We've launched the new forums! Read more here

"Jacked" Lofts in 2020

SuperStroke
@Jman

I guess I thought why do Pros play the clubs that they choose to play?

Because those are the clubs that give them the best results, under the conditions that they play in.

I, therefore explain why I play the clubs that I choose to play. Because in my conditions, at sea level, 6400 yards. I play clubs that will keep the ball as close to the ground and below the tree line as I can. Because this keeps my ball out of the wind, and our of trouble.

Most Pros change clubs, lofts, bounce and grind week to week. As their conditions vary.

I can't and don't have to. I play for the wind. If it's not present no problem. If it picks up, my clubs are ready. :)
 
Okay, Forget about me, my Clubs, my biases.

I am a professional.

In my field if I give you 20 milligrams of Y.

Everyone on the planet knows exactly what you received. Period.

It may work well for you, or it may not. Period. No debate.

If it doesn't work, or you have an Allergic reaction. You simply don't take that Y again.

Why, oh Why if a Customer ask What is "Y"?

How Does "Y" Compare to "X"?

We are called Heretics! Blasphemous!

How dare you?

Why don't you accept Science? Technology? The New and Improved Clubs? Blindly?

Because Americans always ask Why?

Why is X better than Y.

Show us the proof.


What is your data?

What are your references Points?

And by God, What Is the Industry Standards?

Otherwise, it is all Snake Oil.

VooDoo Medicine.

Santeria, Black Magic or Hocus Pocus.

If your clubs are longer, faster, better, prove it. Not in some hide lab. But in broad daylight.

Don't try and ridicule the consumer my using big, fancy words and Jargon.

6 iron is better. Show me the Beef.

From top to bottom.

That is not too much to ask for.

Nor too much to expect.

M2C
 
Johan185 said:
The

The Technology is amazing. And really works. I liked the MP-20'S. But honestly the MP-5's, which are my scoring clubs just fit better. It may be the Aerotech Steelfiber i80 Stiff Shafts Versus the KBS Tour 90 Stiff shafts.

Again in all Honesty, I currently hit the MP-20's longer than the MP-5's. About 5 Yards. But with a greater tendency to Hook the ball. My Swing Flaw.

Also While on the Subject, I hit the MP-20's MB longer than the HMB's. Again Same Shafts. KBS Tour 90 Stiff. Plus one inch. Even though the HMB' have stronger lofts than the MB'S. The MB'S Fly higher and Spin Faster. But I hit them more solidly.

Horses for Courses.

Only Answering your question and not trying to single out any OEM'S.

And Yes I was fitted. Fitter recommended HMB's.

I purchased both, only to find that my older and shorter hitting MP-5's were hitting more Greens. And achieving lower scores. I am lucky. At 57 I am still hitting the ball a long way. Soon this will by force of nature come to an end.

But till then I am willing to trade Distance for Accuracy.

Cheers.

Love your Reviews. (y)
Click to expand...

You hit the MBs further despite HMB having “jacked lofts”?

And yet you still think lower lofts are a problem and that companies are snookering you and that lower lofts are all marketing?

I think on that note I give up. :)
Im genuinely happy that you found exactly what you like. On THP and in my head that is the only thing that matters
 
KingSinghUNLTD said:
2 fittings at Club Champion and 1 at Cool Clubs so have no desire to spend another $200. The same argument can be made for distance though, the average golfer will not notice 1-3 yards gain in distance either.
Click to expand...
Except distance may not be the only difference between their previous set and new set, which I outlined.
 
Johan185 said:
It's a Standard 6 iron. (y):ROFLMAO:

So which Club do you use for a 100 yard shot to a tight pin over a bunker?:eek:
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t game them right now. And to answer your question I would club up from my normal club. So I would use my 115 club in that situation.
 
KingSinghUNLTD said:
More significant for me was 9i with 38.5*, PW with 43* and AW with 48*. This was the deal breaker for me since it meant an extra gap wedge was needed. No thank you.
Click to expand...

The club that calls itself a 43 wedge is really an 8-iron.
The club that calls itself a 48 wedge is really a 9-iron.
The club that calls itself a 53 wedge is really a pitching wedge.
And at the other end of the set, the club that calls itself a 4-iron is really a 2-iron.

There are no extra clubs to carry. They just have ridiculous stampings on the sole.
You could probably live with that if you hit them really well.
 
JB said:
You hit the MBs further despite HMB having “jacked lofts”?

And yet you still think lower lofts are a problem and that companies are snookering you and that lower lofts are all marketing?

I think on that note I give up. :)
Im genuinely happy that you found exactly what you like. On THP and in my head that is the only thing that matters
Click to expand...


The Snookering occurred over ten years ago. Before THP. Thanks for making a great location to weed out the best from the rest.

I don't consider the Mizuno MP-20's MB or HMB'S "Jacked Lofts"

I actually enjoy both of them. I plan on keeping both sets. I will most likely pull the KBS Tour 90's and replace them with the Aerotech Steelfiber i80 Stiff shafts. Unfortunately the Aerotech Steelfiber i80 were not a stock option. I did try to get them.

The Mizuno MP-20's vs MP-5's is not a "Jacked lofts " debate. In my mind. I just happened to score better with the MP-5'S. I also scores better with a driver that is not my longest Fitted Driver. I simply use the driver that avoids the Hazards more often.

But thanks for doing so much research and bringing us the best information from all the Golfing World.

Cheers.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
The club that calls itself a 43 wedge is really an 8-iron.
The club that calls itself a 48 wedge is really a 9-iron.
The club that calls itself a 53 wedge is really a pitching wedge.
And at the other end of the set, the club that calls itself a 4-iron is really a 2-iron.

There are no extra clubs to carry. They just have ridiculous stampings on the sole.
You could probably live with that if you hit them really well.
Click to expand...
Says who though? Who set those as the hard and fast rules?
 
Let me take the bait.

Ok. The Pitching Wedge goes 170 yards. 80 percent swing. Regardless of the loft.

As Amateurs according to Dave Pelz we need full swing clubs to cover us down to 60 yards. 80 percent Swing. The the finesse Clubs. He introduced the idea of adding wedges to achieve this goal. He also introduced the idea of the finesse swing. 90 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, 25 percent swings for the finesse clubs. Ok full swing and partial Swings engaged. Lofts are not the issue.

But our Pitching Wedge goes 170 yards. 170 yards to 60 yards needs to be gapped. With clubs of any name or loft with an 80 percent swing into 10 to 15 yard gaps.

170 minus 60 is 110 yards. A 10 yards gap of clubs covering a 110 yards Equals 11 clubs. A 15 yards gap cover 110 yards Equals 7 clubs.

Or otherwise get two clubs covering a 55 yard gap. Three clubs to cover 36 yard gaps. Four clubs to gap your set at 27 yards. Or five clubs below your Pitching Wedge to gap your set below 170 at 22 yards gaps. 6 finesse clubs.

Built to any specs. With any naming criteria.

Isn't this going to create a concern since we can only carry 13 clubs and a putter?

The same concerns occur at the top. Regardless of lofts or names. 200 yards 7 iron. etc.


200 yard 7 iron. 170 yard Pitching Wedge. 30 yards gap for the 8 and 9 iron to fill. But we need to cover 60 to 270 yards evenly. 210 yards with only 13 clubs. For my calculus that is 16 yards gaps.

The OEM'S just need to find solutions that will fill these requirements. Let's not forget that the Pros need clubs to go from 350 to 60 yards. Hopefully evenly gapped as well.
 
Johan185 said:
Let me take the bait.

Ok. The Pitching Wedge goes 170 yards. 80 percent swing. Regardless of the loft.

As Amateurs according to Dave Pelz we need full swing clubs to cover us down to 60 yards. 80 percent Swing. The the finesse Clubs. He introduced the idea of adding wedges to achieve this goal. He also introduced the idea of the finesse swing. 90 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, 25 percent swings for the finesse clubs. Ok full swing and partial Swings engaged. Lofts are not the issue.

But our Pitching Wedge goes 170 yards. 170 yards to 60 yards needs to be gapped. With clubs of any name or loft with an 80 percent swing into 10 to 15 yard gaps.

170 minus 60 is 110 yards. A 10 yards gap of clubs covering a 110 yards Equals 11 clubs. A 15 yards gap cover 110 yards Equals 7 clubs.

Or otherwise get two clubs covering a 55 yard gap. Three clubs to cover 36 yard gaps. Four clubs to gap your set at 27 yards. Or five clubs below your Pitching Wedge to gap your set below 170 at 22 yards gaps. 6 finesse clubs.

Built to any specs. With any naming criteria.

Isn't this going to create a concern since we can only carry 13 clubs and a putter?

The same concerns occur at the top. Regardless of lofts or names. 200 yards 7 iron. etc.


200 yard 7 iron. 170 yard Pitching Wedge. 30 yards gap for the 8 and 9 iron to fill. But we need to cover 60 to 270 yards evenly. 210 yards with only 13 clubs. For my calculus that is 16 yards gaps.

The OEM'S just need to find solutions that will fill these requirements. Let's not forget that the Pros need clubs to go from 350 to 60 yards. Hopefully evenly gapped as well.
Click to expand...
Again, so many talk about percentage shots/swings in “finesse” clubs, why can’t they do that with a PW too? Why does it have to be with a bladed wedge?

The irons he hit will be a hot topic soon enough, but throwing those out this above is still true. Some get SO hung up on things not being “traditional” they themselves aren’t playing the game “traditionally” and with adaptability as well as versatility.

What gets me on this topic always is why is it automatically wrong for some? Why? Because things have changed? Because materials have changed? Because tech has changed? Because science has flipped tradition on its ear and weas humans natively fear change?

More than that though, when has anyone ever forced someone to upgrade? If you want lofts from 1967, you can find a set on ole eBay still, and love and enjoy them like no other because that’s the point of this whole game, love what you play and play what you love.
 
Jman said:
Says who though? Who set those as the hard and fast rules?
Click to expand...

That's how far the Pro V1x flies when I hit it, Jman.
You know, the one with #79 and my name printed on it?

What other rule, hard and fast or otherwise, would I apply?
Perhaps everybody's swing is different.
Loft /length correlation determines how far my well-struck shot goes.
Clubhead design merely impacts how consistently and with what forgiveness I get a well-struck shot.
 
One thing I will add is I’ve never seen anyone lower their index even 10% by going from a properly fit irons that were more than 10 years old to a newer set of irons. I’ve seen lots of people improve more than 10% by upgrading their driver to a newer one that fits them, adding hybrids to their bag, taking lessons, or get properly fit for a putter.

Might be just my circle of golfing friends but that is what I’ve seen over the last 40 years.
 
Johan185 said:
So buy a 350 to 250 dollar Club to replace a 120 to 160 dollar Club.

Marketing and Business Genius.

Oops. I think I just let the cat out of the bag.

2, 3, 4, and 5 irons aren't that hard to hit.

Practice. IVERSON. Practice. :geek:
Click to expand...
I disagree with this though.. There are plenty of amateurs who will not have the clubhead speed or the correct strike to ever successfully play a 2 or 3 iron off the fairway. There is a clear market and reason for hybrids and fairway woods and I agree they are more expensive. I play with a friend in his late 50s who is not really flexible and cannot make much of a backswing at all due to physical limitations. The new hybrid irons (cleveland launcher and cobra t-rail) have really brought a lot of enjoyment to him and has made golf fun for him again. He still doesn't hit anything past a 6 iron off the fairway normally.
 
Welp, I think this thread has hit the proverbial
IMG_1574.JPG
Congratulations @Canadan ! It's all your fault! ?

 
I never heard of actually buying new equipment for a legitimate golf related reason.

One buys new golf equipment for the fun of buying new golf equipment.

It's just like how broads buy expensive shoes.

Can't we at least be honest with ourselves?
 
RetiredBoomer said:
I never heard of actually buying new equipment for a legitimate golf related reason.

One buys new golf equipment for the fun of buying new golf equipment.

It's just like how broads buy expensive shoes.

Can't we at least be honest with ourselves?
Click to expand...
Maybe this is true for properly fit clubs, but I’ve found success moving from my 10.5 Rogue to a 9 deg Epic Flash. Honestly think I’m pretty close to optimized with driver now.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
I never heard of actually buying new equipment for a legitimate golf related reason.

One buys new golf equipment for the fun of buying new golf equipment.

It's just like how broads buy expensive shoes.

Can't we at least be honest with ourselves?
Click to expand...

Or people buy new clubs because they actually improve their game? If I can hit a 9 Iron, in the same place I used to hit an 8 or a 7... that makes the game easier for me.

If I am using a 5 year old driver, and I can gain 10 yards of total distance.. that makes the game easier for me
 
Jman said:
Again, so many talk about percentage shots/swings in “finesse” clubs, why can’t they do that with a PW too? Why does it have to be with a bladed wedge?

The irons he hit will be a hot topic soon enough, but throwing those out this above is still true. Some get SO hung up on things not being “traditional” they themselves aren’t playing the game “traditionally” and with adaptability as well as versatility.

What gets me on this topic always is why is it automatically wrong for some? Why? Because things have changed? Because materials have changed? Because tech has changed? Because science has flipped tradition on its ear and weas humans natively fear change?

More than that though, when has anyone ever forced someone to upgrade? If you want lofts from 1967, you can find a set on ole eBay still, and love and enjoy them like no other because that’s the point of this whole game, love what you play and play what you love.
Click to expand...

Technology has certainly changed marketing a whole lot more than irons
 
tahoebum said:
One thing I will add is I’ve never seen anyone lower their index even 10% by going from a properly fit irons that were more than 10 years old to a newer set of irons. I’ve seen lots of people improve more than 10% by upgrading their driver to a newer one that fits them, adding hybrids to their bag, taking lessons, or get properly fit for a putter.

Might be just my circle of golfing friends but that is what I’ve seen over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
Makes a whole lot of sense to me.
 
Jman said:
More than that though, when has anyone ever forced someone to upgrade? If you want lofts from 1967, you can find a set on ole eBay still, and love and enjoy them like no other because that’s the point of this whole game, love what you play and play what you love.
Click to expand...

With all respect, this shows how we're not talking about the same things.

My entire discussion has been about STAMPING and club number / loft correlation.

At no point have I criticized any of the modern tech. I want the modern tech. Nice job, engineers.

I simply cannot accept the idea of club numbers correlated to "launch windows" instead of loft.

Who the hell even heard the expression "launch window" thirty years ago when they started screwing around with the club number / loft relationship?

Stamping "4" on a 2-iron doesn't have a damned thing to do with progress or technology.

It's simply a matter of disrespecting the intelligence of veteran players who know what the numbers were meant to mean when a numbering system was introduced.

They could take the very same aforementioned club, stamp a "2" on it, and it would be the same club except the cosmetics don't constitute a middle finger toward tradition.

If technology were to be really presented honestly, then lets see how much longer and higher and steeply vertically descending a modern 32º 5-iron will hit a ball compared to an old 32º 5-iron.

That would be honest.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
With all respect, this shows how we're not talking about the same things.

My entire discussion has been about STAMPING and club number / loft correlation.

At no point have I criticized any of the modern tech. I want the modern tech. Nice job, engineers.

I simply cannot accept the idea of club numbers correlated to "launch windows" instead of loft.

Who the hell even heard the expression "launch window" thirty years ago when they started screwing around with the club number / loft relationship?

Stamping "4" on a 2-iron doesn't have a damned thing to do with progress or technology.

It's simply a matter of disrespecting the intelligence of veteran players who know what the numbers were meant to mean when a numbering system was introduced.

They could take the very same aforementioned club, stamp a "2" on it, and it would be the same club except the cosmetics don't constitute a middle finger toward tradition.

If technology were to be really presented honestly, then lets see how much longer and higher and steeply vertically descending a modern 32º 5-iron will hit a ball compared to an old 32º 5-iron.

That would be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to post them because they're other people's videos, but those have been done. Peak height, launch angle, and decent angles are all higher with the modern clubs, with distances being comparable.

That's why launch angles and everything are compared and not just loft vs distance.
 
Golf Ghost said:
I'm not going to post them because they're other people's videos, but those have been done. Peak height, launch angle, and decent angles are all higher with the modern clubs, with distances being comparable.

That's why launch angles and everything are compared and not just loft vs distance.
Click to expand...

Good info. When you say "distances being comparable," do you mean loft for loft or club number to club number ?

Does a modern 23º 5-iron go the same distance as an old 23º 3-iron or an old 32º 5-iron?
 
RetiredBoomer said:
Good info. When you say "distances being comparable," do you men loft for loft or club number to club number ?

Does a modern 23º 5-iron go the same distance as an old 23º 3-iron or an old 32º 5-iron?
Click to expand...

Loft to loft. I believe in the video it was a 7i vs a 5i, both same lofts and club lengths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top