We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Bridgestone JGR Irons Preview

SuperStroke
erock9174 said:
To be fair though, a Gmax 7i and JGR 7i isn't really a fair comparison.
Both are considered low weight, high launch designs therefore both have stronger more modern lofts. So I think we need to look at the specs and try and compare them equally.

To get closer you would need to compare it to your Gmax 6i. And the JGR is still 1* stronger than a Gmax 6i.
With that being said, it stands to reason in the 7 irons the JGR would be at least 10-15 yds longer. I know my Tude 6i 27* is about 10-12 yds longer than my Tude 7i which is 31*.

I added +1/2" since markm778's is half inch longer:
GMAX 7i
30.5*
37” + .5 = 37.5”

GMAX 6i
27*
37.63 + .5 = 38.13”

JGR 7I
26*
38”

I am not trying to poo-poo your gains or single you out. I am simply trying to just make a fair comparison and to do so I think you need to be hitting your Gmax 6i against the JGR 7i. If you are still seeing good enough gains there then I think you made the right choice.

I am still intrigued by these and want to hit them badly. I just need to find them.
Click to expand...

Launch. You are negating launch differences in your equation there. These are lower lofted, yes, but they HAVE TO BE because of the launch that they produce.

I'm always amazed at how that is brushed aside in the arguments about loft even though every club designed out there will tell you that they look at the launch generated first.
 
I can't wait until the course opens and then I will test drive these. Love that program from B'stone.
 
I thought those comments in their posts sounded familiar!! Nice job, and agreed on the SoMe posts - don't sweat the small stuff. Haters gonna hate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jman said:
Launch. You are negating launch differences in your equation there. These are lower lofted, yes, but they HAVE TO BE because of the launch that they produce.

I'm always amazed at how that is brushed aside in the arguments about loft even though every club designed out there will tell you that they look at the launch generated first.
Click to expand...

And the Gmax don't launch high ? They are not blades.

Don't you think it's odd they needed two PW?
 
erock9174 said:
And the Gmax don't launch high ? They are not blades.

Don't you think it's odd they needed two PW?
Click to expand...

of course they do, it's why PING needed to strengthen the lofts on them too. But they do not have the further extreme back CG properties of the JGR.
The 2 PW thing, I have no answer to. It reminds me of what Titleist did with W1 and W2.

Should say, why PING has stronger lofts on them as well*
 
I worry in the future as these distances continue to increase that it is going to be much more difficult to manage gaps correctly with 14 clubs.
 
ddec said:
of course they do, it's why PING needed to strengthen the lofts on them too. But they do not have the further extreme back CG properties of the JGR.
The 2 PW thing, I have no answer to. It reminds me of what Titleist did with W1 and W2.

Should say, why PING has stronger lofts on them as well*
Click to expand...

Bingo.

And its precisely what Titleist does with the W1 and W2, but its ok when they do it.

These are lower and further back as far as CG from the GMAX, and yes, that does make a significant difference.

It is NOT just loft.
 
ASN21 said:
I worry in the future as these distances continue to increase that it is going to be much more difficult to manage gaps correctly with 14 clubs.
Click to expand...

Nope you'll just be gaming
D
3w
5w
Hybrid
8i
9i
PW1
PW2
PW3
PW4
PW5
AW
SW
Putter

Wow I just hit PW4 into that 155 yd green.
 
You know, we have been hearing this "Oh my, we will have to carry 100 wedges to hit gaps!" thing for well onto 6 or 7 years now, yet it still hasn't occurred for 99% of golfers. Interesting...
 
I find it interesting that some get so caught up in what the bottom of the club says. Always have, going back to the Burner 2.0 days when I remember this coming up frequently. I know I've personally gone from playing 47° PW down to 44° in the last few years and haven't experienced any real yardage gap problems.

Now could Bridgestone have eliminated that PW2, by bumping the numbers up 1? Sure, they probably could have done that and then nobody would throw any kind of fits I guess.
 
ddec said:
of course they do, it's why PING needed to strengthen the lofts on them too. But they do not have the further extreme back CG properties of the JGR.
The 2 PW thing, I have no answer to. It reminds me of what Titleist did with W1 and W2.

Should say, why PING has stronger lofts on them as well*
Click to expand...

To be fair, I thought PING's arguments back when they changed the lofts and lengths (I believe that was the Karstens) was for more progressive gapping to prevent bunching up at the end. From the Karsten Page:

Longer distance comes from precision-engineered loft and club length progressions paired with wide soles and a deep center of gravity.
Click to expand...

But to me these are even more radically low and back than the PINGs are, I'd really need to see what launch numbers look like on a monitor - I'd buy that these launch a whole iron higher than the AP1 or something.
 
ddec said:
Now could Bridgestone have eliminated that PW2, by bumping the numbers up 1? Sure, they probably could have done that and then nobody would throw any kind of fits I guess.
Click to expand...

I think this would have taken care of a lot of the head scratching - me? I don't care if my irons start at 6 or 5, as long as I know what the distance is. I will admit that I'm not the biggest fan of the PW1/PW2/AW naming, but it is what it is.
 
The launch argument isn't entirely accurate. Obviously it means something, but everyone one says "oh if it was 3 degrees weaker it would launch too high".

Guess what, the next shorter iron in that set is 3* weaker, does it become unplayable? No. I can write whatever I want in the bottom of the club


The other issue is that these types of clubs have such a low CG that, for the lower speed player they are marketed to, they don't spin enough to hold a green. I fit tons of guys and now many of them can't get a 7 iron to hit a green and stop within 10 yards of landing
 
ddec said:
I find it interesting that some get so caught up in what the bottom of the club says. Always have, going back to the Burner 2.0 days when I remember this coming up frequently. I know I've personally gone from playing 47° PW down to 44° in the last few years and haven't experienced any real yardage gap problems.

Now could Bridgestone have eliminated that PW2, by bumping the numbers up 1? Sure, they probably could have done that and then nobody would throw any kind of fits I guess.
Click to expand...

Precisely, the cries about what it will do to wedges have been coming since the 2.0's, yet, here we are and the world is still intact as is the bottom of most golfers bags.

I'm convinced at times it is simply a fear of change as well as not wanting to truly learn and grasp the why behind it. That's not directed at any one person, but rather the wider range of people who just assume lowering lofts is all that is in the equation.
 
gauchogolfer said:
The launch argument isn't entirely accurate. Obviously it means something, but everyone one says "oh if it was 3 degrees weaker it would launch too high".

Guess what, the next shorter iron in that set is 3* weaker, does it become unplayable? No. I can write whatever I want in the bottom of the club


The other issue is that these types of clubs have such a low CG that, for the lower speed player they are marketed to, they don't spin enough to hold a green. I fit tons of guys and now many of them can't get a 7 iron to hit a green and stop within 10 yards of landing
Click to expand...

To the bold, you forget that then the length also changes as does the CG in most sets. Beyond that, I've been fortunate enough to sit face to face with some of the best designers in the business who will tell you the loft doesn't dictate the number they put on the club even fractionally as much as the launch they see.
 
As long as I can fill the gaps that between the PW and my 58 and still keep it at 14 clubs or under, what do I care what the loft is?

I know though I seem to play a lot better with stuff from today's tech than I do from tech from 10 years ago.
 
gauchogolfer said:
The other issue is that these types of clubs have such a low CG that, for the lower speed player they are marketed to, they don't spin enough to hold a green. I fit tons of guys and now many of them can't get a 7 iron to hit a green and stop within 10 yards of landing
Click to expand...

Have you hit these irons and measured their spin? Because after having 12 guys hit them on the FlightScope, outside on the course, NOBODY had an issue with that at all.
 
MWard said:
As long as I can fill the gaps that between the PW and my 58 and still keep it at 14 clubs or under, what do I care what the loft is?

I know though I seem to play a lot better with stuff from today's tech than I do from tech from 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Food for thought: Would you be willing to game a set of irons where you had to add another wedge to help gapping issues if it meant you had to drop a hybrid or fairway wood you used regularly?
 
ASN21 said:
Food for thought: Would you be willing to game a set of irons where you had to add another wedge to help gapping issues if it meant you had to drop a hybrid or fairway wood you used regularly?
Click to expand...

My bag would probably look like this. Driver, Mini(or 3), Heavenwood, hybrid,7,8,9,PW, PW2, AW, 54, 58, PW, Putter. Maybe swap out that 6 iron for a hybrid. But I could game that bag.
 
ddec said:
My bag would probably look like this. Driver, Mini(or 3), Heavenwood, hybrid,7,8,9,PW, PW2, AW, 54, 58, PW, Putter. Maybe swap out that 6 iron for a hybrid. But I could game that bag.
Click to expand...

As long as the gaps worked, that would probably be a pretty fun bag to play. I'm really looking forward to taking some swings with these someday - I think this is a really interesting take on that SGI segment.
 
ddec said:
My bag would probably look like this. Driver, Mini(or 3), Heavenwood, hybrid,7,8,9,PW, PW2, AW, 54, 58, PW, Putter. Maybe swap out that 6 iron for a hybrid. But I could game that bag.
Click to expand...

I think it is funny that some people think that the good old 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,p is better than having hybrid, 6,7,8,9,p1,p2,aw ... it is still 8 clubs, that fill the gaps they are supposed to fill between the woods and the wedges....

who cares what the number is under the club?


as per these irons, I find them really interesting. I know I will not get to try them, but I like the idea.
 
ASN21 said:
Food for thought: Would you be willing to game a set of irons where you had to add another wedge to help gapping issues if it meant you had to drop a hybrid or fairway wood you used regularly?
Click to expand...

Hasn't happened yet, and I go pw,50,54,58. Let's say the set required me to have a 46 in there for instance. Ok, I would have to remove a hybrid or my 7w or 3w. Heavenwood at 19, remove the 7 and 3. Or, pick up a 4w.

Last option, learn how to take off the distance between the pw and 50. Technically I could do that now between pw and 54 but I had the bag space so I took the easy way out and filled a lower gap than an upper.
 
ASN21 said:
Food for thought: Would you be willing to game a set of irons where you had to add another wedge to help gapping issues if it meant you had to drop a hybrid or fairway wood you used regularly?
Click to expand...

but if the irons were going that far, wouldn't that mean the longest iron is hypothetically going as far as your shortest wood/hybrid? so it's already replacing a club toward the top end of your bag anyway.
 
I would game these if I was in need of a new set. Agreed with posters above, if I have 14 clubs in my bag, and the gapping works and each one does it's job off the tee, from fairway, from the rough, my bag is set.
 
Maybe I'm not overthinking this enough. :alien:

Bridgestone engineers designed a club with a very low CG that easily launches the ball very high. To make this easy launching club useful they had to increase the loft to lower the trajectory of the ball flight to acceptable levels. In doing so they have created an SGI iron that is easy launching with improved distance.

Ok, I admit it. I'm completely baffled why this is bad???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top