12 myths

[xmanhockey7]

Got to reading this and thought it was very interesting. One thing that I sort of knew but not fully realize is the de-lofting of clubs over the years. I hear people complain about how golfers are switching to hybrids and not playing 2 or 3 irons, because lets face it, Hogan played a 1 iron! A real "traditional" good golfer doesn't put one of those stinking hybrids in the bag he plays that 2 iron. The 12 myths talks about this and many other myths that can be seen in golf.

http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/12mythsPDF.pdf

Loft of clubs does change from company to company but compare the 2000s degrees to Taylormade RBZ irons and they're very similar.

[LuciusWooding]

The modern ball has made the 1 and 2 iron obsolete, not necessarily the loft. It's too hard to hit high, even for the best players. Tiger once mentioned that he tried hitting a 1 iron he had from college, and couldn't hit it high enough to work with. Even his 2i is a specialty club and it certainly isn't meant to drop and stop; it's a driving iron. These days anything below a 3 iron requires either a tee, a very high swing speed, or a lot of GI technology to hit high enough, and most golfers don't have the speed to launch the 3 and 4 high enough. Hybrids and higher lofted woods are now the better option, even for elite players due to their ability to reach a better peak height. Unless a good player wants a lower shot, such as in heavy wind, they usually don't bother with long irons. In the 60s if you played even a 5 wood you'd likely be jeered at the same way people do with hybrids today, yet it's ubiquitous today even among pros. Plus many players opt for an extra wedge nowadays, and don't have as many clubs, and therefore fewer options, at the top of the bag.

I have a bigger problem with lofts squishing together instead of the lofts for each club changing. A set of 8 irons used to cover a bigger range of yardage. Now I feel the need to bend 4 or 5 clubs in every set I see just to make more gaps. I really don't want a club for every 9 yards, I'd rather have one for every 15 if anything. No 2 degree gaps in the long irons, and the default should be 4 degree gaps instead of 3. Call the 44 degree loft a pitching wedge or a 9 iron, I don't care. I just want 9 irons to cover 230-120 yards. Not 150-210.

[VMAN]

I always thought it would be more helpful if irons came with the degree stamped on the sole instead of a number.  This number has now become arbitrary to some degree.

I know that when I play with my buddies our six irons are quite different in lofts, and as a result the distances are not equivalent relative to the number stamped on the sole.

It is fun to watch people try new sticks on the range and finally get the ball airborne.  In that respect I think the golf club designers have done a good job.  The marketers are also doing their job in marketing the length.  But it is trivial, in that all that matters in the end is that you have a set that covers distances fairly evenly, including hybrids and fairway woods.

I have an old set of apex irons that I loved.  When I lay them down next to my current set they are clearly weaker...I used to hit that 3 iron.  Now I don't carry one, having exchanged for a hybrid.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Regarding the hybrids.  Some people hit hybrids not because they can't hit the corresponding long iron, but because the hybrid flys higher and stops quicker than a long iron.  I assure you that KJ Choi hits a 2 iron better than any member on this board, but he carries a hybrid because it's a better scoring club for him.

[MisterE]

Do you think it's all marketing, lowering the lofts makes people think they hit the clubs farther?  I'm with you guys, I don't care what number is stamped on the bottom, i just want a consistent set of distances that will cover me from 120 to 210.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by MisterE

Do you think it's all marketing, lowering the lofts makes people think they hit the clubs farther?  I'm with you guys, I don't care what number is stamped on the bottom, i just want a consistent set of distances that will cover me from 120 to 210.

Absolutely it's marketing.  What other reason could there be for lowering the lofts of clubs while lower the center of gravity in those clubs with extreme perimeter weighting?  I would imagine most golfers hit their 7,8,9,PW 80% of the time they have an iron shot.  Hitting those clubs longer makes them think there is something special about the set.

[Topper]

I agree the recommendation to post lofts on clubs such as "6.28" for a 28* six iron.  Mostly because I get annoyed with the marketing hype about a particular brand of clubs being longer when they've just re-labeled their 8i as a 9i and so on.  I wish magazines would actually post objective reviews of a club's ability to generate launch angle, spin, and distance.  Distance could be expressed in some kind of metric that adjusts for loft....maybe "yards per degree of loft" or only compare clubs that are the same loft.

With that said, I think that manufacturer's are able to decrease lofts while also maintaining equivalent (or better) forgiveness and playability through ball and club design.  I'm perfectly OK with that as long as it's presented as such.

BTW, Good article.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by Topper

I agree the recommendation to post lofts on clubs such as "6.28" for a 28* six iron.  Mostly because I get annoyed with the marketing hype about a particular brand of clubs being longer when they've just re-labeled their 8i as a 9i and so on.  I wish magazines would actually post objective reviews of a club's ability to generate launch angle, spin, and distance.  Distance could be expressed in some kind of metric that adjusts for loft....maybe "yards per degree of loft" or only compare clubs that are the same loft.

With that said, I think that manufacturer's are able to decrease lofts while also maintaining equivalent (or better) forgiveness and playability through ball and club design.  I'm perfectly OK with that as long as it's presented as such.

This is pretty much why I rarely buy new irons.  To me irons are irons.  It's all about how much forgiveness you need, or how much offset you like, or what you like looking at, etc.  Irons are not clubs that should be designed for maximum distance and it really shouldn't be much of a consideration when choosing an iron set.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by MisterE

Do you think it's all marketing, lowering the lofts makes people think they hit the clubs farther?  I'm with you guys, I don't care what number is stamped on the bottom, i just want a consistent set of distances that will cover me from 120 to 210.

Absolutely it's about selling more clubs.  They are also designing clubs with lower cogs, so they have to make the lofts stronger.

[glock35ipsc]

I had never looked at the RBZ specs until now, never had a reason to.  A 17.5° 3 iron!!?  Wow.  Then to make up for that, the short irons are spaced 5°.  Used to be that every iron was spaced 4° apart.  Now it usually is 3° between long irons, 4° between mid and short irons, and 4°-5° or more between wedges.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by glock35ipsc

I had never looked at the RBZ specs until now, never had a reason to.  A 17.5° 3 iron!!?  Wow.  Then to make up for that, the short irons are spaced 5°.  Used to be that every iron was spaced 4° apart.  Now it usually is 3° between long irons, 4° between mid and short irons, and 4°-5° or more between wedges.

Wow.  Totally absurd specs.  I would actually look at the specs next time I buy a set of irons and knock out any set that didn't have a PW with at least 47* of loft.

[WUTiger]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

... These days anything below a 3 iron requires either a tee, a very high swing speed, or a lot of GI technology to hit high enough, and most golfers don't have the speed to launch the 3 and 4 high enough.

In the 60s if you played even a 5 wood you'd likely be jeered at the same way people do with hybrids today, yet it's ubiquitous today even among pros. Plus many players opt for an extra wedge nowadays, and don't have as many clubs, and therefore fewer options, at the top of the bag.

One thing that can help longer irons, besides a GI head, is flighted shafts. Flighting gives a little extra lift on longer irons, and prevents short irons from ballooning (variable flex point). Also, softstepping standard shafts achieves the same thing as flighting on the lower end.

The 4-woods from the 1960s had about the same loft as a 5W. Briefly some companies offered 3W, 4W, 5W sets, but the 4W fell out of favor in the 1990s, unless you were a big hitter and that was the only FW you carried.

Originally Posted by VMAN

I always thought it would be more helpful if irons came with the degree stamped on the sole instead of a number.  This number has now become arbitrary to some degree.

Check out the Cleveland CG16 and CG16.Tour models. They have both the iron number, and the loft on the lower toe. Others have done this is the past... can anyone remember other iron models with loft number?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Absolutely it's marketing.  What other reason could there be for lowering the lofts of clubs while lower the center of gravity in those clubs with extreme perimeter weighting?  I would imagine most golfers hit their 7,8,9,PW 80% of the time they have an iron shot.  Hitting those clubs longer makes them think there is something special about the set.

It is nowadays, but not in the beginning. When Ping first started working with perimeter weighting/cavity (PW/C)  irons, the design greatly increased the ability of golfers to get the ball up. But , in the early going, the PW/C effect caused a 38⁰ Ping 7i to go about six yards shorter than a traditional 7i with the same loft. In order not to lose distance, Ping began strengthening their iron lofts about 2⁰. Then the marketing gurus got hold of strengthening lofts, the distance wars began, and you end up with long irons few can hit, and the need for a GW since the SW and PW ended up 8-10⁰ apart in loft. Adding 2⁰ is a sound idea that got way out of control.

[glock35ipsc]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Wow.  Totally absurd specs.  I would actually look at the specs next time I buy a set of irons and knock out any set that didn't have a PW with at least 47* of loft.

You might have to go for components (Wishon 752TC or Maltby KE4), or an older set of "name brand" clubs to find that 47° PW!  Callaway RAZR X's PW is 44°!!

I am still trying to figure out why a lot of companies make the PW and GW the same length.  They are usually spaced 4°-5° apart, and the GW is still pretty much a full-swing club for most (well, at least for me it is). And the GW is really the PW of a few years ago.

Just for grins and giggles:

Taylormade RBZ

Callaway RAZR X:

Ping G20:

Adams CB3:

[VMAN]

interesting.  My Mizuno 6 iron is weaker lofted than an RBZ 7 iron.

Also, these loft changes and the advent of the lob wedge have resulted in the gap wedge.  At least wedges have the degrees stamped on all of them, along with the bounce.  At least all the ones I have played.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

Wow.  Totally absurd specs.  I would actually look at the specs next time I buy a set of irons and knock out any set that didn't have a PW with at least 47* of loft.

Thats just as silly.  Just don't play a 3i and play an extra wedge (or two).  I play the callaway razr x's with a *gasp* 44* pitching wedge.  It goes 120-130 for me.  I also carry the Razr X attack wedge and sand wedge.  So, who cares?  Why would you not buy irons you like because you need to pull the club with "P" on it instead of "9" ?

Decreasing the club lofts helps sell clubs on two fronts: (1) gap/attack wedges that are sold seperately (which you now need) and (2) claims of distance.  Not buying clubs b/c you don't like the choice of loft for the PW is nuts.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Thats just as silly.  Just don't play a 3i and play an extra wedge (or two).  I play the callaway razr x's with a *gasp* 44* pitching wedge.  It goes 120-130 for me.  I also carry the Razr X attack wedge and sand wedge.  So, who cares?  Why would you not buy irons you like because you need to pull the club with "P" on it instead of "9" ?

Decreasing the club lofts helps sell clubs on two fronts: (1) gap/attack wedges that are sold seperately (which you now need) and (2) claims of distance.  Not buying clubs b/c you don't like the choice of loft for the PW is nuts.

I don't play a 3 iron or a 4 iron for that matter.  I probably wouldn't buy an iron set that I'd have to buy an extra club or two just to set right.

[xmanhockey7]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Thats just as silly.  Just don't play a 3i and play an extra wedge (or two).  I play the callaway razr x's with a *gasp* 44* pitching wedge.  It goes 120-130 for me.  I also carry the Razr X attack wedge and sand wedge.  So, who cares?  Why would you not buy irons you like because you need to pull the club with "P" on it instead of "9" ?

Decreasing the club lofts helps sell clubs on two fronts: (1) gap/attack wedges that are sold seperately (which you now need) and (2) claims of distance.  Not buying clubs b/c you don't like the choice of loft for the PW is nuts.

I don't know about everyone else but I don't want to buy another wedge. If I have to buy another wedge that means another club coming out of the bag.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by xmanhockey7

I don't know about everyone else but I don't want to buy another wedge. If I have to buy another wedge that means another club coming out of the bag.

Bend the short irons a bit weak. I personally want my next 9i to be about 44 degrees, go to 50 for the PW, then to 56 for SW. 43, 47, 52, 56 covers about the same range with tighter gapping but an extra club. For me that part of the set is more about feel and versatility. I want a low bounce club, a high bounce club, and enough lofts to hit every shot within 150 yards, but I'd rather choke down or 3/4 a short iron instead of a 3 wood because of a missing slot. Distance control with long clubs is really damn hard but it's no big deal with wedges.