We've launched the new forums! Read more here

when are we going to demand evidence

SuperStroke
Status
Not open for further replies.
blugold said:
To just say stronger lofts are the reason for distance gains is simply not true and, with all due respect, a very simplistic view of modern golf club design
Click to expand...
Diplomacy bro, diplomacy... no need to call his opinion simplistic.
 
YetiLooper said:
Diplomacy bro, diplomacy... no need to call his opinion simplistic.
Click to expand...
I thought I did pretty good. it wasn't a personal attack. To claim that modern irons are longer, simply because of of strong lofts, really diminishes all of the great work club designers are doing
 
I agree, but you know me by now, I also think it's overplayed for the sake of marketing. Let's take into consideration that lofts are a full club stronger than 10 years ago, in addition the shafts are a club longer too... hmm so the loft and length are both a club longer so it says 6iron but the specs match that of a 5 iron from 10 years ago. Also as we go along people went from struggling with irons and going for a hybrid. Now most can't hit 4 irons and going for hybrids... and due to stronger lofts people are having to buy gap wedges more and more to fill in to the sand wedge.

Now all that said technology and using composites to reduce COG and increase MOI also have made mid-low irons easier for the average golfer... but there's a reason that by in large most pros use players cavities and muscle backs, and those lofts while still stronger than the past are much closer to past lofts...

And yes I realize there are lots of variables, but hey if manufacturers can pick and choose their comparison models then so can I.


Simplistic reasoning for ya?
 
Are we talking about a birth certificate here?

I joke I joke.

Honestly, I dont think we need evidence of any gains. I walk out and hit my grandfathers WOODS and super skinny blades with shafts that feel like boards and then look at the marketing monster and say.....Thank you.
 
YetiLooper said:
I agree, but you know me by now, I also think it's overplayed for the sake of marketing. Let's take into consideration that lofts are a full club stronger than 10 years ago, in addition the shafts are a club longer too... hmm so the loft and length are both a club longer so it says 6iron but the specs match that of a 5 iron from 10 years ago. Also as we go along people went from struggling with irons and going for a hybrid. Now most can't hit 4 irons and going for hybrids... and due to stronger lofts people are having to buy gap wedges more and more to fill in to the sand wedge.

Now all that said technology and using composites to reduce COG and increase MOI also have made mid-low irons easier for the average golfer... but there's a reason that by in large most pros use players cavities and muscle backs, and those lofts while still stronger than the past are much closer to past lofts...

Simplistic reasoning for ya?
Click to expand...
Modern irons launch the ball higher with less spin than 10 years ago. Even with stronger lofts.

You mentioned it, but in passing and almost as a throw away, but modern GI irons have weight moved farther out and back with very thin faces. To keep launch down, lofts have to get lowered. I don't buy the idea that lower the loft the harder it is to swing. I also don't know why it's a problem to go from a 4-GW in an iron set. Why does it have to start at 3 and end at P?
 
Exactly. And people wonder why they can't stop an 8iron like a pro, their clubs reduce spin. And it doesn't change that their 6 iron essentially is a more forgiving 5 iron than what we had 10+ years ago. I will post a pic of my son's TM Burner OS irons that were made in 97. It's amazing how small they are by comparison to the new OS irons.
 
I want to point out that I never said it was a bad thing.
 
YetiLooper said:
Exactly. And people wonder why they can't stop an 8iron like a pro, their clubs reduce spin. And it doesn't change that their 6 iron essentially is a more forgiving 5 iron than what we had 10+ years ago. I will post a pic of my son's TM Burner OS irons that were made in 97. It's amazing how small they are by comparison to the new OS irons.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, the low spin is countered by the higher flight. The reason people cant stop a 8i is because they're making poor swings.

I'm still not sure why the number on the bottom of the clubs matter so much?
 
It doesn't the only thing that matters is you know how far you hit each one.
 
Scrap Iron said:
Honest question have you hit the Bertha irons head to head with your current clubs. Like I said earlier I personally saw a 25 yard increase and I consider that to be 2 clubs.
Click to expand...

I have hit them and they were no longer than the Cleveland 588 Altitude for me but those Altitude Irons are a unique iron.
 
YetiLooper said:
It doesn't the only thing that matters is you know how far you hit each one.
Click to expand...
You and I know that, most thpers know that. I wish salespeople, reps, pga professionals, and even the companies did a better job articulating that.
 
The so called new teck isn't really new at all...The only new tech is the new thin faces which allow them to build these irons and of course the new woods...In fact the tech learned with the newer drivers and woods are used in the new iron thin faces now...

Where to put the weight tech has been around for a very long time.

Thin faces save a lot of weight to be used to move weight all over the place to create even stronger lofts that still can get the ball up..

There is a point of diminishing returns and Mfg's are getting very close to the end of thin faces and saving weight...unless they start using composites in the irons..

The next move by Mfg's will be to start redefining what lofts mean in irons..that will be a problem but many will agree with it... further confusing the issue...
 
I was working in a pro shop in 1997 when the Callaway Great Big Bertha Titanium irons with tungsten in the soles hit the market. They were perhaps the worst feeling club I have ever tried, huge even by today's standards.
 
The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering. I shouldn't be shocked by it but I always am.
 
Hogan is making an effort to define a club by loft rather than number. I like the idea but think it could get confusing.
 
YetiLooper said:
Hogan is making an effort to define a club by loft rather than number. I like the idea but think it could get confusing.
Click to expand...

Cleveland put both the loft and the club number on some irons a few years ago. I just don't think the average consumer cares that much. They just want to hit the ball high and straight. When they are at the tee on a pat 3, they want to be hitting the same club or shorter iron than the other guys in the group.
 
Howzat said:
Cleveland put both the loft and the club number on some irons a few years ago. I just don't think the average consumer cares that much. They just want to hit the ball high and straight. When they are at the tee on a pat 3, they want to be hitting the same club or shorter iron than the other guys in the group.
Click to expand...
This shouldn't be ignored in the discussion of lofts being strong. As we know the average consumer doesn't care about loft and lie, what they care about is how far they hit it. I seem to remember about 15 years ago that a manufacturer admitted that the gains in distance had more to do with loft and shaft length than actual technology. Now this way kind of the infancy of the distance arms race in irons, and iron technology has changed significantly since then. Personally I think the 1st breakthrough SGI was the Nike Slingshot, prior to that clubs were tour or OS but didn't have that same launch characteristics.
 
Howzat said:
The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering. I shouldn't be shocked by it but I always am.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe it's equal parts not trusting manufacturers (dirty greedy money grabbers), stubbornness and trying to justify not updating equipment.
 
YetiLooper said:
This shouldn't be ignored in the discussion of lofts being strong. As we know the average consumer doesn't care about loft and lie, what they care about is how far they hit it. I seem to remember about 15 years ago that a manufacturer admitted that the gains in distance had more to do with loft and shaft length than actual technology. Now this way kind of the infancy of the distance arms race in irons, and iron technology has changed significantly since then. Personally I think the 1st breakthrough SGI was the Nike Slingshot, prior to that clubs were tour or OS but didn't have that same launch characteristics.
Click to expand...

I see it much like the chicken and egg debate. Yes, clubs are getting longer and lofts stronger which helps increase distance. It is also required to create the optimal launch characteristics for the clubs that have been designed to provide more forgiveness. Which one came first, we may never know.
 
blugold said:
I honestly believe it's equal parts not trusting manufacturers (dirty greedy money grabbers), stubbornness and trying to justify not updating equipment.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it happens but for the most part I don't think it occurs on purpose. I just wish people would use phrases like "in my opinion" more often vs. stating something as fact or gospel when it clearly isn't.
 
I've never bought clubs based on the loft numbers vs iron # designation. I do see where confusion comes from, some p rope do like to act like they've been duped, but frankly it doesn't matter.
 
Howzat said:
I don't know why it happens but for the most part I don't think it occurs on purpose. I just wish people would use phrases like "in my opinion" more often vs. stating something as fact or gospel when it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...
In my opinion you are being entirely too logical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top