Old 5 iron versus new 7 iron

[Lancj1]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

[GolfChannel]

Extra height due to the new technology and materials or the shorter shaft? I would assume the shorter shaft produces the extra height.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I’m pretty sure my X2 Hot 7-iron is the same loft and about an inch longer than my old Ping Eye2+ 1-iron.

[dciccoritti]

I've posted this video in another thread. What I like about this one is Andy used the same shaft to do the comparison.

[JonnyKrasnodar]

He's alright is Andy. I cannot get over how good a player he is judging by the practice swings he takes!

 

Seriously though it was an interesting video to watch and shows to some extent how much tech has moved on.

 

This is reinforced by TXG (absolutely brilliant info and videos of you haven't seen them) and their recent high handicap fitting video. One of the takeaways was that a newer model 6 iron with less loft not only went higher, spun more and went further than an older counterpart.

 

Interesting.

[1Mordrid1]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

[EaglesGolf99]

My 5 Iron is the same loft, 28.0°, as it was 22 1/2 years ago.

 

... For the record, at 37 3/4", it is 1/4" shorter than it was 22 1/2 years ago too.

 

 

I hit the ball 10% further than I did back then. Probably 15-18 yards.

 

My Chrome Soft X (2017) definitely flies further than my DT Spin, LOL!

[dciccoritti]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I think you may have missed the point of the video.

[1Mordrid1]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I think you may have missed the point of the video.

 

How so? comparing 27 degree to 27 degree the GI iron had higher ball flight and had more spin therefore more stopping power. For some golfers that is a good thing, for others that struggle to keep the ball down it is not. Different swings for different folks.

 

And I am not arguing that 7 iron lofts have not gotten stronger. I am just saying that there is more technology behind the club than simply changing the loft and stamping a number. At 9:05 of the video he even said that the Rogue X is not the longest GI 7 iron he has hit and he would expect the numbers from a G700 to be more dramatic in distance differences. Personally I have found the Rogue X to have shorter carry distances than the Ping G700 and TM 790.

 

I personally think the Rogue X is an outlier and will be remembered for trying to go too far with stronger lofts. I think the diminishing returns of lower mass/CoG coupled with lower lofts/shorter shafts has passed the point of performance benefit with the Rogue X. But I know a club pro that swears by the Rogue X for sub 90mph driver swing speeds and says anything over that and they just do not perform.

[BadKiwi]

I have G700s. Looking at the 5i, and even the 6i, at address the loft does look a bit scary - like looking at my old 3i or 4i scary, which I guess is about right for lofts. The difference for me is that with a slow swing I always struggled to get a 3i or 4i in the air. With the G700 5i and 6i they fly easily, as long as I let the club do the work and don’t over-hit. For me, the modern tech definitely makes a difference.

[bladehunter]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I watched it and see it the opposite way. Both clubs preformed nearly identical. Carry and spin was too similar to call different. Your jacked 7 iron really is just a 5 iron.

[phatchrisrules]

Meh...been beaten to death. Stamp a PW on a 30* iron for all I care. If it works it works. Does anyone honestly care how far anyone else is hitting their clubs? I've never asked anyone what club they hit in recent memory.

[SixSixGolf]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I watched it and see it the opposite way. Both clubs preformed nearly identical. Carry and spin was too similar to call different. Your jacked 7 iron really is just a 5 iron.

 

This. Couple 100 rpms is just strike variance. His peak height is also all over the place with the 5 iron. 66 to 90 ft range. Those clubs are the same.

[phatchrisrules]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I watched it and see it the opposite way. Both clubs preformed nearly identical. Carry and spin was too similar to call different. Your jacked 7 iron really is just a 5 iron.

 

This. Couple 100 rpms is just strike variance. His peak height is also all over the place with the 5 iron. 66 to 90 ft range. Those clubs are the same.

 

Everything else aside, I think that is the point of them being similar but different. Yes, you can call it a 5i all day long, but the shorter shaft and lower CoG is helping to stabilize the flight. Differing peak height numbers, assuming similar ball speeds and spin numbers means that the carry yardage is going to be inconsistent. If the 7i is staying sort of within a 10ft window, then the yardage becomes much more consistent. Personally, I would much rather stand up knowing that my shot is going to be predictable vs. guessing that my shot is going to be somewhere in this 25ft window.

[bladehunter]

Nice test of a Mizuno MP5 5 iron versus Rogue x 7 Iron - done by someone local to me too...

 

Answers some questions.....physics is physics ?

 

 

A perfect example of how GI clubs are not just simply "jack lofted" clubs.

 

I have had a hard time watching some Youtube reviewers like Rick Shiels review GI clubs because of how many times you hear him say "I don't like that spin number for a 7 iron". As a "professional" and teacher I would think he should be able to look at club performance through a broader scope. Shouldn't he be looking for a specific spin number for a corresponding yardage rather than a spin number based on a number on the bottom of the club? Hopefully his recent review of the PIng G700 in the studio, and then on the course has opened his eyes a little to this.

 

I watched it and see it the opposite way. Both clubs preformed nearly identical. Carry and spin was too similar to call different. Your jacked 7 iron really is just a 5 iron.

 

This. Couple 100 rpms is just strike variance. His peak height is also all over the place with the 5 iron. 66 to 90 ft range. Those clubs are the same.

 

Everything else aside, I think that is the point of them being similar but different. Yes, you can call it a 5i all day long, but the shorter shaft and lower CoG is helping to stabilize the flight. Differing peak height numbers, assuming similar ball speeds and spin numbers means that the carry yardage is going to be inconsistent. If the 7i is staying sort of within a 10ft window, then the yardage becomes much more consistent. Personally, I would much rather stand up knowing that my shot is going to be predictable vs. guessing that my shot is going to be somewhere in this 25ft window.

 

nobody is arguing forgiveness .... what is being said is that loft for loft distance is the same... This i the 1st test ive seen with same shafts .. Very good test and the results are as expected... todays 7 iron is same as yesterdays 5 iron... No magic tech for distance.. just loft and a lie on the sole

[SixSixGolf]

Everything else aside, I think that is the point of them being similar but different. Yes, you can call it a 5i all day long, but the shorter shaft and lower CoG is helping to stabilize the flight. Differing peak height numbers, assuming similar ball speeds and spin numbers means that the carry yardage is going to be inconsistent. If the 7i is staying sort of within a 10ft window, then the yardage becomes much more consistent. Personally, I would much rather stand up knowing that my shot is going to be predictable vs. guessing that my shot is going to be somewhere in this 25ft window.

 

Over thousands of shots with varying strike I don't think you'll see a difference in the height. He clearly hit the 7 iron better but they're too close to determine anything like what you're talking about. You could go back and forth forver hitting both clubs and wind up with different results.

[Colonel_Steelhead]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

[phatchrisrules]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

[bladehunter]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

 

KJ played miura 501 forever ...only recently went ping.

 

The point of the OP and the post you quoted isnt forgiveness.. Its that distance gains isnt real loft for loft. Its just a marketing lie sold to all of us .. He tested the least tech vs the most tech out there and loft for loft they flew the same height, distance and spin . same meaning close enough that the human factor is the only difference

[1Mordrid1]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

 

KJ played miura 501 forever ...only recently went ping.

 

The point of the OP and the post you quoted isnt forgiveness.. Its that distance gains isnt real loft for loft. Its just a marketing lie sold to all of us .. He tested the least tech vs the most tech out there and loft for loft they flew the same height, distance and spin . same meaning close enough that the human factor is the only difference

 

But that has to be the point. You cannot just ignore the forgiveness of these new clubs. Or ignore the fact that being able to hit these distances with shorter shafts allows for a lot tighter dispersion.

 

Ignoring these things would be like asking a forged blade WRX player to ignore "feel".

 

But the funny thing is that a certain level of forgiveness is objectifiable whereas "feel" is very subjective.

[bladehunter]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

 

KJ played miura 501 forever ...only recently went ping.

 

The point of the OP and the post you quoted isnt forgiveness.. Its that distance gains isnt real loft for loft. Its just a marketing lie sold to all of us .. He tested the least tech vs the most tech out there and loft for loft they flew the same height, distance and spin . same meaning close enough that the human factor is the only difference

 

But that has to be the point. You cannot just ignore the forgiveness of these new clubs. Or ignore the fact that being able to hit these distances with shorter shafts allows for a lot tighter dispersion.

 

Ignoring these things would be like asking a forged blade WRX player to ignore "feel".

 

But the funny thing is that a certain level of forgiveness is objectifiable whereas "feel" is very subjective.

 

id be willing to bet that the shaft in thhat 7 iron is within 1/4 inch if not identical to the MP 5 iron length

 

 

i get what you are saying and to a certain level agree... But to me forgiveness is very much subjective too...

[dciccoritti]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

 

KJ played miura 501 forever ...only recently went ping.

 

The point of the OP and the post you quoted isnt forgiveness.. Its that distance gains isnt real loft for loft. Its just a marketing lie sold to all of us .. He tested the least tech vs the most tech out there and loft for loft they flew the same height, distance and spin . same meaning close enough that the human factor is the only difference

 

But that has to be the point. You cannot just ignore the forgiveness of these new clubs. Or ignore the fact that being able to hit these distances with shorter shafts allows for a lot tighter dispersion.

 

Ignoring these things would be like asking a forged blade WRX player to ignore "feel".

 

But the funny thing is that a certain level of forgiveness is objectifiable whereas "feel" is very subjective.

 

Where did you see 'a lot' tighter dispersion in that particular video? Again a comparison finally done with the 'same' shaft which in my opinion most likely helped dispersion with the Rogue X. Not sure about anyone else but I personally found dispersion so much better with a DG S300 vs my old XP95's and Tour 90's.

[mahonie]

Game compensator users will read this one way traditional players will see it another. Its been going on for years. Play what you want, you can lose balls with anything if you dont fix your ugly over the top, outside in swing.

 

What about someone like me that plays "game compensators" with a 4* inside-out path? I don't want to turn this into a pointless debate, but your veiled insult is childish. There are plenty of really solid players out there that can and will use strong lofted, game improvement irons because they want to. I'm pretty sure KJ Choi has won more tournaments than most of us on this board combined. Trevor Immelman has a Master's under his belt with the Nike CCI Cast, a GI, strong lofted iron. However, for every one of them, there are 100 tour pros that use small cbs/blades. There will also be thousands more 15 handicaps that want to play blades because they think they are tour. Yet, these are mostly surprisingly absent on the LPGA and Champions Tour (who have more similar speeds to the average "good" player). So who's right? Nobody is. Play what you like, end of story.

 

KJ played miura 501 forever ...only recently went ping.

 

The point of the OP and the post you quoted isnt forgiveness.. Its that distance gains isnt real loft for loft. Its just a marketing lie sold to all of us .. He tested the least tech vs the most tech out there and loft for loft they flew the same height, distance and spin . same meaning close enough that the human factor is the only difference

 

But that has to be the point. You cannot just ignore the forgiveness of these new clubs. Or ignore the fact that being able to hit these distances with shorter shafts allows for a lot tighter dispersion.

 

Ignoring these things would be like asking a forged blade WRX player to ignore "feel".

 

But the funny thing is that a certain level of forgiveness is objectifiable whereas "feel" is very subjective.

 

Where did you see 'a lot' tighter dispersion in that particular video? Again a comparison finally done with the 'same' shaft which in my opinion most likely helped dispersion with the Rogue X. Not sure about anyone else but I personally found dispersion so much better with a DG S300 vs my old XP95's and Tour 90's.

 

From what I have read and understand about the ‘D’ Plane, the loft on the club is pretty much a constant with regards to left-to-right dispersion meaning that a club with 30* of loft will have similar dispersion regardless of the tech or the number on the bottom. The issue with tech is that the dispersion front-to-back is not as consistent as a muscle back design where the ball speed off the face is relatively consistent even on slight mishits.

[Lancj1]

Some good debate. I found the review interesting hence sharing it in the first place. What I took from it is that you can call a club what you like, number it what you like but physics will prevail. If it’s x loft and x shaft length it will fly the same distance and the same height and spin the same rpm......and once more we are being had and buying it .....

[BMC]

On most courses, I like the extra height of the 7-iron for more stopping power. That's the tech benefit.

[Sean2]

Meh...been beaten to death. Stamp a PW on a 30* iron for all I care. If it works it works. Does anyone honestly care how far anyone else is hitting their clubs? I've never asked anyone what club they hit in recent memory.

 

I agree with this. On a side note, the OEM's can promise more distance and be correct. A number of folks golfers don't understand the loft difference so they get very excited when they are now hitting an 8-iron instead of 6 or 7.

 

I was playing with one fellow and he was so pleased at how far he was hitting his 5-iron (21.5º), versus his old 5-iron (27º). I wasn't going to tell him about the loft differences. He was happy and that is all that matters.

 

If a guy asks me what I hit, and I say a 7-iron, and he goes on to say he hit an 8, so what? lol

[phatchrisrules]

Meh...been beaten to death. Stamp a PW on a 30* iron for all I care. If it works it works. Does anyone honestly care how far anyone else is hitting their clubs? I've never asked anyone what club they hit in recent memory.

 

I agree with this. On a side note, the OEM's can promise more distance and be correct. A number of folks golfers don't understand the loft difference so they get very excited when they are now hitting an 8-iron instead of 6 or 7.

 

I was playing with one fellow and he was so pleased at how far he was hitting his 5-iron (21.5º), versus his old 5-iron (27º). I wasn't going to tell him about the loft differences. He was happy and that is all that matters.

 

If a guy asks me what I hit, and I say a 7-iron, and he goes on to say he hit an 8, so what? lol

 

All the "loft-jacking" aside, most techy irons do have a more noticeable increase in spin, height, and ball speed at the same loft. For example, yesterday I was hitting the 2018 X-Forged 6i that had been bent to 29.5*, and an Epon AF705 7i (30*) both with a Modus 105 stiff at 1/2" long for their respective heads (38" for X, 37.5" for Epon). For those that aren't super familiar with the Epon, imagine a thinner toplined, forged G700. Super forgiving, pretty soft given the construction, and looonng. Anyways, we can argue the lofts are the same (0.5* is not going to change much of anything), and I was getting on average 5 yards more carry, much more height, and a super steep descent angle. Carry: 170-172 with Epon 7i; 165 with the Callaway. Guess which one I put on the green more often too.

 

Tech works for some people. I wish we could just move past this stupidity of playing stuff out of your league and looking down on those that need help. You don't see a veteran cross-fitter looking down at a beanpole high-school kid because they can only dead-lift 50lbs. The same principle applies...use what works for you now and work your way up.

[rawdog]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire...

 

9 shots with each club is probably not enough data, but I'm bored at work this morning, so here...

 

I grouped the shots into 3 best, 3 middle, 3 worst for ball speed, carry, launch and peak height. I didn't include spin because I wasn't sure if more spin was desirable (more distance) or less (better holding power). For me, peak height impacts my stopping power more than spin.

 

Anywho, ball speed is higher on the 7 iron (high COR vs. non) in all three groupings, as is launch angle and peak height. Peak height on the best shots is particularly higher with the 7 iron.

 

Distance is slightly worse with the 7 iron, perhaps in part because of the higher launch.

 

To me, there is not enough evidence to conclude the two clubs are "the same." More shots need to be hit, but my guess is that there is a measurable difference between the playing characteristics of each club.

 

EDIT: I did measure STD Deviation for each characteristic as well, but there was no noticeable difference in "consistency" between the clubs. At least not enough to be interesting. And, as noted, 9 shots is a small sample.

[NRJyzr]

There's still an apples and oranges aspect to this test. If they wanted it to be truly meaningful, they should use an Eye2 iron instead of a blade as the comparative. The Eye2 have lofts weak enough to give this a good show.

 

Using a blade is somewhat silly, it's a second unnecessary variable

[ChaosTheory]

I don't have a real problem with the concept of stronger lofts, as long as they maintain good gapping and don't mess up the wedges. So in the above example, if the strong 7 goes the same distance as but with more height than the old 5 iron, I'm good with that in isolation. Then what about the spin? Does it at least spin the same as the old 5 iron?