which specs are best for the average golfer ?

[Canadan]

In recent years, whether I am talking to equipment sales reps, listening to podcasts featuring equipment company employees, watching marketing videos from equipment companies etc... it seems that no matter which company, a few points of message are common from each company:

1) big heads are better than small heads
2) graphite shafts are better than steel shafts
3) lighter shafts are better than heavy shafts

A professional fitting seems to be recommended by every equipment company representative or marketing message, and I have no idea if once fit the recommended specs match these points.
Regardless of the "get fit" message, do you agree that the above 3 points are common ones from every major golf club brand ?

I kind of want to touch on the three things, but I think it's first important to note the obvious: Blanket statements like this are just that.. blanket. You'd have to be a fool in 2020 to think that all shafts/setups/heads work well for all golfers. The proper fit for me is going to be wildly different than the proper fit for a slow swinging 25 handicap.

Also important to note: The national average for a handicap is not that low. So while there may be a vocal minority objecting to lighter shafts, graphite shafts, and larger driver heads, the reality that each of those things probably do well to benefit a SOLID chunk of the golf marketplace is entirely reasonable to assume.

bigger heads; I think it's pretty safe to say that diminishing returns exists, but so does skill. When you get a person who is actively engaging with their wrists/hands at impact, there's some truth that a smaller head will work for them. It's also a pretty impressive skill. Fair to assume the large majority of golfers aren't like that, and obviously benefit from maximum MOI - If that were NOT the case, Tour heads would still be 420/430/440 vs 460.

Graphite shafts are less taxing on the body, and can be flexed as stiff as you want at this point. If this wasn't true, driver shafts on tour would still be steel, and etc etc etc. It's not a magic show to see everything down to the iron swap to graphite. Also, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that graphite can offer a more creative flex profile than steel. "Better" is a relative term.

Finally, lighter is better: Sure, for older golfers, slower swinging golfers, ladies, this is basically an absolute. You get an opportunity to promote a faster and possibly more connected move with a 90 gram shaft than you would a 130 gram shaft... But it's also incremental. Does anyone play a 150 gram shaft? Nope. So you could easily say "lighter is better" as a blanket statement and move on. That in mind, I firmly believe that going lighter is way better than going heavier for the majority of golfers.

All that said, I don't see companies making any of these bold claims, however I don't think they need to. Consider what is stock in their product, and the trend they are following, and I think it's pretty clear what their perspective is. You'll find the player'esque irons being heavier and steel, and the SGI irons having lighter and sometimes graphite. It's pretty obvious what works, and of course they are going to set up the product to benefit the most golfers right out of the gate.

 

[JonMA1]

I was under the impression that OEM's manufacture iron heads in a wide variety of sizes and configuration with an emphasis towards skill levels. Aren't "players" irons smaller and with the weight distributed in such a way to favor those players who more often make contact center of face and are skilled enough to work the ball? Likewise, aren't the larger face area, weight-distributed, larger sweet spot SGI heads engineered/marketing towards those of us who have difficulty hitting center of face and less ability to control "side" (angled) spin? And I've seen sole designs that are different to accommodate lesser skilled players towards turf contact.

I'm not trying to pile on @DG_1234 and I admit to being as ignorant towards physics and engineering as I am golf. But it seems like there is more design variance today to accommodate or address the variance of our (consumers) skill levels. Sorry if I'm missing something.

 

[Canadan]

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask your OEM employee friends if they've ever produced a prototype iron with a small head size and perimeter weighting, or if they've ever made a prototype of a 360 CC driver head using modern technology materials.

Outside of the way you're responding in here (which isn't a great look, honestly)... I'm curious to know why you think samples like this don't apply to products like Cobra's big tour, or TaylorMade's Original One, or Callaway's Big Bertha Mini..

They literally called one a mini driver which is exactly what you're asking for.

 

[DG_1234]

Then you haven't been looking at new iron designs.

Perhaps my definition of a small head iron is different from yours ? In this thread I cited the original Tommy Armour 845 model as an iconic smart design including a small head with significant perimeter weighting. These days the industry seems to promote large heads such as Titleist AP2, Ping i210 as being "small head players clubs" but these models are actually over size, large.

 

[DG_1234]

I was under the impression that OEM's manufacture iron heads in a wide variety of sizes and configuration with an emphasis towards skill levels. Aren't "players" irons smaller and with the weight distributed in such a way to favor those players who more often make contact center of face and are skilled enough to work the ball? Likewise, aren't the larger face area, weight-distributed, larger sweet spot SGI heads engineered/marketing towards those of us who have difficulty hitting center of face and less ability to control "side" (angled) spin? And I've seen sole designs that are different to accommodate lesser skilled players towards turf contact.

I'm not trying to pile on @DG_1234 and I admit to being as ignorant towards physics and engineering as I am golf. But it seems like there is more design variance today to accommodate or address the variance of our (consumers) skill levels. Sorry if I'm missing something.

You are repeating the mantra trotted out by OEM employees, and that's fine. My point is that (from an on course playing golf perspective) , the "SGI heads engineered towards those of us who have difficulty hitting the center of face" is a faulty premise.
In other words, if a hacker struck 10 shots with an SGI club he might mishit 8 of them and have 2 solid strikes. And if a hacker was given a relatively small head iron he might mishit 5 of them and have 5 solid strikes.

 

[Jman]

You are repeating the mantra trotted out by OEM employees, and that's fine. My point is that (from an on course playing golf perspective) , the "SGI heads engineered towards those of us who have difficulty hitting the center of face" is a faulty premise.
In other words, if a hacker struck 10 shots with an SGI club he might mishit 8 of them and have 2 solid strikes. And if a hacker was given a relatively small head iron he might mishit 5 of them and have 5 solid strikes.

This is the biggest reach yet.

 

[DG_1234]

Outside of the way you're responding in here (which isn't a great look, honestly)... I'm curious to know why you think samples like this don't apply to products like Cobra's big tour, or TaylorMade's Original One, or Callaway's Big Bertha Mini..

They literally called one a mini driver which is exactly what you're asking for.

In a previous post I already answered that the "mini drivers" offered by some OEM's are approximately 260 CC, not 360 CC.

 

[Canadan]

You are repeating the mantra trotted out by OEM employees, and that's fine. My point is that (from an on course playing golf perspective) , the "SGI heads engineered towards those of us who have difficulty hitting the center of face" is a faulty premise.
In other words, if a hacker struck 10 shots with an SGI club he might mishit 8 of them and have 2 solid strikes. And if a hacker was given a relatively small head iron he might mishit 5 of them and have 5 solid strikes.

Define "hacker" here - I've seen an awful lot of skill variety, but very few fall into the category of "swing SGI horribly and magically find center face half the time with player irons"

 

[Canadan]

....and by few I mean 'zero'

forgot to add that.

 

[DG_1234]

This is the biggest reach yet.

You don't have to take my word for it. Not long ago I suggested that if you gave your high school team players a Bullseye style putter to play my expectation is that 25% of them would recognize improved putting performance and, or, shoot lower scores. Now for iron play I believe up to 50% of the kids would strike consistently better iron shots with a traditional small size perimeter weighted iron (such as the old TA 845). And for tee box play I expect 50% of your players would recognize improved swing tempo, hit more fairways, and shoot lower scores if playing with a 360 CC driver head size instead of 460 CC head size.
It's certainly the path of least resistance to buy into whatever the OEM's are selling, but it probably makes better sense to actually try on the golf course different head sizes and learn for oneself which product (s) perform best.

 

[blugold]

Perhaps my definition of a small head iron is different from yours ? In this thread I cited the original Tommy Armour 845 model as an iconic smart design including a small head with significant perimeter weighting. These days the industry seems to promote large heads such as Titleist AP2, Ping i210 as being "small head players clubs" but these models are actually over size, large.

Since I'm only 37 and have only been playing the game for 12 years, I don't remember those clubs and have no idea on their size. I don't want to make any other assumptions. But if you think AP2s are oversized, bless your heart.

 

[blugold]

You don't have to take my word for it. Not long ago I suggested that if you gave your high school team players a Bullseye style putter to play my expectation is that 25% of them would recognize improved putting performance and, or, shoot lower scores. Now for iron play I believe up to 50% of the kids would strike consistently better iron shots with a traditional small size perimeter weighted iron (such as the old TA 845). And for tee box play I expect 50% of your players would recognize improved swing tempo, hit more fairways, and shoot lower scores if playing with a 360 CC driver head size instead of 460 CC head size.
It's certainly the path of least resistance to buy into whatever the OEM's are selling, but it probably makes better sense to actually try on the golf course different head sizes and learn for oneself which product (s) perform best.

I appreciate how confidently wrong you are.

 

[Matthew]

but it probably makes better sense to actually try on the golf course different head sizes and learn for oneself which product (s) perform best.

Sounds an awful like a fitting to me. Is it possible that you went a REAL LONG way around to suggest players get fitted for clubs? Most don’t, admittedly, most would benefit, right? I’ve played with ranked D1 players, golf professionals, professional golfers & equipment reps too and as best as I can remember took away to play the clubs that give you the best chance to succeed. Whatever those may be.
But my biggest question is, why do you care so much how other people enjoy the game?

 

[blugold]

Sounds an awful like a fitting to me. Is it possible that you went a REAL LONG way around to suggest players get fitted for clubs? Most don’t, admittedly, most would benefit, right? I’ve played with ranked D1 players, golf professionals, professional golfers & equipment reps too and as best as I can remember took away to play the clubs that give you the best chance to succeed. Whatever those may be.
But my biggest question is, why do you care so much how other people enjoy the game?

I think he's suggesting that club designers and manufacturers are being disingenuous with their claims and designs and that designs of bygone eras would somehow create better golfers, with no supportive evidence.

 

[Matthew]

I think he's suggesting that club designers and manufacturers are being disingenuous with their claims and designs and that designs of bygone eras would somehow create better golfers, with no supportive evidence.

Thanks, I’m just dumb boiler guy. I get confused easy.

 

[DG_1234]

Sounds an awful like a fitting to me.

In theory, yes. But the reality is that fitters are handing players only the clubs that the OEM's have recently produced. Consequently, no fitter is offering to his customer a small head perimeter weighted iron, a 360 CC head size driver, or a 325 gram putter head.

 

[Parrot]

You don't have to take my word for it. Not long ago I suggested that if you gave your high school team players a Bullseye style putter to play my expectation is that 25% of them would recognize improved putting performance and, or, shoot lower scores. Now for iron play I believe up to 50% of the kids would strike consistently better iron shots with a traditional small size perimeter weighted iron (such as the old TA 845). And for tee box play I expect 50% of your players would recognize improved swing tempo, hit more fairways, and shoot lower scores if playing with a 360 CC driver head size instead of 460 CC head size.
It's certainly the path of least resistance to buy into whatever the OEM's are selling, but it probably makes better sense to actually try on the golf course different head sizes and learn for oneself which product (s) perform best.

Do the returns an “average” golfer might get with smaller clubs diminish for a better golfer?

 

[Matthew]

In theory, yes. But the reality is that fitters are handing players only the clubs that the OEM's have recently produced. Consequently, no fitter is offering to his customer a small head perimeter weighted iron, a 360 CC head size driver, or a 325 gram putter head.

Im just going to trust that decades & decades of research, testing and feedback from players and engineers (I hate engineers BTW) might just know more about what they’re doing than I.
Im sure though, being a dumb sales guy, that cash in hand you too could have absolutely anything your unhappy heart could desire. Nothing in this material world can’t be solved with the proper application of time & money.

 

[DG_1234]

I think he's suggesting that club designers and manufacturers are being disingenuous with their claims and designs and that designs of bygone eras would somehow create better golfers, with no supportive evidence.

I don't believe club designers are being "disingenuous". I think they mean well but the advent of CAD design caused the engineers to fall in love with testing criteria that is not especially relevant to the on course factors a player faces.
In other words, CAD caused engineers to start thinking about "improving results from mishits". It would make better sense to design clubs which promote solid, well struck shots.

 

[Canadan]

In theory, yes. But the reality is that fitters are handing players only the clubs that the OEM's have recently produced. Consequently, no fitter is offering to his customer a small head perimeter weighted iron, a 360 CC head size driver, or a 325 gram putter head.

So, places like Club Champion, where the goal is to spend hours properly fitting a player and giving them a reason to buy the clubs from them..

You're saying they would NEVER put a compact player iron in the hands of a golfer? So someone says "I want to play Callaway" and they basically take the Apex MB, X Forged CB, and etc off the wall and hide them in the back, offering only Apex DCB? Both of the compact irons sampled in the sentence previous are "recently produced" and "compact"

 

[Matthew]

I don't believe club designers are being "disingenuous". I think they mean well but the advent of CAD design caused the engineers to fall in love with testing criteria that is not especially relevant to the on course factors a player faces.
In other words, CAD caused engineers to start thinking about "improving results from mishits". It would make better sense to design clubs which promote solid, well struck shots.

Got it, your beef is with golf professional/instruction because if they did a better job, we’d all be ball striking machines & not need shovels. But engineers/designers are understanding their customer’s needs & responding with products, you find offensive, but are beneficial to the end user? I think I’m getting closer. This is a breakthrough & I didnt even go to therapy school.

 

[Canadan]

Let's also talk a tiny bit about club design.

wider sole = saves from chunky shots, often times 'getting away' with it.
Deeper cavity = opportunity to disperse weight and support launch profiles that golfers can't achieve.
hollow body faces = expand the sweet spot to support ball speed consistency, instead of having one juiced shot out of ten, (read: distance consistency)

I'll use my own example. Some around here would argue I do a decent job of hitting the center of the face with an iron. About a year ago we did a video talking about variance in a ball lineup, and after hitting with a player iron for a while I almost scrapped the project as there was too much "me variable" in play. I started toying with more forgiving head options, and found a setup that supported extreme consistency of ball speed and spin numbers. And by comparison, the variance off center was not much.. millimeters maybe? The results were obvious.

 

[Molten]

Remember, the OP question is do you you agree that the following 3 points are common ones from every major golf club brand ?

1) big heads are better than small heads
2) graphite shafts are better than steel shafts
3) lighter shafts are better than heavy shafts

I’ve got this one everyone. No.

 

[DG_1234]

Do the returns an “average” golfer might get with smaller clubs diminish for a better golfer?

Thank you for the good question. My answer is that the most highly skilled players have the swing technique, and ability to make adjustments, so that just about any club design for them will produce excellent shot results. For example a Tour player could take a rental club set from the bag room and shoot under par, no problem.
And if you want to call "better players" the group of amateurs at legitimate 0 handicap, they too usually have the swing technique and ability to immediately adjust to whatever club-shaft design they are playing.
The "average" player shooting 80's-90's-100's does not have the swing technique skill or awareness and, or, ability to adjust, so I believe this group is more vulnerable to mishit shots that over size clubs may promote.
So, yes, to answer your question directly, I do believe the "returns an average golfer might get with smaller clubs does diminish" (for a better golfer).

 

[blugold]

I don't believe club designers are being "disingenuous". I think they mean well but the advent of CAD design caused the engineers to fall in love with testing criteria that is not especially relevant to the on course factors a player faces.
In other words, CAD caused engineers to start thinking about "improving results from mishits". It would make better sense to design clubs which promote solid, well struck shots.

Ok, I may have been handling this poorly and I apologize.

If I understand your point here, you believe smaller heads, less MOI, small sweat spots would improve playability. Why is that?