Lowest launching irons with some forgiveness

[bobbyclampett!!]

Perhaps another way to ask is "player's iron" with highest CG....

 

Would like to bring ball flight down as much as possible while still having a forgiving head. I would imagine the lowest flighted/highest CG iron would be an MB, as the meat of the club stays behind the ball and doesn't get under it. But I don't hit the center often enough for an MB.

 

T100? Apex Pro? Something else?

 

 

[threefortheshow]

Ping I500 has a high cog. Not sure how it stacks up vs others.

[ChipNRun]

2 hours ago, threefortheshow said:

Ping I500 has a high cog. Not sure how it stacks up vs others.

 

Ping i210 would also be worth considering. Both models have an Actual VCOG above .900

 

RE i210: Basic VCOG is 0.883 (tied to balance point), while Actual VCOG is .913. This means the Actual VCOG is above the balance point of the face, which is unusual.

 

Also, you could deloft both models a degree or two if you went with Power Spec lofts.

 

[bobbyclampett!!]

6 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

Ping i210 would also be worth considering. Both models have an Actual VCOG above .900

 

RE i210: Basic VCOG is 0.883 (tied to balance point), while Actual VCOG is .913. This means the Actual VCOG is above the balance point of the face, which is unusual.

 

Also, you could deloft both models a degree or two if you went with Power Spec lofts.

 

Oooh, Actual and Basic VCOG. These are new terms to me! Are they easily searchable under specs on OEM's websites?

 

Power Spec, yes, that may be the answer. And maybe the T100-S as opposed to T100??

 

 

[ChipNRun]

3 hours ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

Oooh, Actual and Basic VCOG. These are new terms to me! Are they easily searchable under specs on OEM's websites?

 

Power Spec, yes, that may be the answer. And maybe the T100-S as opposed to T100??

 

Actual and Basic VCOG are two of the calculations used to determine the Maltby Playability Factor. The MPF equation computes a user-friendliness score on different models of irons. To find these measures, go to the Maltby MPF Site and select the OEM for your set of irons. Check and see if Maltby group has computed MPF for that iron model.

 

 

 

As I noted earlier: For both the i210 and i500 irons, the Actual VCoG is higher than the Basic VCoG. This is unusual.

[tippethor]

Great question. 
i’m wondering about this also, i add to much dynamic loft at impact so i get too much height and lose lenght. 
playing apex pro 21 now, but they launch the ball high. Apex is over 130 ft for my 7 iron. 

[NRJyzr]

12 hours ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

Oooh, Actual and Basic VCOG. These are new terms to me! Are they easily searchable under specs on OEM's websites?

 

Power Spec, yes, that may be the answer. And maybe the T100-S as opposed to T100??

 

 

 

The RalphMaltby.com site has an explanation of their various measurements presented as part of MPF data.

 

If you want the CG location, use the Actual VCOG.  The Basic VCOG is the first step in determining the CG location, the Actual VCOG *is* that location.

 

To Chip's point, it also explains that sometimes the Actual VCOG will be higher than the Basic VCOG, this being when the CG is actually outside the physical clubhead, in front of the face.

 

[bobbyclampett!!]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The RalphMaltby.com site has an explanation of their various measurements presented as part of MPF data.

 

If you want the CG location, use the Actual VCOG.  The Basic VCOG is the first step in determining the CG location, the Actual VCOG *is* that location.

 

To Chip's point, it also explains that sometimes the Actual VCOG will be higher than the Basic VCOG, this being when the CG is actually outside the physical clubhead, in front of the face.

 

Thanks, NRJ. So is that the best place to figure out which irons will launch the ball lower based on a given loft? Not a lot of companies touting their ability to keep the ball down (other than maybe their MB lines?), and even if the companies WERE touting that, probably wouldn't be the most reliable information regarding CGs and lower flighted irons...

 

 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

Thanks, NRJ. So is that the best place to figure out which irons will launch the ball lower based on a given loft? Not a lot of companies touting their ability to keep the ball down (other than maybe their MB lines?), and even if the companies WERE touting that, probably wouldn't be the most reliable information regarding CGs and lower flighted irons...

 

 

 

I'm a bit cynical, but I think this is something that they would prefer doesn't exist.  Keeping it less clear helps them sell.

 

Then there's the human factor.  Different golfers may see different results from different heads, based on their swings, and how the various CGs impact them.  There have been a number of instances over the years where someone will chime in with opposite results of what is the "accepted norm."  Everyone hits Club A higher than Club B, except for Fred over there, who hits Club B higher.

 

Based on what I've seen with my own experience, I think you'll want to look for a CG a little higher, but I wonder if the forward/rear aspect is more important.  I switched from Mizuno MS-11 to Ping Eye2+.  The Pings have a higher CG, but quite a bit more offset; I hit them considerably higher than the Mizunos, at the same loft.

 

I also have a set of Tommy Armour 986 Tours, which are legendary for their lack of offset.  Quite possibly onset.  When I used one of the clubheads to test a couple shafts, I found I hit them shockingly lower than other irons I used.  

 

Which brings me to a last point....  Stuart G has posted several times that what I'm about to say doesn't apply to everyone, and I agree with him.  But, for me, I've found I can get different trajectory results with different shafts.  The 986 Tours above, I hit an 8 iron lower than my usual 4 iron, when I first shafted it with C Taper S+ (disclaimer: I used to hit the ball stupid high, higher than the famed PGA Tour TrackMan averages).  When I tried it with Recoil 125 X, I hit it considerably higher.  With DG, somewhere in between.  No launch monitors used, it's just anecdotal observation of driving range and on course swings.

 

Sorry for the book I've typed in response  🙂

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by NRJyzr

[bobbyclampett!!]

5 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I'm a bit cynical, but I think this is something that they would prefer doesn't exist.  Keeping it less clear helps them sell.

 

Then there's the human factor.  Different golfers may see different results from different heads, based on their swings, and how the various CGs impact them.  There have been a number of instances over the years where someone will chime in with opposite results of what is the "accepted norm."  Everyone hits Club A higher than Club B, except for Fred over there, who hits Club B higher.

 

Based on what I've seen with my own experience, I think you'll want to look for a CG a little higher, but I wonder if the forward/rear aspect is more important.  I switched from Mizuno MS-11 to Ping Eye2+.  The Pings have a higher CG, but quite a bit more offset; I hit them considerably higher than the Mizunos, at the same loft.

 

I also have a set of Tommy Armour 986 Tours, which are legendary for their lack of offset.  Quite possibly onset.  When I used one of the clubheads to test a couple shafts, I found I hit them shockingly lower than other irons I used.  

 

Which brings me to a last point....  Stuart G has posted several times that what I'm about to say doesn't apply to everyone, and I agree with him.  But, for me, I've found I can get different trajectory results with different shafts.  The 986 Tours above, I hit an 8 iron lower than my usual 4 iron, when I first shafted it with C Taper S+ (disclaimer: I used to hit the ball stupid high, higher than the famed PGA Tour TrackMan averages).  When I tried it with Recoil 125 X, I hit it considerably higher.  With DG, somewhere in between.  No launch monitors used, it's just anecdotal observation of driving range and on course swings.

 

Sorry for the book I've typed in response  🙂

 

No need to apologize at all. Makes perfect sense. I was going to ask about shafts in my original post, but I thought that might be too disjointed. That said, I would figure the heavier and stiffer the lower the ball flight (Like a DGX7 would give lowest ball flight, all things else being equal).

 

That is interesting about CG being more forward maybe being more important than how high. I would think MBs would have the CG closer to the face than CBs, generally. But then again, that gets away from forgiveness, right? It's the same reason a lob wedge is easier to hit straight than a 3i.

 

Sounds like the answer may be more complicated than just: this iron head goes the lowest, loft for loft. Probably just need to test stuff that is close to my forgiveness level and see what flies the best (although hard to do with crappy range balls).

 

I am same as you and other poster on here, which is why I ask. I was putting some new swing moves in the other day, which I really liked and had me hitting the ball solid and hard and straight. Only issue is that i200 PW and 9 iron were just launching straight up an elevator shaft with an apex of around 130 feet. Would love to flight that down for control.

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

I am same as you and other poster on here, which is why I ask. I was putting some new swing moves in the other day, which I really liked and had me hitting the ball solid and hard and straight. Only issue is that i200 PW and 9 iron were just launching straight up an elevator shaft with an apex of around 130 feet. Would love to flight that down for control.

 

What you describe is one reason that stopped me from playing my set of Eye2+ back in 2012.  I hit them all so high that by the time I got to the PW, that height finally became detrimental and I developed a gap between it and the 9 iron.  (had both checked for loft)

 

I never found what my peak height was.  I wonder now, but it's not like it would have meaning any longer, since I don't hit the ball like that these days.

 

The "CG forward" comment is just a supposition on my part.  I have no idea how real it might be.  It's probably in the same vein of things that got you to start this thread, something that likely isn't ever going to be shared with the general public.  LOL

 

[CKaneb]

what shaft do you currently play? Could also definitely be a contributor to your ball flight issues

[ChipNRun]

16 hours ago, tippethor said:

playing apex pro 21 now, but they launch the ball high. Apex is over 130 ft for my 7 iron. 

 

Don't ignore non-golf club factors, such as... What is your ball position on iron shots? What golf ball do you play?

Edited November 16, 2021 by ChipNRun

[bobbyclampett!!]

1 hour ago, CKaneb said:

what shaft do you currently play? Could also definitely be a contributor to your ball flight issues

DG 120 X100. Grew up playing DG. Had DG X100 for a while after college. Went to the 120s about three years ago as I wasn't swinging quite as hard or maybe wasn't quite as strong. New swing moves though have me swinging fast again, though. Would probably want as low launching shaft paired with forgiving head??

[bobbyclampett!!]

59 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

Don't ignore non-golf club factors, such as... What is your ball position on iron shots? What golf ball do you play?

I play pretty much everything off left breast/logo/left cheek and just vary the stance width depending on the club. ProV1, which I guess is suppose to fly lower than ProV1x?

[CKaneb]

21 minutes ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

DG 120 X100. Grew up playing DG. Had DG X100 for a while after college. Went to the 120s about three years ago as I wasn't swinging quite as hard or maybe wasn't quite as strong. New swing moves though have me swinging fast again, though. Would probably want as low launching shaft paired with forgiving head??

hmmmm. So the X100 is already a "low launch low spin shaft" what irons do you currently play? 

[bobbyclampett!!]

15 minutes ago, CKaneb said:

hmmmm. So the X100 is already a "low launch low spin shaft" what irons do you currently play? 

i200. Do you think the 120s launch higher than regular X100s because they are lighter?

[CKaneb]

2 minutes ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

i200. Do you think the 120s launch higher than regular X100s because they are lighter?

not necessarily. A lighter shaft makes you swing the club a bit faster which increases spin which can cause the ball too baloon a bit more but honestly i think the biggest thing is that its probably a swing thing. Do you know what your attack angle, launch angle, and spin #'s are? I used to have an issue where I hit the ball way too high and it was because I was too scoopy and wasn't hitting the ball first and what not

[J.Bex]

15 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

The "CG forward" comment is just a supposition on my part.  I have no idea how real it might be.  It's probably in the same vein of things that got you to start this thread, something that likely isn't ever going to be shared with the general public.  LOL

I believe it to be real as CG tries to align with the shaft axis, promoting forward shaft bend around impact.  It's more apparent with drivers, but the effect would still apply to irons, just to a lesser extent.  Maybe enough to make a difference, even if that's a feel-reaction difference for some, say between irons of more and less offset. 

Some thoughts on that topic in the thread below:

In addition to some Pings, Nike Vapor Pro and Pro Combo come to mind as relatively high MOI with high VCOG.  Not sure on newer heads, I buy older stuff!

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by joostin

[Tzoid]

I'm sure you have looked at your numbers on a good launch monitor to see where you are with Static Loft VS Dynamic Loft so you can address your delivery of the club?  If you're flipping and adding Loft for instance a 32 degree 7 Iron that you're flipping and at impact delivering 40 degrees of loft and turning it into a 9 iron.   Ask me how I know 🙄.

 

     The Indian is usually the reason missing the target and not the Arrow ! 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Tzoid

[bobbyclampett!!]

1 hour ago, Tzoid said:

I'm sure you have looked at your numbers on a good launch monitor to see where you are with Static Loft VS Dynamic Loft so you can address your delivery of the club?  If you're flipping and adding Loft for instance a 32 degree 7 Iron that you're flipping and at impact delivering 40 degrees of loft and turning it into a 9 iron.   Ask me how I know 🙄.

 

     The Indian is usually the reason missing the target and not the Arrow ! 

This and the previous post about club head delivery are well taken. I will hop on a launch monitor and see what is going on before looking for new irons. I am fairly certain I have a decent amount of shaft lean toward the target at impact (thereby decreasing loft), but I do know I am a touch on the shallow side, at least I was before some of these swing changes. Also need to check in with the swing coach to make sure I'm implementing the changes properly. I'll let you all know.

[CKaneb]

Another thought. Im sure there are plenty of people out there more knowledgeable than myself but the concept of a "low launching iron" doesn't make sense. The whole goal of an iron is to hit it high and far so you can hit and hold from a green from long distances. If you have an iron that launches lower, you're going to have a low land angle with will result in balls not staying on greens which is going to hurt your game a lot

[ChipNRun]

14 hours ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

I play pretty much everything off left breast/logo/left cheek...

 

This is the forward ball preference, with irons back maybe an inch or two back from driver-instep position. This is what Nicklaus used throughout his career, and he was known for hitting irons very high. That's one of the reasons he could hold the green on short par fives with long-iron approaches.

 

Lifelong competitor Gary Player described it to the press this way. "This fellow Nicklaus is incridible. Just in-crid-ible. Man, he could hit a one-iron so high it would stop on concrete. On concrete, I'm telling you man!" (Nicklaus, 1974, Golf My Way, p. 179)

 

Nicklaus acknowledges that Player was "exaggerating wildly," but said he does value high iron shots.

--------------------------

bobbyc... as far as high iron shots go... do you have time to work on flighting the ball? If you need a lower flight on a shot, can you take an extra club or two and hit more of a 3/4 punch shot? The partial swing compresses the ball less, and creates less height and less spin. The spin is what hurts going into the wind.

 

21 minutes ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

This and the previous post about club head delivery are well taken. I will hop on a launch monitor and see what is going on before looking for new irons.

Glad to hear it. Make sure you know what's going on, and make sure you're hitting the ball as high as you think you are.

 

Also, maybe you're having trouble flipping short irons? In my previous set of clubs, I had trouble with distance fall-off in short irons. Irons had parallel shafts, and I solved the problem by putting increasing amount of lead tape about mid-shaft (outside, underside) to increase weight on 7i, 8i and 9i. This increased overall weight, helped me stay down on shots with shorter shafts, and stabilized the yardstick.

[bobbyclampett!!]

27 minutes ago, CKaneb said:

Another thought. Im sure there are plenty of people out there more knowledgeable than myself but the concept of a "low launching iron" doesn't make sense. The whole goal of an iron is to hit it high and far so you can hit and hold from a green from long distances. If you have an iron that launches lower, you're going to have a low land angle with will result in balls not staying on greens which is going to hurt your game a lot

I know what you're saying. I was just thinking that a lot of irons have extra help to get the ball up, by adding weight to the very bottom of the club, and that's not what I want (I don't think). Something more like a MB or even wedges like Vokeys that bring the CG up to help flight the ball down for distance control.  Of course you still want the iron to get the ball in the air, but it's about achieving the proper flight to optimize distance control (which I think is easier when the ball is flighted down somewhat, as opposed to just rocket launching straight into the sky) while still being able to hold greens. Not sure what the ideal descent angle is to hold a green (someone here will know), but it's definitely not 90 degrees, which is what my irons "seem" like they are doing right now.

[bobbyclampett!!]

17 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

This is the forward ball preference, with irons back maybe an inch or two back from driver-instep position. This is what Nicklaus used throughout his career, and he was known for hitting irons very high. That's one of the reasons he could hold the green on short par fives with long-iron approaches.

 

Lifelong competitor Gary Player described it to the press this way. "This fellow Nicklaus is incridible. Just in-crid-ible. Man, he could hit a one-iron so high it would stop on concrete. On concrete, I'm telling you man!" (Nicklaus, 1974, Golf My Way, p. 179)

 

Nicklaus acknowledges that Player was "exaggerating wildly," but said he does value high iron shots.

--------------------------

bobbyc... as far as high iron shots go... do you have time to work on flighting the ball? If you need a lower flight on a shot, can you take an extra club or two and hit more of a 3/4 punch shot? The partial swing compresses the ball less, and creates less height and less spin. The spin is what hurts going into the wind.

 

Glad to hear it. Make sure you know what's going on, and make sure you're hitting the ball as high as you think you are.

 

Also, maybe you're having trouble flipping short irons? In my previous set of clubs, I had trouble with distance fall-off in short irons. Irons had parallel shafts, and I solved the problem by putting increasing amount of lead tape about mid-shaft (outside, underside) to increase weight on 7i, 8i and 9i. This increased overall weight, helped me stay down on shots with shorter shafts, and stabilized the yardstick.

Yeah, I can flight down PW through like 8 iron. But then it seems weird or difficult or not ideal to flight down 7i-3i.  I'd like 7i-3i to be penetrating on a full swing, without having to manipulate.

 

But, you all are totally right, I need to get on a Trackman and get my delivery conditions and launch conditions and actual apex (seems like it's like 130ft., but I could be off). To illustrate your point, I thought I was hitting my driver way too high, and I got on a Trackman and now Trackman has a feature that shows the ideal flight for your speed, and I was actually on the low side of optimal.  I guess the game these days is all about launching that baby high in the sky!?

[ChipNRun]

35 minutes ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

I guess the game these days is all about launching that baby high in the sky!?

 

... and all the other stuff fellow WRXers talk about.

 

Seriously, it varies by golfer. I'm 71 years old, and have 85-90 MPH driver CHS on most days. For me, getting iron shots airborne with some spin is important to maximize distance.

 

For you, I would guess you would outdrive me by quite a bit. With your likely high clubhead speed (and forward ball position), you might benefit from shafts that foster penetrating flight. This means the ball has decent initial launch, but does not rise extremely high during flight. Marketers for Project X Rifle shafts popularized the penetrating ball flight idea back around 2009.

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, CKaneb said:

Another thought. Im sure there are plenty of people out there more knowledgeable than myself but the concept of a "low launching iron" doesn't make sense. The whole goal of an iron is to hit it high and far so you can hit and hold from a green from long distances. If you have an iron that launches lower, you're going to have a low land angle with will result in balls not staying on greens which is going to hurt your game a lot

 

Not everyone hits the ball low enough that a low launching iron hurts them.

 

[bobbyclampett!!]

19 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

you might benefit from shafts that foster penetrating flight. This means the ball has decent initial launch, but does not rise extremely high during flight. Marketers for Project X Rifle shafts popularized the penetrating ball flight idea back around 2009.

Any current models come to mind? DG X7?

[ChipNRun]

41 minutes ago, bobbyclampett!! said:

Any current models come to mind? DG X7?

 

Possibly others can help on this, those on your end of the swing-speed spectrum.

 

I recently went to graphite shafts in irons and wedges, so graphites and light steel are what I'm more familiar with.