"Jacked" Lofts in 2020

Having read through the entire thread so far I would like to offer my reply:

Around the time they changed the clubs with names such as Driver, Brassie, Spoon, Cleek, Mashie, Niblick to numbers typically golfers in those days would carry the following set:

Woods: 1, 3, 4, 5
Irons: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, SW
Putter

The touring pro would probably drop the 4W or 5W and replace them with a 1I or 2I.

The above remained pretty consistent from 1950s for the next 30 years or so.

I believe that is reason the highest number iron is a 9 regardless of the loft based on the tradition from that time.

Also, although the driver had the No. 1 on them, people still referred it by the traditional name.

Woods were made of real wood until the early 1980's. If I remember correctly when Tom Watson won the US Open in 1982 he was still hitting wooden clubs and his famous chip in was with the SW, which was the highest loft club in his bag (as well as of all other pros.) The loft on that would probably be 56*. Typical PW was around 50-52*.

I started playing golf regularly around the mid 1980s. My first real nice set consisted of TaylorMade Pittsburgh Persimmon metal woods (steel shafts) and Ping Eye 2 irons. The specs on the irons were:

Iron
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PW
W2
GW
SW
S2
S3
LW
Loft(°)
16​
18​
21​
25​
28​
32​
36​
40​
45​
50​
-​
-​
57​

Obviously I didn't carry a 1 or a 2 and I wasn't good enough to really hit the long irons consistently then so I typically used the 3 to put the ball back in play from the trees after hitting an ugly slice of a drive.

Incidentally, I saw Tiger as a teenager when he was invited as an amateur at his first pro tournament at the L.A. Open. He had TaylorMade Pittsburgh Persimmon metal woods and a Ping putter. Seve, who was in the same tournament, had a Ping 1I (green dot.)

Then Dave Pelz came along and his best known disciple Tom Kite started to win money title with the 60* LW the typical WITB of the pros changed: most of them added the LW and dropped the 5W so they typically carried the driver and 3W (made of metal and graphite shafts).

For the longest time the normal set is 3-PW. Around the mid to late 1990's OEMs started to make the lofts stronger. For example Ping ISI's specs show anywhere from 1 degree on the long irons to 3 degrees on the PW (so about half a club stronger on the average). From PW at 47* to LW at 61* there are 4 other wedges in
between.

As the de-lofting trend continues in the between 2000 and 2010 the lofts became 1 club stronger across the board and a gap wedge was needed to cover the 9 to 10* difference between the PW and the SW. The standard set was 4-GW.

The next major development was the introduction of the hybrids. Most players, even pros (especially on the LPGA), started to replace their long irons with one or two hybrids.

I understand the newer irons (especially the game improvement ones) are designed with more weight on the bottom so they can perform with similar characteristics even though they are way stronger than the clubs from previous generations. We are now in 2020 and the trend will probably continue with expected improvement in technology. However, there is no way to get around the fact that in order to hit an effective shot out of the green-side sand trap, the normal SW needs to be in the 54-56 range.

Basically, PW and maybe even GW are now normally used to hit full shots. You will see some Japanese OEMs (e.g. Honma) use 10 and 11 instead of PW and GW.

As for myself, my set consists of the following (with the normal expected yardage):

Driver 230
3W 210
3H 200
5I (Ping Crossover) 175
6I 165
7I 155
8I 145
9I 135
PW 125
GW 115
54* 100
58* 80
62* 60
Putter

I choose to cover the shorter distances with full swings. My major hole is around 180 yards, which I don't encounter that often. From 3H down to GW I choke down on the longer clubs to hit them 5 yards less with a full swing. For my 54*, 58* and 62* I also choke down to hit 90, 70, and 50 yard shots with a full swing. I am not proficient on three-quarter, half, and one-quarter swings so I prefer to lay up so I can take a full swing whenever possible.
 
Interesting graphs.
 
 
 
It’s so funny reading this thread. Both sides of the loft jacking argument have it wrong. It is absurd to me when people claim the “new tech” necessitates the 27 degree 7 iron. Oh really? So in that case, we could never have an iron lofted at, say, 46 degrees? Or 51 degrees? Due to the impressive new techs...

Answer me this....if that is the case, then how do you explain the epic forged irons, which offer a 56 degree sand wedge, 51 degree AW, 46 degree GW, and finally a 41 degree PW? How can those clubs even exist?
The real question is, what is preventing Callaway from eliminating the false AW and GW (which are really just PW-2 and PW-3 in name, and we all know it). Why not just stamp PW at 51, stamp ‘9’ on 46, stamp ‘8’ on the 41? Obviously marketing, and that’s all loft jacking is, and that’s that.
In fact, If you did that and followed the iron specs down the line, you would get - wait for it - a 24 degree 4 iron. Exactly what most “tour” models offer. With 38.25 inches in length. Exactly what most “tour” models offer. Except it has a ‘6’ on that brand...
If you don’t recognize this you are just lying to yourself.

I will believe the tech argument when you sell me, say, a 24 degree clubhead at 37 inches that flies just as high as the 24 degree clubhead with the 38.25 length. Because then we can say yes, this clubhead is launching higher. Until that day though, the only new tech in these irons is the creation of new letters to stamp onto the ever growing list of wedge names.

PS - rant not intended to single out callaway. I think they make awesome clubs and I love the brand...
 
It’s so funny reading this thread. Both sides of the loft jacking argument have it wrong. It is absurd to me when people claim the “new tech” necessitates the 27 degree 7 iron. Oh really? So in that case, we could never have an iron lofted at, say, 46 degrees? Or 51 degrees? Due to the impressive new techs...

Answer me this....if that is the case, then how do you explain the epic forged irons, which offer a 56 degree sand wedge, 51 degree AW, 46 degree GW, and finally a 41 degree PW? How can those clubs even exist?
The real question is, what is preventing Callaway from eliminating the false AW and GW (which are really just PW-2 and PW-3 in name, and we all know it). Why not just stamp PW at 51, stamp ‘9’ on 46, stamp ‘8’ on the 41? Obviously marketing, and that’s all loft jacking is, and that’s that.
In fact, If you did that and followed the iron specs down the line, you would get - wait for it - a 24 degree 4 iron. Exactly what most “tour” models offer. With 38.25 inches in length. Exactly what most “tour” models offer. Except it has a ‘6’ on that brand...
If you don’t recognize this you are just lying to yourself.

I will believe the tech argument when you sell me, say, a 24 degree clubhead at 37 inches that flies just as high as the 24 degree clubhead with the 38.25 length. Because then we can say yes, this clubhead is launching higher. Until that day though, the only new tech in these irons is the creation of new letters to stamp onto the ever growing list of wedge names.

PS - rant not intended to single out callaway. I think they make awesome clubs and I love the brand...

To the first part. We have those lofts because the sets are variable, meaning the tech is adjusted as loft goes up. Things like CG, perimeter weighting, face thickness, etc are changed based on loft and where they’re needed the most. That’s a reality.

The EF are a poor argument on either side of this debate. They’re literally Proto style irons, they don’t care how many wedges it needs, they built those to throw all the new and many cases radical design ideas at and offer at a premium price. Those irons though are and will be a proving ground for how far things can go and what tech works and can be modified and implemented in standard release cycle sets.

I’m definitely not lying to myself, but the beauty of THP is our community has had and will keep having access to the designers who make these clubs and tell it like it is.
 
I guess I'm not one to overthink it. I have a yardage, I grab the club that I can hit to that number.

I don't care what's stamped on the club other than to identify it relative to the yardage needed. I don't need distance, hit it plenty far, but I'll play whatever works.

Happen to play P790s because they're so darn easy to hit. Yup, had to add a wedge, now play 5 if you include the set's PW.

Hit my 5-iron like yesterday's 3-iron yet with loads more forgiveness. Don't care that it says 5. Goes as far, easier to hit. Sign me up. As to the argument that the manufacturer should just stamp 3 on it then and be done with it? I hear ya, but still don't care.

Adjusting the bottom of the bag was interesting (PW is 45°, 1st GW is 46° yet play 10 yards apart) but when the top works better... who cares?

I sure don't. FORE!!!!
 
I just read through the USGA distance report. Their conclusion on iron distances? After controlling for loft and length changes the changes in iron distance are so small they aren't concerned about it.


Ok. Tell me that’s not insane. If they’re not worried about iron distances, then why would there ever be any discussion about changing the ball? If it’s the ball distances would have changed for every club in the bag no?
 
Ok. Tell me that’s not insane. If they’re not worried about iron distances, then why would there ever be any discussion about changing the ball? If it’s the ball distances would have changed for every club in the bag no?
The entire report is a PDF and I can't copy and paste pictures from it. There is another chart in there that shows at higher spin rates the modern ball goes the same distance as a balate, but at spin rates less than 3000 it goes much farther. So the increase from the mdoern ball is really in the driver. There is also a chart comparing modern balls that says soft balls go significantly shorter than stiffer balls, but I won't bring that up :oops::LOL:

Here is the link to the report. 102 pages of fun. You can definitely peruse it and figure out each section pretty quickly.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/DIPR-FINAL-2020-usga.pdf
 
The entire report is a PDF and I can't copy and paste pictures from it. There is another chart in there that shows at higher spin rates the modern ball goes the same distance as a balate, but at spin rates less than 3000 it goes much farther. So the increase from the mdoern ball is really in the driver. There is also a chart comparing modern balls that says soft balls go significantly shorter than stiffer balls, but I won't bring that up :oops::LOL:

Here is the link to the report. 102 pages of fun. You can definitely peruse it and figure out each section pretty quickly.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/DIPR-FINAL-2020-usga.pdf
It’s reports like this that lack so much context because it doesn’t discuss impact location, spin fitting, etc.
Absolutely brutal to put that out without diving into the tech side.

Fortunately manufacturers know reality othereise it would be nothing more than an arms race to high compression, which would neuter far too many golfers.
 
I guess I'm not one to overthink it. I have a yardage, I grab the club that I can hit to that number.

^^^This.
I have two sets of irons, an SGI set from 2015, and an old Hogan Radial set from 1983. If 140 yards from a green I'd grab the 7i of the newer SGIs, or the 6i if playing with the Hogans. Both clubs will give me the high trajectory I like, and as long as I execute the shot, either club will get me that distance (give or take 5 yards because of my skill level).

The difference is, if I had a lot of money on the line I'd pull the SGI 7i every time. It has nothing to do with getting more distance from the same number - nobody gives a $%^& how far I hit - and everything to do with the forgiveness.
Obviously, I enjoy swinging those old Hogans for some reason or I would never hit them. But on average, I'm not going to score as well with them.
 
To the first part. We have those lofts because the sets are variable, meaning the tech is adjusted as loft goes up. Things like CG, perimeter weighting, face thickness, etc are changed based on loft and where they’re needed the most. That’s a reality.

The EF are a poor argument on either side of this debate. They’re literally Proto style irons, they don’t care how many wedges it needs, they built those to throw all the new and many cases radical design ideas at and offer at a premium price. Those irons though are and will be a proving ground for how far things can go and what tech works and can be modified and implemented in standard release cycle sets.

I’m definitely not lying to myself, but the beauty of THP is our community has had and will keep having access to the designers who make these clubs and tell it like it is.

Dude I respectfully disagree. Part of your argument (and I realize it is only part of, and not your entire response) is actually exactly what I’m trying to saying here throughout my entire post.
They have created a set of clubs where we eventually get to a point where the 38 inch club which is also 24 degrees has a 6 stamped on it.
You say they have variable technology and such in their clubs as they progress, yes I agree! Virtually every set with tech has “more chunk” or “more perimeter weighting” as you get lower in the set. We agree completely on that, and we both agree they should do it throughout the set.
But you lose me when you say they don’t care how many “Wedges they need,” and I question that they even are wedges, because of the absence of certain technology. Just list the clubs like I suggested earlier, because that’s what they are except for the stamp.

So i guess my question to you would be this: while acknowledging that they have created those clubs at the designated lifts and lengths, and acknowledging that they have implemented different and progressive technology throughout the set, exactly why would they choose to name the higher clubs GW-AW-PW instead of PW-9i-8i? There is literally no other reason besides disingenuous distance marketing but I would like to hear if there is another answer.

On the other hand, let’s say that the 24 degree 38 inch club (4 iron) launched like a 6 iron - which the EF might. Great...that is actually awesome and should be applauded. Say that then, Callaway. Say you made a model where you’ll take on other four irons and head to head will have better spin, better launch / peak height, and great forged feel with forgiveness. Players can now hold the greens with their four irons from 200 out better than ever. Market it like that. But please Dont stamp a 6 on it, because it just isn’t, and it’s disingenuous.
 
 
 
NOOOO it’s back


 

Sorry dude if I spent more time on here I would have responded earlier I think I need a therapist about this **** maybe I will bill Callaway
 
Sorry dude if I spent more time on here I would have responded earlier I think I need a therapist about this **** maybe I will bill Callaway

add titleist and cobra to the bill while your at it bc everyone has “jacked lofts”
 
Back
Top