Why do golf companies, the past few years, make their irons loud, colors, etc?

[Alohaed]

After reading threads such as "best looking irons", "dream sets", etc, I want to know why these companies no longer make traditional looking irons. I know everyone has their own tastes and many of you like the new irons that are out. Cleveland CG7s, TM R7s, R9s, Callawy Fusions, Nike Mach Speed... all ugly. Yet I wish they would start making traditional looking irons. Simply cast or forged, no colors, simply the company name/and or logo, small, and located in a non intrusive part pf the head. Like the old Clevelands, or the TM Racs. Especially for the GI irons. Even the new Titilest AP1s and AP2s still have too much going on. I think they are ok looking, not ugly. I drool over the new Titleist CBs, the best, classiest looking irons out there(just my opinion). Yet they are not for high handicappers. Mizunos are beautiful(MP57s), the new 58s are just ok, but better than anything else out there. Yet their MX series has too much going on. Srixon and KGZ are sweet and traditional. Yet my pro shops can order KZGs. which are damn nice looking, but doesn't have them in stock. So it would be kinda hard to get fitted unless he can order them to hit some balls and fit them, then order them again with my specs. But.... how many out ther agree with me, wishing the irons would go back to traditional looks?

[The Road Dog]

I think the answer is the public is less interested in subtle beauty and attracted by garish colorful displays. Bags have been designed that way for years, as have clothes, headcovers and now clubs. Pretty soon the new technicolor balls will be standard. Have you been to a bowling alley lately?

[jamo]

A lot of companies do analyses of how people react to different color golf clubs. Blue and green are supposed to be calming, red the opposite, or something to that effect. I was reading an interview with someone from Nike and they said they went with yellow for the SQ because they are easily visible on the shelf, and people seemed to be drawn to the color. Of course, they switched away from yellow with the DYMO because people sort of got tired with it. Mizuno did the same thing with the MX 700 line.

I think a lot of time, it is just hard to hide a technological design. It isn't hard to make a blade look good, but could you make a Callaway i-Brid look good? No, neither could Picasso.

[WUTiger]

I think a lot of time, it is just hard to hide a technological design. It isn't hard to make a blade look good, but could you make a Callaway i-Brid look good? No, neither could Picasso.

You nailed it, Jamo! Possibly your best post ever. I'm worried some of the color combos could give me a torn retina on a sunny day.

[wolverine_man]

After reading threads such as "best looking irons", "dream sets", etc, I want to know why these companies no longer make traditional looking irons.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. I couldn't stand to look at 98% of the irons on the market right now.

[FHopper]

The new Mizunos that are reviewed on the home page are some of the best looking clubs in years.

[patriot07]

In all honesty, they probably build the clubs for performance and then paint them to make them look as good as they can. Looks are nice, but I'd play the ugliest irons around if I could save a shot or two a round.

That being said, I'm one of the ones that love the way the new irons look. I think the blades like you're talking about all look like they're an old set I found in my dad's attic 15 years ago from when he played in the 60s, and I'd much rather have my X-18s, r7s, G15s or any of the current irons.

[CrazyXGolfer]

I think that, that new people to the game now days, never got to play with the "good looking clubs" and when they start they all go into the super game imp Irons witch are ALWAYS colourfull clubs. And most people will never get their handicap down to 15 or under so then they never get to play with the "Players Iron" Witch is usually much better looking. (Not always) And then since they are are not up to the stage were they are ready to use "tour or player Irons" they stick with what they are used to.
Also i would think that major golf companys do alot of reserch into what colours sell best.

[deronsizemore]

I think it has a lot to do with marketing the product as well. If companies start making their irons plain then they all end up looking quite similar and you don't know what someone is playing. As it is now, each brand of iron has it's own distinct look and you can instantly tell what company makes it. It's sad, but some people just HAVE to play what others are playing so they can fit in.

[natp0wers]

The KZG ZO blades are BEAUTIFUL, and yet simple :) (my avatar)

Edit: I have an old set of KZG's i'd be willing to sell (Forged Evolutions) if you are interested

[Divot Tool]

. . .Mizunos are beautiful(MP57s), the new 58s are just ok, but better than anything else out there. Yet their MX series has too much going on. . .

Tell me about it. The first thing I did to my MX-25 irons was strip the "Hemi COG" patches and MX-25 paint off the cavities with paint stripper. If I was gaming the MX-300's I'd be stripping those medallions off too. I subscribe to the philosophy that less is more, at least aesthetically.

[Range King]

The new Mizunos that are reviewed on the home page are some of the best looking clubs in years.

Exactly! MX-300 look great!

[Alohaed]

I want to thank all of you who agree with me. And you all have valid points. I guess each company wants their own distinct looks, so they all don't look the same and they for marketing. Yet they can still tone it down some, and have their own signitures and such. Again, we are all entitled to our opinions. The one thing I do agree on, is that who cares what the irons look like, so long as it helps your score and feels good to you. Although I will not do this, hence my starting this thread. Yet it also helps your game mentally(slightly) having irons you like to look at. The only exception I would like to make is that I do like the Ping I15, and their older I3+. How is THAT for a turnaround??? Someone who doesn't like the newer irons, wanting the traditional looks back, yet liking the clubs that are considered by most, the ugliest sticks on earth. But I can't stand the looks of the G15s.

[HoosierGolfer]

I agree that many of the current offerings have strayed away from more traditional looks. I've always been a huge Callaway fan, but I just can't stand the graphics on the Diablo line. Big turn off to me.

[ET-Taylor]

I think the Taylormade TP MB RAC and The Titleist CB and MB look quite traditional my mizunos aren't that bad either IMO. As long as you can't see the bad colors at address it is ok because that is what counts

[dkglf]

I work for KZG and we do try to stay traditional. We make many models of true Japanese forgings so those kinda have to stay traditional. With cast you can make them more funky looking because they are a mold and can have face inserts etc. The bigs do mostly cast stuff because of the cost and they are selling to the masses. They can make traditional looking cast irons but I am sure their marketing teams have info showing what sells best.

[peter draggin]

I am a big fan of the looks of Mizuno MP37s I played them for about the last 5 years but recently I switched to Nakashima irons although they are a cavity back they do not use paint fill on them, the logo and the numbers on the irons are just CNC milled, with no paint fill they say it makes people look at the quility and craftsmanship of their product

[sean_miller]

I don't like garish irons (what that exactly looks like is open to interpretation) but the main reason I don't like irons with excessive badges - they look like decorations that serve no purpose and are just waiting to fall off. If those little adornments are really so important, why do they look so cheap? PINGs excepted - those look like tanks. And actually the new R9s look pretty solid. Maybe I'm just thinking about the new Nikes - those things look like garbage.