Strengthening irons pro's and cons

[PhillipG78]

2 hours ago, MountainKing said:

 

On a sim, or a legit launch monitor?

 

They're your clubs and it's your money, but if you want to do it right you should be hitting up a fitter before making any moves.  Getting the right shaft and lie angles will be key, and then you tweak lofts to dial in the final part.  With modern heads/lofts you may actually need to add loft to get the correct gapping between clubs.  

It might be time to get fitted I've always put my clubs together ad hoc

[Pepperturbo]

My 620 MB irons (3-PW) have more traditional (35' 7iron) lofts, and no gap problems from 2i - LW. 

 

IMO - the first issue sets with stronger contemporary lofts typically have long clubs 4-5i or 6i have 1-2' strong lofts and mid to short irons have stronger 3'-5' lofts.  Usually, what comes from those numbers is increased spin resulting in higher-trajectory and sometimes loss of yardage, depending on ball striking skill.  Next, which irons do you increase lofts on, then face the gap problems from 5i or 4i to driver, and shorter irons down to wedges. 

 

Pros - presuming you strike the ball solidly, you realize more distance for those clubs with stronger lofts. 

Cons - figuring out how to loft other clubs to maintain proper gapping with the ones with 3-4' stronger loft, then manage trajectory and distance control.

More than likely, your new CBs have offset, adjusting lofts can easily affect offset in a not too enjoyable way.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Pepperturbo

[rsballer10]

21 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

I definitely have some gapping issues I also want to take advantage of more modern golf geometry etc. My current gamers are 30 year old CB's

 

You're getting hung up on the whole modern geometry thing. The only thing that's changed is standard lengths are 1/4" longer and 2 degrees stronger. But we also have gap wedges and no longer need a 3 iron in most cases.

 

All the "jacked up lofts" are in clubs no better player uses anyway. They work for the golfers they are designed for. 

[PhillipG78]

15 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

 

You're getting hung up on the whole modern geometry thing. The only thing that's changed is standard lengths are 1/4" longer and 2 degrees stronger. But we also have gap wedges and no longer need a 3 iron in most cases.

 

All the "jacked up lofts" are in clubs no better player uses anyway. They work for the golfers they are designed for. 

Im not looking for nor want jacked up lofts, I have no desire for a 30* 7 iron. I'd prefer to stay in the 32-35* range.  Loft and and length can't be the only thing that's changed though in 30 years if it was pro's would still be using 30 year old MB's and just bending them stronger

Edited August 18, 2022 by PhillipG78

[rsballer10]

3 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

Im not looking for nor want jacked up lofts, I have no desire for a 30* 7 iron. I'd prefer to stay in the 32-35* range. 

 

That's pretty much every current players iron set so you're all good.

[PhillipG78]

1 minute ago, rsballer10 said:

 

That's pretty much every current players iron set so you're all good.

I'm currently gaming 36* 7i and am looking at a set that's around 33, i've noticed most low HC are in the 32-33* range these days

[Pepperturbo]

4 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

Im not looking for nor want jacked up lofts, I have no desire for a 30* 7 iron. I'd prefer to stay in the 32-35* range. 

I just looked at Callaway's current offerings.  Darn near all sets had much stronger lofted 7 irons than my 620 MB 35' 7i.  Even Srixon ZX5 7i is 31' - that is strong.  To get what you're suggesting, you may have to buy and have them adjusted to your liking.

[PhillipG78]

11 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I just looked at Callaway's current offerings.  Darn near all sets had much stronger lofted 7 irons than my 620 MB 35' 7i.  Even Srixon ZX5 7i is 31' - that is strong.  To get what you're suggesting, you may have to buy and have them adjusted to your liking.

Yeah 31* is getting crazy IMO I think 32* is absolute strongest you should go for 7i

[Pepperturbo]

1 minute ago, PhillipG78 said:

Yeah 31* is getting crazy IMO I think 32* is absolute strongest you should go for 7i

My 620 MB 3-PW specs haven't caused me any issues.  I can't support strong lofted irons for a few reasons.  They seem to cause more problems with most amateurs, problems that often don't get fixed.  Least that's what I've seen with friends.  Each of them struggle with distance and spin control. 

 

When it comes to wedges, each of them have a mechanical swing, so less than full swings are problematic, thus gap issues costs them strokes.  From what I've seen, strong lofts have not given any of them more yardage per club.  It wouldn't surprise me if strong lofts are the OEM's way of manipulating the retail buyer into buying hybrids and more wedges.

[PhillipG78]

6 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

My 620 MB 3-PW specs haven't caused me any issues.  I can't support strong lofted irons for a few reasons.  They seem to cause more problems with most amateurs, problems that often don't get fixed.  Least that's what I've seen with friends.  Each of them struggle with distance and spin control. 

 

When it comes to wedges, each of them have a mechanical swing, so less than full swings are problematic, thus gap issues costs them strokes.  From what I've seen, strong lofts have not given any of them more yardage per club.  It wouldn't surprise me if strong lofts are the OEM's way of manipulating the retail buyer into buying hybrids and more wedges.

My current gamers are 36* for 7i the CB I'm looking at are 34* with a slightly lower CG so i don't think holding will be an issue

[NRJyzr]

18 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

It wouldn't surprise me if strong lofts are the OEM's way of manipulating the retail buyer into buying hybrids and more wedges.

 

Not only that, but buying the stronger lofted irons that make them need to buy more wedges/hybrids...

 

[PhillipG78]

Just now, NRJyzr said:

 

Not only that, but buying the stronger lofted irons that make them need to buy more wedges/hybrids...

 

the idea of a 40* PW is nuts to me 

[MountainKing]

3 hours ago, PhillipG78 said:

Im not looking for nor want jacked up lofts, I have no desire for a 30* 7 iron. I'd prefer to stay in the 32-35* range.  Loft and and length can't be the only thing that's changed though in 30 years if it was pro's would still be using 30 year old MB's and just bending them stronger

 

If it weren't for equipment deals, and the fact that they wear out equipment at an insane rate, a lot of them probably would be using 30 year old MB's, and using them in traditional lofts.  These guys don't give a rats behind about what's on the bottom of the club, they just want the clubs to go specific distances.   Tigers PW on his "modern" set is still 50*.   You'll still see a lot of 48* wedges out on tour, the others who are using 46* PW's are basically using that club as what would have been a 9I in a 30 year old set.   

 

 

[PhillipG78]

9 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

 

If it weren't for equipment deals, and the fact that they wear out equipment at an insane rate, a lot of them probably would be using 30 year old MB's, and using them in traditional lofts.  These guys don't give a rats behind about what's on the bottom of the club, they just want the clubs to go specific distances.   Tigers PW on his "modern" set is still 50*.   You'll still see a lot of 48* wedges out on tour, the others who are using 46* PW's are basically using that club as what would have been a 9I in a 30 year old set.   

 

 

I don't give a rats a** the number on the bottom as I've said now more than once, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that technology and club head geometry and design have changed and evolved over time. Again if not even Tiger would just have the company re forge the same exact club head he'd been using since he was a teen. Yes his PTW are weak lofted, but they aren't just a hunk of metal beat into the same MB mold that Sam Snead used. They didn't add tungsten plugs to Tiger's new irons just for razzle dazzle. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by PhillipG78

[NRJyzr]

49 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

I don't give a rats a** the number on the bottom as I've said now more than once, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that technology and club head geometry and design have changed and evolved over time. Again if not even Tiger would just have the company re forge the same exact club head he'd been using since he was a teen. Yes his PTW are weak lofted, but they aren't just a hunk of metal beat into the same MB mold that Sam Snead used. They didn't add tungsten plugs to Tiger's new irons just for razzle dazzle. 

 

There is not nearly as much tech in irons as some would have you believe.  Tungsten was being used in the 90s.  Hollow clubheads go back to the 80s, if not more.  Slots in the soles, all of it.

 

A lot of folks seem to think the tungsten is being added as an MOI improvement, but if you look at the measured MOI of those clubheads, there's not much difference, if any, compared with similar designs that lack tungsten (see Cobra King MB).  It's really about CG manipulation.  And, per Tiger's comments, it's a feel thing for him.

 

The only real advance is the recent Ping G series irons, which have taken iron forgiveness (MOI terms, anyway) to levels only seen in 460cc driver clubheads.  Albeit clubheads that are considered unforgiving for a driver.  😉

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by NRJyzr

[iknowbagu]

Today's 8 iron is yesteryear's 7 iron. So what? You gap the bottom, you gap the top, you bend from there, IF NECESSARY, you move on with your life. Bending lofts (before you even get a full sample size of how far each iron actually goes) strictly because it looks pretty on paper and satisfies someone's OCD is not the optimal way to go about building a bag. 

[PhillipG78]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

There is not nearly as much tech in irons as some would have you believe.  Tungsten was being used in the 90s.  Hollow clubheads go back to the 80s, if not more.  Slots in the soles, all of it.

 

A lot of folks seem to think the tungsten is being added as an MOI improvement, but if you look at the measured MOI of those clubheads, there's not much difference, if any, compared with similar designs that lack tungsten (see Cobra King MB).  It's really about CG manipulation.  And, per Tiger's comments, it's a feel thing for him.

 

The only real advance is the recent Ping G series irons, which have taken iron forgiveness (MOI terms, anyway) to levels only seen in 460cc driver clubheads.  Albeit clubheads that are considered unforgiving for a driver.  😉

 

I never said there was a lot of tech, I simply said Club design has evolved and changed over time, why is it so difficult for you to admit that clubs aren't exactly the same as they were 40 years ago? 

[PhillipG78]

1 minute ago, iknowbagu said:

Today's 8 iron is yesteryear's 7 iron. So what? You gap the bottom, you gap the top, you bend from there, IF NECESSARY, you move on with your life. Bending lofts (before you even get a full sample size of how far each iron actually goes) strictly because it looks pretty on paper and satisfies someone's OCD is not the optimal way to go about building a bag. 

I don't care what looks good on paper, a lot of comments I'm receiving suggest people haven't actually read what I've written or what Im asking advice on.  

[PhillipG78]

26 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

I never said there was a lot of tech, I simply said Club design has evolved and changed over time, why is it so difficult for you to admit that clubs aren't exactly the same as they were 40 years ago? 

I realize this came across a little harsh wasn't intended to

[Cwebb]

38 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

I never said there was a lot of tech, I simply said Club design has evolved and changed over time, why is it so difficult for you to admit that clubs aren't exactly the same as they were 40 years ago? 

 

The point is that it's annoying to see the same myth perpetuated over and over again, that the reason for lower lofts per club number is because today's irons have a lower COG, flight higher, and therefore need less loft.   This is false.

 

Iron "technology" has nothing to do with the trend for lower lofts per club.  It is simply because distance sells for the average uninformed customer.  Always has, likely always will

[tatertot]

11 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

The point is that it's annoying to see the same myth perpetuated over and over again, that the reason for lower lofts per club number is because today's irons have a lower COG, flight higher, and therefore need less loft.   This is false.

 

Iron "technology" has nothing to do with the trend for lower lofts per club.  It is simply because distance sells for the average uninformed customer.  Always has, likely always will

So the fact that I can hit a 24 degree iron higher and longer than I could 20 years ago, with the same shaft - even though I'm almost 50 now - has nothing to do with technology? That is false?

[PhillipG78]

10 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

The point is that it's annoying to see the same myth perpetuated over and over again, that the reason for lower lofts per club number is because today's irons have a lower COG, flight higher, and therefore need less loft.   This is false.

 

Iron "technology" has nothing to do with the trend for lower lofts per club.  It is simply because distance sells for the average uninformed customer.  Always has, likely always will

And I find it annoying people keep trying to tell me about myths I'm not perpetuating, I don't recall once repeating any of those myths. I also don't agree with your assessment either, the lower COG and flight does allow the average lower swing speed player to get more distance and stick the greens while getting more distance. It doesn't take a biomechanics degree which I have btw to know that a club that's stronger lofted but gets the ball higher in the air is gonna be better for the average slower swing speed hacker. There's a reason a lot of High HC golfers can't get an older 3 iron in the air, but can get a newer one in the air. 

[PhillipG78]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

So the fact that I can hit a 24 degree iron higher and longer than I could 20 years ago, with the same shaft - even though I'm almost 50 now - has nothing to do with technology? That is false?

Exactly to say that the only changes in iron design are stronger loft and slightly longer shafts is accounting for everything is equal fallacy. There's a reason why it's easier to hit a low lofted long iron than it was the butter knives of old. 

[NRJyzr]

16 minutes ago, tatertot said:

So the fact that I can hit a 24 degree iron higher and longer than I could 20 years ago, with the same shaft - even though I'm almost 50 now - has nothing to do with technology? That is false?

 

That's nothing new.  I can do that with clubs from 30-40 years ago.  And have done so...

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by NRJyzr

[tatertot]

1 minute ago, NRJyzr said:

 

That's nothing new.  It was true 30-40 years ago, also.

 

No ... no it wasn't. I was playing golf in 1982 and 1992. And I was hitting 20 year old clubs in 1992 ... and this wasn't true. If you were actually playing in those days, I have no idea what clubs you would have been transitioning from. Even the Eye2s were not giving those kind of results compared to the old Staffs and Haigs.

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

No ... no it wasn't. I was playing golf in 1982 and 1992. And I was hitting 20 year old clubs in 1992 ... and this wasn't true. If you were actually playing in those days, I have no idea what clubs you would have been transitioning from. Even the Eye2s were not giving those kind of results compared to the old Staffs and Haigs.

 

I hit the Eye2+ high enough that once I got to the bottom of set, I wasn't able to play them, because I finally hit a point where the added trajectory cost me distance, creating a too large gap between a couple clubs.

 

They hit the ball considerably higher than my Mizuno MS-11s, also now 30 years old.  The Mizunos hit on a higher trajectory than Vibration Matched Golden Rams, which are now 38 years old.  The Rams hit higher than the Tommy Armour 986 Tours, which are now 27-36 years old.

 

Maybe it wasn't true for you.  It's been true for me.

 

[tatertot]

7 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I hit the Eye2+ high enough that once I got to the bottom of set, I wasn't able to play them, because I finally hit a point where the added trajectory cost me distance, creating a too large gap between a couple clubs.

 

They hit the ball considerably higher than my Mizuno MS-11s, also now 30 years old.  The Mizunos hit on a higher trajectory than Vibration Matched Golden Rams, which are now 38 years old.  The Rams hit higher than the Tommy Armour 986 Tours, which are now 27-36 years old.

 

Maybe it wasn't true for you.  It's been true for me.

 

Did you read the part about hitting the same loft, same shaft, higher and longer DESPITE me being 20 YEARS OLDER and obviously losing swing speed? Of course some clubs are going to launch higher (especially with the shafts Ping put in the Eye2s).

[Cwebb]

30 minutes ago, PhillipG78 said:

And I find it annoying people keep trying to tell me about myths I'm not perpetuating, I don't recall once repeating any of those myths. I also don't agree with your assessment either, the lower COG and flight does allow the average lower swing speed player to get more distance and stick the greens while getting more distance. It doesn't take a biomechanics degree which I have btw to know that a club that's stronger lofted but gets the ball higher in the air is gonna be better for the average slower swing speed hacker. There's a reason a lot of High HC golfers can't get an older 3 iron in the air, but can get a newer one in the air. 

 

When we look at independent measurements for Actual Vertical COG, we find that most of today's irons do not have a lower COG than those from decades past.  Many of them are higher.

 

 Any increase in distance if lofts are the same, is from a spring face to increase ball speed

 

 

[Cwebb]

3 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Did you read the part about hitting the same loft, same shaft, higher and longer DESPITE me being 20 YEARS OLDER and obviously losing swing speed? Of course some clubs are going to launch higher (especially with the shafts Ping put in the Eye2s).

 

A higher peak height from an increase in ball speed, by way of a trampoline face is possible.  Though this comparison would all be based on your memory from a couple decades ago, since there were no launch monitors

[PhillipG78]

I wasn’t playing golf 30 years ago, but clubs are easier to hit and it isn’t just shafts and loft jacking