PXG signs Zach Johnson, Billy Horschel and other pros

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Ball speed retention would help distance consistency on off-center impacts, right?

Not if you slice it 15 yards :) 

I've played MB irons and I've played GI irons. I can hit them equally off line. I do agree on slightly toe or  heel hits the GI irons go farther, but that doesn't mean you end up in a better place. 

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Well that applies to regularly designed irons then too, right? More perimeter weighting seems to be an acceptable tradeoff for a lot of golfers. What is the 'increased forgiveness' of those designs giving golfers if not more reliable shot patterns on mishits? Is it all just lateral dispersion improvement?

Read the link @Phil McGleno posted. As far as I know, yes, CB irons tend to maintain more ball speed across the face, but near to the center of the face, it's more variable than a muscle back.

Having asked a few club designers, they've told me that you can't create a high CoR iron that PGA Tour pros would play (i.e. the size and shape of the iron head) without producing a relatively high fall-off and thus variability in the CoR near the center of the face.

21 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I understand distance precision is the goal with an iron, but if all your strikes across the face got a 'boost' relative to a different design, wouldn't you just be hitting the ball higher and farther with about the same variance in flight? Perhaps just an advantage for a higher HCP player with a slower swing speed.

I don't think the "boost" is consistent when you get too a huge CoR. Plus, there's the issue of gapping: PGA Tour pros don't need to hit their irons farther.

Consider a club with a really LOW CoR. You'd hit it nowhere, but mishits wouldn't be anywhere near as punished. So, it seems likely the opposite is true, and for smaller and smaller mis-hits.

21 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Why do pros de-loft their irons at all then if hitting irons farther isn't an advantage? Maybe there's an advantage being able to hit a shorter (more controllable?) club farther - so that you get tighter dispersion from more centered impacts?

Because that's how you hit the ball best: to not de-loft the club would change the entire dynamics of the golf swing, and likely move low point to right where the ball is, which would lead to large changes in distance control. It'd be a horrible way to hit the golf ball.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2032-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

Cavity back irons do not hit the ball more consistent distances-musclebacks do.

It is beyond me why that is true because I do believe that ball speed is maintained more on cavity backs on off-center hits.-Perhaps at the higher levels small mishits lead to greater variance and big mis-hits lead to less variance.

That's a good link. I've come across that article before, but good reminder. If you are precise enough with your impacts seems blades are the way to go.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Having asked a few club designers, they've told me that you can't create a high CoR iron that PGA Tour pros would play (i.e. the size and shape of the iron head) without producing a relatively high fall-off and thus variability in the CoR near the center of the face.

Interesting. Do you think the OP club's construction (thin face with softer insert behind) is intended to be higher COR than typical irons (though not as high as woods, hybrids, or driver)? That's what I inferred from the diagrams, but it could have an entirely different purpose given the issues you describe.

Quote

I don't think the "boost" is consistent when you get too a huge CoR. Plus, there's the issue of gapping: PGA Tour pros don't need to hit their irons farther.

Rory sure doesn't. Someone shorter, might think that's a gap to try to close to improve relative scoring?

Quote

Consider a club with a really LOW CoR. You'd hit it nowhere, but mishits wouldn't be anywhere near as punished. So, it seems likely the opposite is true, and for smaller and smaller mis-hits.

Possibly. Seems reasonable. But given how important distance is to scoring the actual tradeoff of extra degrees offline vs. distance retained is important IMO. The increase in lateral deviation might not be as large (or at least as costly in SG) vs. retention of distance on mis-hits as you intuit.

Quote

Because that's how you hit the ball best: to not de-loft the club would change the entire dynamics of the golf swing, and likely move low point to right where the ball is, which would lead to large changes in distance control. It'd be a horrible way to hit the golf ball.

I get that it helps dynamics. Not convinced that's the sole reason. I definitely agree it's done because it's proven to work for a lot of things. But it appears to me that there's a lot more de-lofting than I'd expect to simply move the low point a bit in front of the ball? Plus they counter the forward lean / low point with a 'shallow' divot. Why bother to add that part to narrow the spin loft? Why not just hit down and take a big divot?

If narrow spin loft alone and not just narrow spin loft per given club length was optimal, wouldn't the pros be just slightly de-lofting clubs of already low static loft? Clearly I think better impact consistency to be had from a de-lofted shorter club could be a contributing reason for the adaptive technique of de-lofting. You definitely know pro swing impact data better than me, is my impression of how much pros de-loft clubs off? It really seems to be a lot relative to the static gaps between clubs.

Edited January 5, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I get that it helps dynamics. Not convinced that's the sole reason. I definitely agree it's done because it's proven to work for a lot of things. But it appears to me that there's a lot more de-lofting than I'd expect to simply move the low point a bit in front of the ball? Plus they counter the forward lean / low point with a 'shallow' divot. Why bother to add that part to narrow the spin loft? Why not just hit down and take a big divot?

Too many questions to answer here (and I didn't bother to include your second paragraph). Suffice to say it's optimal for distance control, gapping, and consistency. This thread is not about basic launch characteristics, swing dynamics, etc.

So, yeah, back to the topic, please.

[natureboy]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

Too many questions to answer here (and I didn't bother to include your second paragraph). Suffice to say it's optimal for distance control, gapping, and consistency. This thread is not about basic launch characteristics, swing dynamics, etc.

So, yeah, back to the topic, please.

This part was squarely on topic: Do you think the OP club's construction (thin face with softer insert behind) is intended to be higher COR than typical irons (though not as high as woods, hybrids, or driver)? That's what I inferred from the diagrams, but it could have an entirely different purpose given the issues you describe (with high COR). 

[iacas]

Just now, natureboy said:

This part was squarely on topic.

Not really. The OP is about them signing a bunch of players. Move on or start a specific topic about whatever it is you want to discuss.

[PEZGolf]

On 1/4/2016 at 8:35 AM, saevel25 said:

http://news.yahoo.com/zach-johnson-among-8-players-moving-pxg-092826600--golf.html?nf=1

Looks like PXG is making waves a bit already getting 13 players (PGA, LPGA, Champions Tour) including Zach Johnson to sign on to use their equipment. A quote from Zach, 

''My entire team, from caddie to coach, was part of the discernment process,'' Johnson said. ''We all agree that PXG is undeniably the best equipment to help me achieve my goals on the course.''

It's pretty impressive to steal a Titleist guy. 

PXG equipment is currently being played on the PGA TOUR by Zach Johnson, Billy Horschel, Chris Kirk, Ryan Moore, James Hahn and Charles Howell III, the Champions Tour by Rocco Mediate and the LPGA Tour by Cristie Kerr, Gerina Piller, Alison Lee, Beatriz Recari and Sadena Parks.

 

I never heard of PXG. I use Tour Blazer irons that are 30+ years old .  I am a scratch player. There is NO WAY that new clubs are going to help me lower my scores! In fact, I would probably lose valuable time " breaking in" new clubs. I am 67 years old, for Vardon's sake!  I will use my Tour Blazers until the day I die!

[mvmac]

5 hours ago, PEZGolf said:

I never heard of PXG.

 

[Birdiechaser]

On 1/4/2016 at 0:48 PM, Golfingdad said:

 

This makes perfect sense based on history, and it works out pretty well for them as well. :)

 

   I dont believe Titleist has to throw boatloads of money to touring pros to promote their clubs ...  the quality of the clubs Titleist sells to the public at large is top notch , first rate & there are little to no gimmicks to convince anyone to buy and when the clubs do the talking the high dollar equipment contracts to pro's are not needed 

 

[natureboy]

On 1/7/2016 at 8:16 PM, mvmac said:

 

Good promo video. I think the senior engineer kinda looks like Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon.

[mvmac]

23 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Good promo video. I think the senior engineer kinda looks like Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon.

Yeah that's Mike Nicolette, really good player (one tour win) who was the top guy at PING for a number of years. Definitely some design similarities between PING and the PXG clubs.

[mchepp]

I am just waiting for PXG to send TST a set of clubs and I can volunteer for write the review. I know @mvmac will pick me! 

[mvmac]

7 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I am just waiting for PXG to send TST a set of clubs and I can volunteer for write the review. I know @mvmac will pick me! 

Just buy them, only $2,400 for a set of eight irons 

[newtogolf]

I've heard PXG is sending free sets to all celebrities that play golf, so don't be surprised if you see a lot of PXG bags are the Pro-Ams.

Bob Parsons can pay pro's whatever it takes to get them signed, he's got GoDaddy money.