"Jacked" Lofts in 2020

[Johan185]

So we are all accepting this concept.

Or at least the Majority.

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, AW, GW, SW, LW

DRIVER, 3, 5, Fairway Woods

Putter.

Versus
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, SW

ETC.

And of course we can substitute Fairway Woods and Hybrids at the top to replace any Long Iron that our game and fitter finds best suits our Needs.

It's Magic?

Technological advances?

Marketing?

Or "Jacked Lofts" ?

@JB

@Tenputt

@Canadan

Are we Jacked, Teched or Mind Tricked?

 

[JB]

So we are all accepting this concept.

Or at least the Majority.

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, AW, GW, SW, LW

DRIVER, 3, 5, Fairway Woods

Putter.

Versus
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, SW

ETC.

And of course we can substitute Fairway Woods and Hybrids at the top to replace any Long Iron that our game and fitter finds best suits our Needs.

It's Magic?

Technological advances?

Marketing?

Or "Jacked Lofts" ?

@JB

@Tenputt

@Canadan

Are we Jacked, Teched or Mind Tricked?

Im not sure I understand.
But lets say I hand you a 22 degree blade and a 22 degree fairway wood. Are you going to hit them the same distance and ball flight?
If I tell you to hit driver, do you just assume that an 8 degree driver goes further than a 12 degree driver? Or would it depend on which driver fit you better? Shallow vs deep. Low vs high CG. Weight forward vs back. Actual aerodynamics. All things that will play a role.

 

[dacatalyst41]

If it behaves like the number on the bottom of the club, it’s a non issue. Tech has evolved. The game has evolved. I think traditionalists are more concerned than the masses.

 

[Johan185]

Dave Petz was Light Years Ahead of his time. Suggested PW, SW, LW, AND XW. In the year 2000!

Of course his documented that the average driving distance was 205 for LPGA, 235 for Male Amateurs, and 275 yards for PGA tour Pros.

The LPGA Driving average is 230 to 290



With PGA Tour Pros Pros hitting 350 yards Bomb routinely on a weekly basis.

 

[Johan185]

Im not sure I understand.
But lets say I hand you a 22 degree blade and a 22 degree fairway wood. Are you going to hit them the same distance and ball flight?
If I tell you to hit driver, do you just assume that an 8 degree driver goes further than a 12 degree driver? Or would it depend on which driver fit you better? Shallow vs deep. Low vs high CG. Weight forward vs back. Actual aerodynamics. All things that will play a role.

The clubs and lofts I choose are based on a through fitting process. With gaps filled in as needed. If it results in a 6 Irons and a 6 Hybrid in the bag. I don't have any qualms.

It just appears to me that they have started to call the 2 iron a 5 iron. With similar lofts. although to be fair, we can hit successfully a 22 degree 5 Iron. Today's technology is amazing. Even God could not hit a 2 Iron, only Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan on any Given Sunday of a Major. But they had a Swing that even God could envy.

Food for Thought

 

[Johan185]

If it behaves like the number on the bottom of the club, it’s a non issue. Tech has evolved. The game has evolved. I think traditionalists are more concerned than the masses.

Golf geeks are the only ones who notice.

But I honestly don't know what is defined by a Club Club hit with a the characteristic of "X" number on the bottom.

Tiger Famously hits 9 different boxes, with 9 different shots and shapes, with each and every one of his clubs. Incredible and this applies to his driver as well.

I only have to. A Maybe near the Green or Fairway Hook and a Going, Going, Gone deep into the Woods Hook.

But I can Hack it with the Best.

Thanks to THP.

Cheers

 

[Johan185]

More important today than ever to manage the Gapping in Wedges inside 150 yards to the hole

 

[Tevenor]

The game is changing. And you gotta change along with it.

So we are all accepting this concept.

Or at least the Majority.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, PW, AW, GW, SW, LW

DRIVER, 3, 5, Fairway Woods

Putter.

This is what my approach is ( bolded above with added 4i for completeness) and what currently resides in my bag. This gets me from 215 yard shot all the way down to the putter. This is all I need from irons. Fly the right distance, go the right direction, stop when you land. I could care less what the number looks like on the bottom.

In my last irons, to make that happen, I need a 3i and I got rid of the LW. Before that, I had a set iwth a 2 iron and I only had 3 wedges.

Simple as that in my opinion.

 

[tahoebum]

My set make up this year is likely to include an Epic Forged 4 and 6 irons and a second Z565 6 iron. The Epic forged 6 iron will be a 196ish club and the other 6 iron is my 182 club. Gaps will be right where I want them.

I can’t wait until somebody asks me on a par three if I hit 6 iron and I can ask them "which one" !

 

[radeon962]

Just get them retro spec if it’s an issue.

I play TM P790’s and appreciate the extra distance. If you compare a set from 5 years ago to an original set of blades from Nicklaus/Palmer era they were strong lofted in comparison let alone where we are at now.

Find an old Wilson Staff 2 iron and try to hit it if your swing is not grooved for an example of how equipment has helped the average golfer.

I’ll take whatever makes the game easier and more enjoyable. I don’t have time to dedicate to hit balls every day so when I do get out the more the equipment can help the better.

20 years ago I was playing blades, 43” steel shafted driver, etc. now older and play much less I look at what I can use to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.

 

[RetiredBoomer]

OK, I've been convinced that there are technical reasons beyond vanity lofts why modern irons have a different club number / loft correlation than do classic irons.

I accept the arguments, and now change my position to....

even with modern club head technology, I would SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE different stamping protocols if they were offered.

 

[RetiredBoomer]

Here's what I don't understand. The technology has obviously changed. The weight distribution has been changed. The materials on everything, clubhead, shaft, and grip, has changed. What does any of that have to do with the numbering protocols needing to be changed as well? So what if a four iron is now easier to launch? So what if it now flies both higher and longer?

Why would that make it desirable to now call it a six iron?

For what possible reason should the numbers 1-4, and increasingly #5, be useless to the typical recreational player?

For what possible reason should the last four or five irons in your set now be called wedges?



The more I think of it, the more I go back to my original opinion, regardless of what the engineers say.

They really are vanity lofts. The numbering system that I propose above does make more sense than what they're doing.

The liberties that the manufacturers have taken with numbering the clubs is a simple example of under-regulation in the private sector and fraud in marketing.

 

[JB]

The liberties that the manufacturers have taken with numbering the clubs is a simple example of under-regulation in the private sector and fraud in marketing.

I genuinely chuckled at this.
I could just as easily say that the numbers were never about loft and designed to fit a window of launch. As that has changed with modern design, the launch was able to still hit those windows with more speed and less spin.

But none of that is exciting as fraud

 

[sposey013168]

It’s a non story.

Its been a non story.

It’ll stay a non story.

Its only something for those who have to find something to dislike.

I agree it’s only a story for the “Get off my lawn” people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RetiredBoomer]

I genuinely chuckled at this.
I could just as easily say that the numbers were never about loft and designed to fit a window of launch. As that has changed with modern design, the launch was able to still hit those windows with more speed and less spin.

But none of that is exciting as fraud

I admire your stalwart defense of your favorite clubmakers, JB.

I'm sure that when they decided to change from mid-iron, mashie, niblick, et al and go to a numbering system, what they had in mind was "window of launch!"
How did I not see that?

 

[MH]

This is a very interesting topic and have enjoyed reading all the responses. For as long as I can remember I have played my iron sets based of if a 46* pw. The only reason for this is that has been what the iron sets I tend to gravitate too have been. Not saying those are the ones I should be playing but those are the ones that fit my eye. This year I will be playing a set of Callaway Apex 19 combo’s that have slightly stronger lofts, I’m not looking for a big distance boost but if I gained a few yards I would be happy and will adjust accordingly.

I am in the camp that believes newer technology require the lofts to be adjusted to maintain proper launch/spin. Sets like the Cobra forged tec’s and TM p790’s really interest me.

 

[JB]

I admire your stalwart defense of your favorite clubmakers, JB.

I'm sure that when they decided to change from mid-iron, mashie, niblick, et al and go to a numbering system, what they had in mind was "window of launch!"
How did I not see that?

Its not a defense of club makers. Its a defense of club design.
As I have said numerous times in here, there are cases where lofts are lowered for the sake of lowering lofts. That is a fitting thing.
The idea that any consumer good in the history of consumer goods should stay stagnant because a small minority says "get off my lawn" seems a bit short sided.

The best news is most of the golfing public has little concern. And those that do, continue to have options to play. So win win for everybody.
But the idea that we should pick some arbitrary loft per number, because when blades were the only option that is what they used is just not reality.
By that note, nobody should ever play a high lofted driver, a 460cc driver, any sort of cavity back, have rubber grips, a solid core golf ball, use plastic or polymer tees, a golf cart and the list goes on.

 

[Duffer Waldorf]

The liberties that the manufacturers have taken with numbering the clubs is a simple example of under-regulation in the private sector and fraud in marketing.

Regulation by who?

 

[Tevenor]

I genuinely chuckled at this.
I could just as easily say that the numbers were never about loft and designed to fit a window of launch. As that has changed with modern design, the launch was able to still hit those windows with more speed and less spin.

But none of that is exciting as fraud

I don't know @JB. There is a bit more pizzazz and sense of subterfuge and conspiracy when stated with "fraud" and "under-regulation in the private sector". Kind of puts the theme song to Jason Bourne in my head thinking about all these OEM vendor CEO's getting together to corner the world market on lofts in a grand plan to dominate the sales market.


Oddly enough, I've always though the numbers were exactly as you described. I don;t think I read it anywhere, it just made sense to me as a kid that this one goes this high, this one goes less high but farther, etc. They are meant to go a certain distance and hit a window in relation to each other. Regardless if of how far a 6 iron goes, I always know that a 6 iron will go between my 5 iron and my 7 iron. Therefore the 6 label is relativistic to distance not absolute to distance. And by proxy, then is non-deterministic to the characteristics that drive that relative distance measurement including speed, launch, and loft ( as well as others).

But then again, maybe I am letting my professional opinion and job interfere to much with my golf discussion. Back to slap stick comedy and gliphy's for me!

 

[RetiredBoomer]

This is a very interesting topic and have enjoyed reading all the responses. For as long as I can remember I have played my iron sets based of if a 46* pw. The only reason for this is that has been what the iron sets I tend to gravitate too have been. Not saying those are the ones I should be playing but those are the ones that fit my eye. This year I will be playing a set of Callaway Apex 19 combo’s that have slightly stronger lofts, I’m not looking for a big distance boost but if I gained a few yards I would be happy and will adjust accordingly.

I am in the camp that believes newer technology require the lofts to be adjusted to maintain proper launch/spin. Sets like the Cobra forged tec’s and TM p790’s really interest me.

I never deluded myself into believing that I was holding the majority opinion, MH.

I wish the OEMs had the kind of options that Spalding and the other leading names had in their era--custom stamping. Then we could all get what we want.

 

[RetiredBoomer]

Oddly enough, I've always though the numbers were exactly as you described. I don;t think I read it anywhere, it just made sense to me as a kid that this one goes this high, this one goes less high but farther, etc. They are meant to go a certain distance and hit a window in relation to each other. Regardless if of how far a 6 iron goes, I always know that a 6 iron will go between my 5 iron and my 7 iron. Therefore the 6 label is relativistic to distance not absolute to distance. And by proxy, then is non-deterministic to the characteristics that drive that relative distance measurement including speed, launch, and loft ( as well as others).

But then again, maybe I am letting my professional opinion and job interfere to much with my golf discussion. Back to slap stick comedy and gliphy's for me!

So the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and now even 5 are meaningless to the average recreational player.

No need for them.

They're like Channel 1 on the old vacuum tube television sets.

 

[RetiredBoomer]

By that note, nobody should ever play a high lofted driver, a 460cc driver, any sort of cavity back, have rubber grips, a solid core golf ball, use plastic or polymer tees, a golf cart and the list goes on.

I favor ALL of the new tech. I just don't like the new numbers!

[The 460cc driver does look like something from the Flintstones, though!]

 

[RNG]

I don’t think it really matters. If the lofts help you enjoy the game more then enjoy it! Why not??

 

[Tevenor]

So the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and now even 5 are meaningless to the average recreational player.

No need for them.

They're like Channel 1 on the old vacuum tube television sets.

Not if they are getting the window out of a 4hybrid or a 3hybrid or a 2 hybrid. With that being said, if my T200 iron set they made a 2i and a 3i, that produced the same distance gap, I'd probably play them and get rid of my 5w. But that';s beause I love irons. Someone else would look at me wanting to run that high of an iron and call me crazy.

I don't see the sets no longer having 1, 2 and 3's as anything more than club designers and manufacturers finding better designs/ways to fill that window with different club types ( better fairway wood designs, hybrid clubs, utility irons, etc. ). Could they offer me a T200 3 iron that goes 220 yards? Probably. I also have a series of hybrids and lower woods that can do the same job.

 

[CBaker]

I favor ALL of the new tech. I just don't like the new numbers!

Congratulations, you have earned full internet golfer status. Welcome!