Time for the OEMs to cut the bs and introduce the 10 iron as a standard club

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Nessism said:

 

Yes, seniors and women need height to get distance.  Strong lofts don't help these people.

Strong lofted hollow body irons fly much higher loft for loft than a players, non hollow club.  Those are indisputable facts man.

 

 

[Nessism]

3 minutes ago, PNW said:

 

I'm really not trying to argue. I'm just trying to point out that the design is for a reason and a lot of mostly recreational golfers can and do benefit from them and have fun playing them. I don't think it's a matter of OEMs trying to dupe people with more distance. Some actually benefit from the distance. Maybe someone hitting they current 7 iron 140 would prefer 150. And maybe it lengthens yardage gaps to something more effective. 

 

Anikka Sorenstam is playing a set with a 43* PW and hollow clubs from middle to long. Plenty of PGA pros play hollow and/or stronger lofts in long irons for performance benefit. 

 

The Greatest of All Time, Annika Sorenstam: WITB - World of Wunder

 

 

 

Anikka is playing stock lofts on her Apex irons.  She's a great player, and could likely play broomsticks if needed.  She's also paid by Callaway to play their clubs.  

[BiggErn]

21 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Well, you heard it now.  I don't need to go to the range to know how far I hit each club (within some reasonable margin of error).  Most sets I play cover 23 degree (5 iron) to 50 degree (gap wedge), and there is minimal distance difference between them. 

 

The only reasonable saving grace for me, is If possible, I bend my clubs to meet my commonly expected specs.  Bending a PW three degrees is getting up there, though (from 42 to 45).  

 

 

I agree that loft is a fairly good metric in predetermining around what a distance should be for a particular club. Then other aspects of a club can help with staying consistent to that distance when hit less than perfect. What set have you considered that needs bent 3 degrees? 

[Spinozist]

On 2/9/2025 at 9:16 AM, bobfoster said:

Well, but here is the problem. I have not been a fan of "loft inflation". Last year I got new Mizzy 245s at the short end of my bag. Ordered the 7i and 8i one degree weak. And the 9i and PW two degrees weak. So if my clubs were stamped with degrees, mine would be off.

..people get their wedges bent and don't seem to forget that they are bent despite having the lofts stamped on them.

[Nessism]

1 minute ago, BiggErn said:

I agree that loft is a fairly good metric in predetermining around what a distance should be for a particular club. Then other aspects of a club can help with staying consistent to that distance when hit less than perfect. What set have you considered that needs bent 3 degrees? 

 

I bent my PXG's a good bit.  Being forged body, they bent easily.  Not ideal, considering PXG are high bounce to begin with.

[GoGoErky]

43 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Strong lofted hollow body irons fly much higher loft for loft than a players, non hollow club.  Those are indisputable facts man.

 

 

Yeah not even sure how anyone is even arguing against this. 

[Mark_Tha_Tinkerer]

Before 1940, golf clubs were not numbered or identified by loft.  Each had names like niblick, mashie, spoon and cleek.  Do you think golfers used to say: "my cleek is longer than your cleek?"  If so, I bet lots of fights broke out over that comment.

 

Maybe we should go back to naming clubs something stupid like pre-1940 and everybody could just get along fine.   

[Binson]

5 hours ago, jda said:

 

Since you offered some curiosity instead of absolute elitist judgement, I will explain although it is probably somewhat hard.  Say you have 20 young adults that you are teaching.  They all have their own sets and all of that which vary widely, as you can imagine - most come with older clubs or maybe a 1 year old set of strong lofted GI stuff from Grandpa.  They don't know anything about path, loft, swing, shaft lean or any of that... just that a number goes a distance...kinda.  To them, most of this is uniform like the rest of their life when they start out... 8 out of 10 is a B, which octane gas to put in their cars, etc not understanding that octane is very complex or that curved grades can exist and they might need to know more about they as they age.  They are trying to learn and get a feel and the most basic levels of COMPARISON are what works for them.  They don't know what they are yet, although they are trying.  Comparing, contrasting and learning all need equal things, not random.

 

We have the look up the specs of their clubs and write them down.  This serves two purposes... first, that they cannot really compare to strangers without deeper knowledge (teaching them) and second, to write the lofts on blue tape on their clubs.  Then, when they compare, contrast and talk to each other (which they do try and help each other), they have a level set for their equipment.  This helps them learn from us and also teach themselves, but they MUST have this level set.

 

Then, we talk lofts as it pertains to how to play a shot out of the rough, pitch, chip, etc.  This is especially important around the greens since one kid might have a 44 degree SW and another a 52 and that these two will not hit the same shot on a short sided lie - it is really nice that wedges do have lofts on them.

 

I get that some might think that this is all just a dick measuring contest, but it is more than that for some.  You won't see me defending the butt hurt who are mad that their buddy hits their 40 degree PW further than their 43 degree 9.

 

I am probably doing a bad idea of explaining this.  Just think about what you would say if you had an athletic 15 or 16 year old who can swing a club OK, get the ball in air, is somewhat competent and then asks you what club he/she should hit from 125 yards.  How would you even begin to approach this without knowing the lofts?  How would they know how to take your advice if they don't know their lofts.  All of this matters.  If you don't know the lofts, then how you teach Jimmy to take a GW out of the rough at 44 degrees when Tommy can hit is 9 (Jimmy's 9 is 28 degrees).  Here is the crazy thing... you can kinda get a grasp on this, get to know the kids and their gear... and a whole new set comes in next year and you get to start over.

The problem with this is even if you know the static loft of the club, that is insufficient information with which to give a random person a club selection recommendation on a 125 yard shot.

 

Any recommendation would just be a starting point of reference anyway.  The real answer is for them to hit a club and see for themselves.  They should know for themselves how far they hit a club.  Then they have a distance per club and you have real information to work with rather than static loft alone, which is insufficient.  The real conversation would then be, if their 125 yard club is the right club to use when 125 is the distance to a front pin, into the wind.      

[Cstobaugh]

I’m gaming mp-5 irons and about to order a 241 PW and bend it weak to be my ‘10’ iron. 

[Mark_Tha_Tinkerer]

So the very first (post 1940) manufacturer of numbered irons produced an iron set made up of 9 clubs.  Said manufacturer dumped the names niblick, mashie, cleek and the like and chooses to simply number them from longest (#1) to shortest (#9).  There were no standardized or recognized lofts associated with the numbers because, well…he was the first.  It is noted that prior to this time (1940) golfers carried a whole bunch of clubs (maybe 20 or 30) to hit different shots.  In 1939, the R&A imposed the rule that a golfer could only carry 14 clubs which probably provided the idea to the manufacturer to number his clubs instead of naming them.  BRIILLIANT!!!

 

Other manufacturers liked the idea of numbering their iron sets from longest to shortest and followed suit.  The numbering was solely to identify the clubs within each set from longest to shortest and had nothing to do with standardized lofts or lengths between manufacturers based upon the number stamped on the club. 

The same is true today.  The numbers simply sort the clubs within a set from longest to shortest.  The lengths, lofts, lie angles and everything else between sets is unique both within different sets from a single manufacturer or sets between manufacturers.  Thinking every 9 iron in all sets needs to be the same loft, or length or offset or whatever sounds very communistic. 

 

Although he may never have been asked the question, I bet I know Harvey Penick’s answer to someone’s question: “What club should I use from 125 yards?”  PENICK’s ANSWER:  “Use your 125 yard club.” 

[Nessism]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

Yeah not even sure how anyone is even arguing against this. 

 

Posted April 25, 2017

  On 4/19/2017 at 9:50 AM, BrianMcG said:

One of the problems is that the cg is so low in SGI irons now that with traditional lofts you would be playing sky balls with everything.

 

Posted by Tom Wishon...

Seriously, as a clubhead designer with 31 yrs experience I am going to throw up if I hear this justification for lower lofts one more time. . . . .

 

This is precisely what the greed merchants of golf club sales want you to believe as their reason for having launched this trend of "shrinking loft disease" some 35 yrs ago, that still goes strong today.

 

And another post from Tom about strong lofts...

Once a golfer is used to hitting each number iron a known distance, no way is that golfer going to be happy and enjoy the game as much if he now has to hit an iron with 1 or 2 higher numerals than he did before from known spots on his course. Once the lofts began to be lower, it was a no turning back situation.

 

The big companies knew that too when they started this shrinking loft disease back in the 80s. And so do all clubhead designers. To cling to designing heads with old traditional lofts is tantamount to a death penalty in golf club sales. In the end, personally I really don't care that this has happened to lofts because as others have said here, as long as you know the lofts are jacked, you know you're not fooling yourself or letting yourself be fooled by the companies talk about their "new distance technology."

 

My main beef with this is that the companies have basically tried to hide why they did drop lofts over the years under a cloak of trying to convince non technically minded golfers that the lower lofts had to be done to counter the effects of a lower CG and other game improvement characteristics. That's BS. So fine, do the lower lofts, but say so and don't try to make us think it did not have anything to do with eeking out more sales because of the lure of the drug of distance.

[tatertot]

Hogan was juicing his clubs with lower lofts in the ''40s ... and he had 2 Pitching Wedges ... the horror!

 

Edited February 11 by tatertot

[Bad9]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

 

Posted April 25, 2017

  On 4/19/2017 at 9:50 AM, BrianMcG said:

One of the problems is that the cg is so low in SGI irons now that with traditional lofts you would be playing sky balls with everything.

 

Posted by Tom Wishon...

Seriously, as a clubhead designer with 31 yrs experience I am going to throw up if I hear this justification for lower lofts one more time. . . . .

 

This is precisely what the greed merchants of golf club sales want you to believe as their reason for having launched this trend of "shrinking loft disease" some 35 yrs ago, that still goes strong today.

 

And another post from Tom about strong lofts...

Once a golfer is used to hitting each number iron a known distance, no way is that golfer going to be happy and enjoy the game as much if he now has to hit an iron with 1 or 2 higher numerals than he did before from known spots on his course. Once the lofts began to be lower, it was a no turning back situation.

 

The big companies knew that too when they started this shrinking loft disease back in the 80s. And so do all clubhead designers. To cling to designing heads with old traditional lofts is tantamount to a death penalty in golf club sales. In the end, personally I really don't care that this has happened to lofts because as others have said here, as long as you know the lofts are jacked, you know you're not fooling yourself or letting yourself be fooled by the companies talk about their "new distance technology."

 

My main beef with this is that the companies have basically tried to hide why they did drop lofts over the years under a cloak of trying to convince non technically minded golfers that the lower lofts had to be done to counter the effects of a lower CG and other game improvement characteristics. That's BS. So fine, do the lower lofts, but say so and don't try to make us think it did not have anything to do with eeking out more sales because of the lure of the drug of distance.

Britt has said the same thing on the GW forum.

[Nessism]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

Hogan was juicing his clubs with lower lofts in the ''40s ... and he had 2 Pitching Wedges ... the horror!

 

 

These specs are whacky.  2 degree steps between some of the clubs, both "industry standard" and Hogan specs.  No OEM I'm aware of, either old time and today, used lofts like those.

[tatertot]

42 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

These specs are whacky.  2 degree steps between some of the clubs, both "industry standard" and Hogan specs.  No OEM I'm aware of, either old time and today, used lofts like those.

Are you pretty up-to-date on the 1940s OEM? 

 

Love some of the "experts" on here.

[Nessism]

9 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Are you pretty up-to-date on the 1940s OEM? 

 

Love some of the "experts" on here.

 

Well, if you believe those specs, I've got a bridge to sell you...

[tatertot]

1 minute ago, Nessism said:

 

Well, if you believe those specs, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Why in the world would these be doctored numbers? Let's see what you have for actual specs, and not just what you think they were.

[AverageGopher]

3 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

These specs are whacky.  2 degree steps between some of the clubs, both "industry standard" and Hogan specs.  No OEM I'm aware of, either old time and today, used lofts like those.

I think, especially these days where lofts are cranked on some of the higher irons, it’s fairly common to have sets with 2° gaps between say the five and four or four and three iron.  Take callaway AI300 or some of the fairly recent Callaway Apex sets that have 2° between the lowest irons.  Tis what it is. 

[GoGoErky]

7 hours ago, tatertot said:

Why in the world would these be doctored numbers? Let's see what you have for actual specs, and not just what you think they were.

This is when you know someone isn’t posting or arguing in good faith 

[Nessism]

6 hours ago, AverageGopher said:

I think, especially these days where lofts are cranked on some of the higher irons, it’s fairly common to have sets with 2° gaps between say the five and four or four and three iron.  Take callaway AI300 or some of the fairly recent Callaway Apex sets that have 2° between the lowest irons.  Tis what it is. 

 

2 degrees between long irons, maybe.  But not two degrees between lofted short irons/wedges.  That's whacky.  Not saying it's impossible, for a particular player, but it's not industry standard.  

 

Lofts are not mentioned, but here is a WITB about Ben Hogan...https://golf.com/news/ben-hogan-golf-bag-equipment-inside/

Edited February 11 by Nessism

[WristySwing]

12 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

Posted April 25, 2017

  On 4/19/2017 at 9:50 AM, BrianMcG said:

One of the problems is that the cg is so low in SGI irons now that with traditional lofts you would be playing sky balls with everything.

 

Posted by Tom Wishon...

Seriously, as a clubhead designer with 31 yrs experience I am going to throw up if I hear this justification for lower lofts one more time. . . . .

 

This is precisely what the greed merchants of golf club sales want you to believe as their reason for having launched this trend of "shrinking loft disease" some 35 yrs ago, that still goes strong today.

 

And another post from Tom about strong lofts...

Once a golfer is used to hitting each number iron a known distance, no way is that golfer going to be happy and enjoy the game as much if he now has to hit an iron with 1 or 2 higher numerals than he did before from known spots on his course. Once the lofts began to be lower, it was a no turning back situation.

 

The big companies knew that too when they started this shrinking loft disease back in the 80s. And so do all clubhead designers. To cling to designing heads with old traditional lofts is tantamount to a death penalty in golf club sales. In the end, personally I really don't care that this has happened to lofts because as others have said here, as long as you know the lofts are jacked, you know you're not fooling yourself or letting yourself be fooled by the companies talk about their "new distance technology."

 

My main beef with this is that the companies have basically tried to hide why they did drop lofts over the years under a cloak of trying to convince non technically minded golfers that the lower lofts had to be done to counter the effects of a lower CG and other game improvement characteristics. That's BS. So fine, do the lower lofts, but say so and don't try to make us think it did not have anything to do with eeking out more sales because of the lure of the drug of distance.

I'm going to get a boat load of flack for this, but I don't care. Tom is in the business of selling golf clubs as well. He sells his own irons, which (shocker!) have generally traditional head styles. So of course he is going to argue that different head designs/CG placement make no difference, because to admit that, he would be admitting his clubs don't stack up. I've been around the block enough now in the industry, working with hundreds, if not thousands of fittings to know that what I have done in red is, as Tom says, is BS. Fatter heads with different CGs absolutely do launch differently than something with a different design. You don't have to put much weight into it (I don't either), but a simple check of the Maltby PF shows that almost all fatter heads have a lower CG relative to most traditional heads. I can also attest that I have personally hit a chunkmaster iron compared to another iron with similar loft and the fatter one launches higher.

 

We can go even further with this and strip it down to its core basics. Would anyone here argue that a hybrid has the same peak height as an iron, or a fairway wood has the same peak height as a hybrid at the exact same loft? No, they wouldn't, because we know this to be a true, verifiable fact that that a hybrid will launch and apex higher than an iron and a fairway will launch and apex higher than a hybrid. So why are we even attempting to make this same argument for a blade vs. a cavity vs. a fat iron? It makes no sense.

 

To round it all out, if we are going to point fingers at the OEMs for trying to sell us product, Tom should not be immune to this as well. He is in the business of trying to sell his golf clubs too. Every OEM, independent club maker, and inventor in their garage has a schtick to sell more product. Don't fall prey to him as being all high and mighty out of the goodness of his heart. Not to beat a dead horse here, but he even uses these exact same lines he protests against in his EQ1-NX long iron heads, saying, and I quote:

"Enabled by the new 2-piece hollow body design, the Center of Gravity moves progressively through the set from lowest and most rear located on the #5 iron to highest and most forward located on the GW and SW to achieve more consistent shot shape and shot height for each iron in the set."

 

So which is it, Tom? Does CG and and club design do nothing, or is it actually helpful?

Edited February 11 by WristySwing

[GoGoErky]

12 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

Posted April 25, 2017

  On 4/19/2017 at 9:50 AM, BrianMcG said:

One of the problems is that the cg is so low in SGI irons now that with traditional lofts you would be playing sky balls with everything.

 

Posted by Tom Wishon...

Seriously, as a clubhead designer with 31 yrs experience I am going to throw up if I hear this justification for lower lofts one more time. . . . .

 

This is precisely what the greed merchants of golf club sales want you to believe as their reason for having launched this trend of "shrinking loft disease" some 35 yrs ago, that still goes strong today.

 

And another post from Tom about strong lofts...

Once a golfer is used to hitting each number iron a known distance, no way is that golfer going to be happy and enjoy the game as much if he now has to hit an iron with 1 or 2 higher numerals than he did before from known spots on his course. Once the lofts began to be lower, it was a no turning back situation.

 

The big companies knew that too when they started this shrinking loft disease back in the 80s. And so do all clubhead designers. To cling to designing heads with old traditional lofts is tantamount to a death penalty in golf club sales. In the end, personally I really don't care that this has happened to lofts because as others have said here, as long as you know the lofts are jacked, you know you're not fooling yourself or letting yourself be fooled by the companies talk about their "new distance technology."

 

My main beef with this is that the companies have basically tried to hide why they did drop lofts over the years under a cloak of trying to convince non technically minded golfers that the lower lofts had to be done to counter the effects of a lower CG and other game improvement characteristics. That's BS. So fine, do the lower lofts, but say so and don't try to make us think it did not have anything to do with eeking out more sales because of the lure of the drug of distance.

Doesn’t dispute what I replied to about hollow body irons fly higher.

[GoGoErky]

52 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

2 degrees between long irons, maybe.  But not two degrees between lofted short irons/wedges.  That's whacky.  Not saying it's impossible, for a particular player, but it's not industry standard.  

 

Lofts are not mentioned, but here is a WITB about Ben Hogan...https://golf.com/news/ben-hogan-golf-bag-equipment-inside/

Do you have anything to dispute what wa posted that shows the industry standard was different back then?

 

 

[Nessism]

21 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Do you have anything to dispute what wa posted that shows the industry standard was different back then?

 

 

 

I am not going to research what was "industry standard" (whatever that means) in 1940. That's a waste of my time, and not pertinent to the conversation at hand.  And I do NOT believe that table posted above either.  

 

Here is a snip from 2010, and things have changed a lot since there with clubs getting stronger.

 

 

 

 

[Nessism]

1 hour ago, WristySwing said:

I'm going to get a boat load of flack for this, but I don't care. Tom is in the business of selling golf clubs as well. He sells his own irons, which (shocker!) have generally traditional head styles. So of course he is going to argue that different head designs/CG placement make no difference, because to admit that, he would be admitting his clubs don't stack up. I've been around the block enough now in the industry, working with hundreds, if not thousands of fittings to know that what I have done in red is, as Tom says, is BS. Fatter heads with different CGs absolutely do launch differently than something with a different design. You don't have to put much weight into it (I don't either), but a simple check of the Maltby PF shows that almost all fatter heads have a lower CG relative to most traditional heads. I can also attest that I have personally hit a chunkmaster iron compared to another iron with similar loft and the fatter one launches higher.

 

We can go even further with this and strip it down to its core basics. Would anyone here argue that a hybrid has the same peak height as an iron, or a fairway wood has the same peak height as a hybrid at the exact same loft? No, they wouldn't, because we know this to be a true, verifiable fact that that a hybrid will launch and apex higher than an iron and a fairway will launch and apex higher than a hybrid. So why are we even attempting to make this same argument for a blade vs. a cavity vs. a fat iron? It makes no sense.

 

To round it all out, if we are going to point fingers at the OEMs for trying to sell us product, Tom should not be immune to this as well. He is in the business of trying to sell his golf clubs too. Every OEM, independent club maker, and inventor in their garage has a schtick to sell more product. Don't fall prey to him as being all high and mighty out of the goodness of his heart. Not to beat a dead horse here, but he even uses these exact same lines he protests against in his EQ1-NX long iron heads, saying, and I quote:

"Enabled by the new 2-piece hollow body design, the Center of Gravity moves progressively through the set from lowest and most rear located on the #5 iron to highest and most forward located on the GW and SW to achieve more consistent shot shape and shot height for each iron in the set."

 

So which is it, Tom? Does CG and and club design do nothing, or is it actually helpful?

 

Go look at Ping iron data, or read the thread here where it's discussed; Ping, particularly their GI irons have a sky-high CG.  

 

Tom knows what he's talking about

[tatertot]

13 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

I am not going to research what was "industry standard" (whatever that means) in 1940. That's a waste of my time, and not pertinent to the conversation at hand.  And I do NOT believe that table posted above either.  

 

Here is a snip from 2010, and things have changed a lot since there with clubs getting stronger.

 

 

 

 

Facts are overrated, good call. 

 

Oh wait ... other's post aren't facts, just your posts. And when you see something you don't like, you say they're incorrect. 

 

I'm out ... you "win" the internet today.

[Nessism]

17 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Strong lofted hollow body irons fly much higher loft for loft than a players, non hollow club.  Those are indisputable facts man.

 

 

Your previous post said NOTHING about "hollow body irons" designed to fly high.  Of course, it's possible to design clubs that fly high.  This conversation is about strong lofts, though.  And lower lofts fly lower, when equal designs are considered.

[Nessism]

3 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Facts are overrated, good call. 

 

Oh wait ... other's post aren't facts, just your posts. And when you see something you don't like, you say they're incorrect. 

 

I'm out ... you "win" the internet today.

 

That table about the 1940's is not a "fact".  It's a random reference from the internet.  Same as what I posted.  But at least my chart is verifiable by someone that wants to go through the trouble.  

[Pnwpingi210]

33 minutes ago, Nessism said:

Your previous post said NOTHING about "hollow body irons" designed to fly high.  Of course, it's possible to design clubs that fly high.  This conversation is about strong lofts, though.  And lower lofts fly lower, when equal designs are considered.

We were talking about strong lofted game improvement irons with pitching wedges in the 40-42 area and leaving a gap to the next club. 
 

As others have said you are not debating in good faith.

 

 

Edited February 11 by Pnwpingi210

[GoGoErky]

46 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

I am not going to research what was "industry standard" (whatever that means) in 1940. That's a waste of my time, and not pertinent to the conversation at hand.  And I do NOT believe that table posted above either.  

 

Here is a snip from 2010, and things have changed a lot since there with clubs getting stronger.

 

 

 

 

Sure it is. You made a claim and have nothing to back it up, just your opinion. 
 

the chart you posted has been posted numerous times to show all those complaining about Jack lofting that’s ist been happening for decades now: also does nothing to support your opinion that the data from the 40s is not accurate.

 

 

Nothing new in this post