• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
safetrip

same length golf club

30 posts in this topic

Does any one have tried or been using the same length club- 1iron golf is the most popular one, it seems like. It makes sense from theory but the fact that not many people are using is discouraging. Basically these irons have the same length/lie(usually that of a short iron depending on your wrist to floor measure) but different loft.

The main claim is that the distance increase due to the length difference is only fraction compared to the loft difference. These people claim that a 3 iron that's the same length as 8 or 9 iron can hit as long as regular length using these. But since it is shorter, you can hit more easily. If you want to get more info, just google 1iron golf.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

it would skew the distance a little bit the long irons would go shorter since they arent as long considering same contact
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

longer club = more club speed.

Yes that's correct. But it's matter of how much more. Newton's law says, given the same amount of angular velocity(i.e. swing tempo) the linear velocity of club head is directly proportional to length of the arc( club length). If your shoulder to club head length is 70" for a 8iron, than 4 iron would have 72" shoulder to club length. The difference is about 3%. That means the club head speed will increase by only 3%.

This may be a little bit of over simplification since golf swing is more of double pendulum motion but the distance gap among the different clubs is mostly due to the loft. I remember Anthony Kim's interview about his habit of choking down on clubs and he said that by doing so he loses a little bit of distance but gets much more control.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always grip down. Tough to grip up...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's correct. But it's matter of how much more. Newton's law says, given the same amount of angular velocity(i.e. swing tempo) the linear velocity of club head is directly proportional to length of the arc( club length). If your shoulder to club head length is 70" for a 8iron, than 4 iron would have 72" shoulder to club length. The difference is about 3%. That means the club head speed will increase by only 3%.

That would be 5-8 yards for typical golfers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set of them, although, I switched out the shafts that come with them and put on the grips I'm used to. It took about a month to get used to having them be all the same length, but now I really like them and my iron play is much more consistent.

Loft for loft, I get about the same distance as I did with any of my other conventional iron sets.

I wrote a review about my experience with them. I don't know if the forum admin's would want me posting the link, so if you'd like to read it...just send me a private message.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

longer club = more club speed.

That is true but very very little more club head speed. Not much to increase the distance at all. Maybe 2 yards at the most. Same length golf clubs make sense in which you can be more consistent.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a review about my experience with them. I don't know if the forum admin's would want me posting the link, so if you'd like to read it...just send me a private message.

I'm not an Admin but I can't see why they would stop you posting the link? I'd definetly be intereseted in reading your review.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Here is the review link.

http://www.swingmangolf.com/1ironGol...lubsReview.asp

The only two companies that I'm aware of that currently make same length clubs are 1iron Golf and Pure Fit Golf.

I've never tried the Pure Fit ones, but I do have a set of the 1irons. I like that the Pure Fit's are forged and you can bend them, have adjustable weight ports for length and swing weight adjustments, and have a progressive bounce...but mostly I went with the 1irons because I could get a whole iron set, the offset was the same between the clubs, plus they had a money back guarantee.

I swapped out the shafts that came with my 1irons for some Dynamic Gold SL-X100s, spine alined them, and put in some Sensicore. Distance-wise, I get the about the same yardages when I compare loft to loft. Length of a club plays a minor role in distance like some people have mentioned, but loft is the primary determinant. Any distance I lost with the long irons, I think I made up for in better contact. It was funny with the longer wedges at first too, but now I'm used to them and really like them that way because of the consistency in setup and swing from club to club.

I'd eventually like to experiment with the iMatch's...just haven't done it yet. In either case, I don't think I could go back to a conventional set again. :-p
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Here is the review link.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. I checked some of the Pure Fit dealers that they list, but can't find the IMATCH product on any of them. Must not be a big seller.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Hammer and thats the only club I use!!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy Armour used to make a set of irons that were all the length of a 6 iron. Miserable sales success. The short irons were harder to hit accurately, and the long irons were still subject to a lot of the same physics (lack of loft means not as much backspin which means the sidespin has more impact) as regular clubs, but with a loss of distance. Basically, one got the worst of all worlds.

There's a reason that over a hundred years of golf club evolution has settled on sets with graduated length differences.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. I checked some of the Pure Fit dealers that they list, but can't find the IMATCH product on any of them. Must not be a big seller.

Yup, glad to help.

FYI, I got an email from Tim Hewitt, one of the iMatch dealers...apparently they are sold out at the moment. Every time they do another run at the foundry they use, I think they have to commit to 500 sets. So like a lot of companies they are just waiting for the economy to improve a bit before making more.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy Armour used to make a set of irons that were all the length of a 6 iron. Miserable sales success. The short irons were harder to hit accurately, and the long irons were still subject to a lot of the same physics (lack of loft means not as much backspin which means the sidespin has more impact) as regular clubs, but with a loss of distance. Basically, one got the worst of all worlds.

Do you know the specs on the old Tommy Armours? Even though they were same length clubs, maybe there was something objectively in their design that weren't making them sell well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, glad to help.

I saw a post he made on another forum that eluded to the same thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the science makes sense. Assume a half inch increment between length of each irons, so from 4-pw it's a difference in length of 3 inches. Well, check the calculations with a driver which has more length and more CHS speed. A very simplified equation where you can assume the lengthened shaft will have the same weight and could be swung with the same rotational speed will show that adding 3 inches to a 46" driver would THEORETICALLY give a 120 mph swing, a bump up to 127.78 mph. NOw that's very simplified and assumes a ton.... but for a driver that's not an insignificant increase, but not necesarrily worth losing all control over either.

Irons are dealing with lower club head speeds, but also shorter shafts, so a 3" difference from 4-pw is a higher percentage than it would be in a driver. A typical 38" 4 iron that was the same length as a PW would be 7.89% shorter, so a 90 mph swing would be roughly 82.9 mph.... which is fairly undesirable. HOWEVER, I think this system would be beneficial if you just made everything the same length as maybe a 7 iron, because then the difference in 4-7 and 7-pw would be 2" or less, so a smaller percentage lost or gained in CHS? I have trouble hitting really low clubs like SW and LW often anyways because I feel a little too squated with the short length, so this is a pretty cool idea.

What this would do though is give more consistent yardage transitions from iron to iron. For instance, somebody now may have just an 8 yard distance from PW to 9....but near 20+ yard distance or so from 4-5... bringing up some challenging choices on in between distances. This would likely keep all club yardages in smooth increments, which could be good and bad, but I think mostly good, especially for golfers who aren't single handicappers.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few things to mention here ...

(1) The weight of the club head is never mentioned in these discussions. The 3-iron in the 1-iron golf set is shorter in shaft length than in a standard set, and yes the clubhead speed is a bit less than the clubhead speed in a standard set because of this shorter shaft ... but the force exerted on the ball is not just a function of clubhead speed. The mass of the 3-iron head in the 1-iron set is significantly more than the standard, so the force on the ball is almost identical for a perfect hit.

(2) Loft. The lofts in the 1-iron set are in 4 degree increments throughout the set. The lofts in a standard set are not, for example most 3-irons are only 3 degrees stronger than the 4-iron.

(3) You hit the centre more on shorter shafted clubs. This one is always held up, and it's true. No-one mentions the fact that the reverse applies to your 8,9,PW etc... that is, they are longer in the shaft than a standard set - and should be therefore harder to hit. The combating argument talks about the huge benefit of having only one setup. I agree with full shots that this applies - but with the wedges it just didnt play out that way in real life.

I used the 1-irons, and they were awesome. Very consistent, very confidence inducing. I only ended up using 3-iron to 9-iron at 37 inches - with my own spined shafts. My wedges were all Clevelands (46,50,54,58) at 35.5 inches to MOI match.

The distance gaps inbetween irons was as even as a standard set, if not better ... but the ball flight on the 3-iron was definitely lower with the 1-irons, and stronger than normal (which I liked). Same goes for the wedges ... before I changed my make-up I would hit the PW, SW, GW, LW very very high.

Overall I loved them. Best set I have built/used by miles. Helped my scoring through confidence and consistency.

I am speaking past tense because I have had a self-prescribed break from golf, and have not played in a while :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Look at Ben Hogan. He played in exactly one Open Championship. Before Arnold Palmer brought it back into the fold as something you should be playing every year it was just too expensive for such a little purse to win. There wasn't much prestige in winning it during that time.  Look at the US open. Since 1993, only 52% of the time a non-US golfer won the US Open. From 1950 till 1993 only 92% of was won by US golfers.   Same with the PGA Championship. Since 1993 the US has only won 56% of them. From the time they went to stroke play (1958) till 1992 the US won 86% of them.  Same with The Masters. Since 1993 the US has won 56% of them. From 1950 till 1992 the US won 77% of them.  It just goes to show you that the influx of non-US golfers to the PGA Tour field of players has made it that much more difficult for US golfers to win a major.  Could I say that it was 30% easier for Jack to win those majors because of the non-US golfers who stayed away from traveling to the US to play?  US Open: 40% less likely US player wins after 1993
      PGA Championship: 30% less likely a US Player wins after 1993
      The Masters: 20% less likely a US Player wins after 1993
       
    • Great golfing quotes
      You're Never a 14 handicap! Hitting balls like that!!! End of round Nice playing with you, you scored net 80, you know you should really stay out of bunkers! Attributed to my fellow members, all of them did any one see that? No I hate golf Probably happens to everyone
    • Nike hyperflight golf balls
      Thanks for the hidden gem!!! Thats encouraging stuff. I really like the ball Ive been playing, but after reading that, Im looking forward to giving them a shot.
    • How Do You Decide Where to Play Golf
      Decision matrix: Course quality, then time available, then cost. dave
    • Longer or More Accurate?
      That doesn't make it a trick question. People aren't so lousy with accuracy that they're off 200 yards, but their tee shots travel 200 yards toward the target fairly often. The 10% thing helps to adjust them to the proper scale. I hit my driver 270, but I don't miss by 1/4 of that distance (67.5 yards). The wildest 100-shooting golfers are about +/- 10°. Their average is about 7°. 80-golfers are around 6°. 70 golfers probably about 5°. PGA Tour pros are around 3.5°. So 10% of those numbers are 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5°, with 0.35° for PGA Tour players. And yet, give each of them a full 1° (or  14% more accuracy for 100-golfers, 17% more accuracy for 80-golfers, 20% more accuracy for 70-golfers, and nearly 30% more accuracy for PGA Tour players… and they still come up short (or, at the PGA Tour level, only begin to break even). This means that the poll is biased, indeed, but in the opposite direction you think, @Marty2019. The poll could have said "would you choose 25% more accuracy or 10% more distance" and everyone (generalized to groups, not individuals) would STILL be better off choosing the distance. The only "trick" is that people value accuracy way, way too much, to the point where many are happy to take only a 10% improvement in accuracy while even a 25% improvement still can't account for the added value of driving the ball an extra 10% farther.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. TessaEdin
      TessaEdin
      (24 years old)
  • Blog Entries