And it will roll out a bit but not enough to be a problem even on a shallow green.

I just LOVE the modern SGI-club "window" that hot faces have opened up for me. Not saying an 2-hcp who hits his PW from 150 yards would like these clubs but to me they are darned near miraculous.

P.S. And don't even get me started on the wonders of the urethane balls from all the manufacturers these past few years.
 
Are you saying that high launch plus more distance is a bad thing? That it is somehow costing the mid-high handicapper strokes to be able to hit the ball higher and farther?

If the guys on TV lied and claimed that Rory's 180 shot was hit with a "7-iron" would that solve the problem? If so, how big a problem can it be if simply changing the number on the bottom of the club fixes it?

They aren’t a problem if they meet a golfers need.

I’m saying your argument that it’s just a different number slapped on the bottom of the club is incorrect. Today’s 4i at yesterday’s 3i loft doesn’t make it the same club with a different number on the bottom - even if length and swing weight and all other measurement factors are the same. They are a different animal. Today’s 4i is designed to produce the same results as yesterday’s 4i, but make it easier to do so - especially for the average golfer with slower swing speed.

Lofts aren’t getting “jacked”? Isn’t it Callaway who just released a 27° 7 iron? Against a “traditional” 34° (Hogan Blacks) that could be 40 yards. Or more. It’s the reason Rory can hit a 9I 180 yds with little trouble. They are marketing distance to the mid-high handicapper.


Tour pros typically play more traditional lofted clubs. They hit it a mile bc the top guys swing their irons around 100 mph.
 
They aren’t a problem if they meet a golfers need.

I’m saying your argument that it’s just a different number slapped on the bottom of the club is incorrect. Today’s 4i at yesterday’s 3i loft doesn’t make it the same club with a different number on the bottom - even if length and swing weight and all other measurement factors are the same. They are a different animal. Today’s 4i is designed to produce the same results as yesterday’s 4i, but make it easier to do so - especially for the average golfer with slower swing speed.

And tour pros typically play more traditional lofted clubs. They hit it a mile bc the top guys swing their irons around 100 mph.

So your answer to OP is same as mine, then. No the lofts aren't "jacked" and there's no problem he should worry about due to "jacked loft" when he switches to recent irons.
 
So your answer to OP is same as mine, then. No the lofts aren't "jacked" and there's no problem he should worry about due to "jacked loft" when he switches to recent irons.

Yes, just not for the reasons you came up with.
 
For the 1,000,000th time, lofts HAVE to get stronger to keep the launch within the optimal window..

I've heard Marty Jertsen from Ping say the same thing, but I don't buy it.
I think the goal of Ping and other companies is to have a player buy a set of irons with which they will be able to strike a 7-iron from places they formerly swung a 6-iron.The attain this goal the new iron models have stronger lofts and longer shafts than the previous iron models.
But it would sound cheesy to admit "we're offering this new iron in stronger lofts so you can hit less club", so instead they craft a "tech story" about ball speed and launch angle , trajectory control, optimal window etc...
So, my take is that if the "new tech" heads were of traditional lofts they would not "fly too high, above the optimal window" as Jertsen suggests. I expect the trajectory would be just fine, but the goal of having a guy hit 7-iron instead of 6-iron (to help sell clubs) would not be met.
 
I've heard Marty Jertsen from Ping say the same thing, but I don't buy it.
I think the goal of Ping and other companies is to have a player buy a set of irons with which they will be able to strike a 7-iron from places they formerly swung a 6-iron.The attain this goal the new iron models have stronger lofts and longer shafts than the previous iron models.
But it would sound cheesy to admit "we're offering this new iron in stronger lofts so you can hit less club", so instead they craft a "tech story" about ball speed and launch angle , trajectory control, optimal window etc...
So, my take is that if the "new tech" heads were of traditional lofts they would not "fly too high, above the optimal window" as Jertsen suggests. I expect the trajectory would be just fine, but the goal of having a guy hit 7-iron instead of 6-iron (to help sell clubs) would not be met.

So your contention that a Ping G400 7-iron is basically a Ping Eye 2 6-iron with a few cosmetic doodads. The performance isn't any better, they just change the numbers to sucker people into buying and they IMAGINE that they hit it higher, flatter and straighter.

Is that it?
 
So, my take is that if the "new tech" heads were of traditional lofts they would not "fly too high, above the optimal window" as Jertsen suggests. I expect the trajectory would be just fine, but the goal of having a guy hit 7-iron instead of 6-iron (to help sell clubs) would not be met.

They would because the CG is lower. It’s easy to test if you have access to the clubs and a loft/lie machine.

I’m not an industry insider, but have access to launch monitors, fitting carts, and loft/lie machines. The difference are even greater the faster one swings - even without adjusting them loft-to-loft.

This has long been proven and I thought was common knowledge.
 
They would because the CG is lower. It’s easy to test if you have access to the clubs and a loft/lie machine.

I’m not an industry insider, but have access to launch monitors, fitting carts, and loft/lie machines. The difference are even greater the faster one swings - even without adjusting them loft-to-loft.

This has long been proven and I thought was common knowledge.

I don't even have access to a launch monitor and it's pretty easy to see. Probably because I still have a closet full of old clubs and pull them out once in a while.
 
Here’s just one sample. Launch nearly identical between a blade and SGI iron, despite 5.5* difference in loft:

xiL9JZL.png
 
I've heard Marty Jertsen from Ping say the same thing, but I don't buy it.
I think the goal of Ping and other companies is to have a player buy a set of irons with which they will be able to strike a 7-iron from places they formerly swung a 6-iron.The attain this goal the new iron models have stronger lofts and longer shafts than the previous iron models.
But it would sound cheesy to admit "we're offering this new iron in stronger lofts so you can hit less club", so instead they craft a "tech story" about ball speed and launch angle , trajectory control, optimal window etc...
So, my take is that if the "new tech" heads were of traditional lofts they would not "fly too high, above the optimal window" as Jertsen suggests. I expect the trajectory would be just fine, but the goal of having a guy hit 7-iron instead of 6-iron (to help sell clubs) would not be met.

So how do you explain the example I gave of hitting my latest generation 9i longer compared to my previous generation 8i despite the fact that it is higher lofted by 3.5° and .5" shorter? I don't know about you, but as lofts get stronger my launch conditions and ball flight get lower. I certainly do not hit my 5i as high as i hit my 9i. Lofts are not "jacked" to strictly add distance but to compensate for the lower center of gravity (among other technological advances) that make the clubs easier to hit (i.e. get the ball in the air) for the typical golfer, with less effort and without losing distance.
 
So your contention that a Ping G400 7-iron is basically a Ping Eye 2 6-iron with a few cosmetic doodads. The performance isn't any better, they just change the numbers to sucker people into buying and they IMAGINE that they hit it higher, flatter and straighter.

Is that it?

The G700 is a hollow head so its impact sound is very different from the solid head Eye 2. But other than that, they are both perimeter weighted head designs and (if fitted to the same shaft type and length), at identical loft they will produce the same shots.
 
Back
Top