Lofts on modern clubs

[JohnSinVA]

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.




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

Yep. Today's irons help one pull the same numbered club that they used to pull when they were younger and swung faster. That's a big selling point.

 

[Jman]

Lofts on modern clubs

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 been in the same room with some of the biggest names in golf club design, the R&D guys aren’t into marketing no matter how much some of you want to believe that. When multiple companies have the same story about lofts, I tend to believe the guys with history in club design more than internet golfers (of which I am one as well).

And the last part of your post is just factually incorrect.

 

[Molten]

Lofts on modern clubs

Most of the "modern jacked up iron models" have longer shafts than traditional length irons. Any height trajectory gain is related as much to extra long shafts as it is head design.

No. I’m sorry but this just isn’t right.

Edit - ignore me. I’m late to the discussion.

 

[Canadan]

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.

These are big claims.

With stock shafts i can definitely elevate the ball but 150 yard peak height with 200+ carry is unreal with a 7 iron loft.

 

[-CRW-]

These are big claims.

With stock shafts i can definitely elevate the ball but 150 yard peak height with 200+ carry is unreal with a 7 iron loft.

I swing my irons around 100 mph. Driver is topped out at 124 (that I know of/have seen on a monitor). The driver numbers are in the Rogue Silver 130 MSI thread.

And it depends on what 7i/loft you are taking about. Most GI/SGI 7i lofts are the same or stronger than my 6i, which I carry 192.

 

[Sean]

To me, it is simply a number on the bottom of the club. If you purchase a new set of irons, simply adjust accordingly.

 

[-CRW-]

@Canadan - here you go:





My son didn’t know to keep filming so I had him start it right back up. That’s a front pin so it was probably 190-195, but the wind was a little in our face and from right to left. I’m using his Apex CF19 7 iron at its stock 30.5* loft (confirmed last week following our Trackman session). It has the Elevate 95 shaft in stiff flex. The first shot was thin and found the right green side bunker. The second landed a few yards beyond the pin.

It absolutely does not perform the same as my 0311 Tour (7i or 6i). It flies higher and farther.

 

[MWard]

These are big claims.

With stock shafts i can definitely elevate the ball but 150 yard peak height with 200+ carry is unreal with a 7 iron loft.

You and I have been known to be able to elevate a golf ball. I’m trying to imagine a 150ft Apex and 200yds+ carry. I can’t. That’s just a nuked moon ball

 

[Canadan]

@Canadan - here you go:





My son didn’t know to keep filming so I had him start it right back up. That’s a front pin so it was probably 190-195, but the wind was a little in our face and from right to left. I’m using his Apex CF19 7 iron at its stock 30.5* loft (confirmed last week following our Trackman session). It has the Elevate 95 shaft in stiff flex. The first shot was thin and found the right green side bunker. The second landed a few yards beyond the pin.

It absolutely does not perform the same as my 0311 Tour (7i or 6i). It flies higher and farther.

I’m not questioning your ability to hit a 200 yard 7 iron. I can’t hit a stock loft hot metal pro about 190 carry on GC Quad with about a 40 yard peak if I really want to and I’m not that long.. but it’s definitely not going 150+. That’s crazy high.

Also worth considering that you’re talking about less than 1% of golfers. It’s hardly a fair sample.

 

[-CRW-]

I’m not questioning your ability to hit a 200 yard 7 iron. I can’t hit a stock loft hot metal pro about 190 carry on GC Quad with about a 40 yard peak if I really want to and I’m not that long.. but it’s definitely not going 150+. That’s crazy high.

Also worth considering that you’re talking about less than 1% of golfers. It’s hardly a fair sample.

I’m on Trackman all the time. I hit my normal irons 40 yards/120ft with X100’s. Just because YOU can’t do it, doesn’t mean I can’t.

 

[uitar99]

It seems at a certain point, assuming loft/dynamics have added distance,at some point I still have to have something after a 9 iron. Seems that gaps are still important. Is that why 1,2 and 3 irons are gone the way of the do-do.

 

[Canadan]

I’m on Trackman all the time. I hit my normal irons 40 yards/120ft with X100’s. Just because YOU can’t do it, doesn’t mean I can’t.

Bro, I think that chip on your shoulder is a bit Itchy right now. I said it was a big claim and it’s unreal.

If you can do it, you’re in a very small group. It’s pretty impressive which I’m sure you hear a lot. I’m sorry my compliment was missed.

 

[-CRW-]

Bro, I think that chip on your shoulder is a bit Itchy right now. I said it was a big claim and it’s unreal.

If you can do it, you’re in a very small group. It’s pretty impressive which I’m sure you hear a lot. I’m sorry my compliment was missed.

It’s not a chip. You just have a habit of making negative comments and incorrect assumptions while quoting me on a frequent basis. I’d appreciate it if you backed off with that sort of response. Otherwise, I have no issue with you or anyone else. I just won’t be slighted without a response.

 

[KEV]

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 also heard Marty say this. I've heard an extremely smart guy from Cobra say the same thing. I also heard the same thing from multiple people at Callaway. I have a hard time believe that all of these different people and companies would say almost the exact same thing. Technology has changed and the lofts have to change to accommodate it.

 

[Jman]

Remember people, text carries no tone.

Much of how you take it, is how you WANT to take it.

 

[Canadan]

It’s not a chip. You just have a habit of making negative comments and incorrect assumptions while quoting me on a frequent basis. I’d appreciate it if you backed off with that sort of response. Otherwise, I have no issue with you or anyone else. I just won’t be slighted without a response.

 

[DG_1234]

I have a hard time believe that all of these different people and companies would say almost the exact same thing.

Why? It's common in most industries for managers/executives to sell the same story.
On internet golf forums the same effect is true; for example one guy writes something .....another guy believes it makes sense so he proclaims the same information , then another repeats it etc....Before long , no matter how wrong it may be, a "majority opinion" is established.

 

[Jman]

Why? It's common in most industries for managers/executives to sell the same story.
On internet golf forums the same effect is true; for example one guy writes something .....another guy believes it makes sense so he proclaims the same information , then another repeats it etc....Before long , no matter how wrong it may be, a "majority opinion" is established.

Good thing we at THP are not talking to managers and execs about it, but the actual people who designed the clubs....

Information and education from the sources, always, not just hearsay.

 

[DG_1234]

Good thing we at THP are not talking to managers and execs about it, but the actual people who designed the clubs....

Information and education from the sources, always, not just hearsay.

I include designers/engineers within the category of executive/managers. Mostly these guys want to keep their jobs so they usually take the path of least resistance. This way, if a product is not successful, they can defend themselves by saying "everybody else did it too".
I remember talking to the lead club designer for a major golf equipment brand and I asked him why all the iron models his company produced were of large, over sized heads? I asked him if there was not merit to the concept of a relatively small head with deep cavity back/perimeter weighting, perhaps giving players the benefit of the ease of swinging/squaring at impact a relatively small head, yet weighted so that off center strikes would receive forgiveness? His reply was "that type of iron would not sell, every brand in the industry is making large heads".
And most companies (in every industry) have the habit of hiring executives ,designers, sales reps etc... based on a resume of having previous work experience within the industry. The guy (or board of directors) doing the hiring takes this safe route because if the hire does not work out he can always "say, well he worked for some leading companies". So, the result of all this is lots of good old boy networking and safe plays while true original thought is usually disregarded or ignored.

 

[Jman]

Lofts on modern clubs

I include designers/engineers within the category of executive/managers. Mostly these guys want to keep their jobs so they usually take the path of least resistance. This way, if a product is not successful, they can defend themselves by saying "everybody else did it too".
I remember talking to the lead club designer for a major golf equipment brand and I asked him why all the iron models his company produced were of large, over sized heads? I asked him if there was not merit to the concept of a relatively small head with deep cavity back/perimeter weighting, perhaps giving players the benefit of the ease of swinging/squaring at impact a relatively small head, yet weighted so that off center strikes would receive forgiveness? His reply was "that type of iron would not sell, every brand in the industry is making large heads".
And most companies (in every industry) have the habit of hiring executives ,designers, sales reps etc... based on a resume of having previous work experience within the industry. The guy (or board of directors) doing the hiring takes this safe route because if the hire does not work out he can always "say, well he worked for some leading companies". So, the result of all this is lots of good old boy networking and safe plays while true original thought is usually disregarded or ignored.

I’m thankful I’m not such a conspiracy theorist. Wow.

Regardless of what some want to think, physics don’t lie.

 

[McLovin]

you can lead a horse to water...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jim54]

You should take a look at the Grindworks DP-2 irons, exactly what you are describing.

I include designers/engineers within the category of executive/managers. Mostly these guys want to keep their jobs so they usually take the path of least resistance. This way, if a product is not successful, they can defend themselves by saying "everybody else did it too".
I remember talking to the lead club designer for a major golf equipment brand and I asked him why all the iron models his company produced were of large, over sized heads? I asked him if there was not merit to the concept of a relatively small head with deep cavity back/perimeter weighting, perhaps giving players the benefit of the ease of swinging/squaring at impact a relatively small head, yet weighted so that off center strikes would receive forgiveness? His reply was "that type of iron would not sell, every brand in the industry is making large heads".
And most companies (in every industry) have the habit of hiring executives ,designers, sales reps etc... based on a resume of having previous work experience within the industry. The guy (or board of directors) doing the hiring takes this safe route because if the hire does not work out he can always "say, well he worked for some leading companies". So, the result of all this is lots of good old boy networking and safe plays while true original thought is usually disregarded or ignored.

 

[Jman]

You should take a look at the Grindworks DP-2 irons, exactly what you are describing.

There are a lot of irons out there in that profile, no?

 

[jim54]

There are a lot of irons out there in that profile, no?

Definitely, the grindworks are a lot smaller profile than just about any I have seen with the same type of tech. If they were easier to get ahold of would play them.

Hey I am going full loft and tech with the EPIC forged so I am on board, Jack the lofts, whatever helps me hit greens..

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[DG_1234]

I’m thankful I’m not such a conspiracy theorist. Wow.

Regardless of what some want to think, physics don’t lie.

It is human nature to take the path of least resistance, make safe decisions, cover your a** etc...
Mostly golf equipment designs are warmed over versions of previous designs. Sure there are some exceptions, but the the designers typically try to "stay within the box of current conventional thinking", because if they don't, and their original idea did not sell well, they may be out of a job.
Putting out stuff similar to what everybody else is doing is safer , so that is what hired employees tend to do.
I think the two most recent significant changes to the golf equipment industry were Karsten Solheim's perimeter weighting concept, for which he had the conviction to apply to putters and irons. The other recent materially significant improvement change to golf equipment was Ely Callaway's release of the over sized metal wood. Both of these men were not employees thinking about job security, they were business owners willing to take the financial risk of supporting their unconventional products.