PXG signs Zach Johnson, Billy Horschel and other pros

[saevel25]

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.

 

[Mr. Desmond]

I had previously heard that Zach was only going to play a 60 wedge -- this sounds like a lot more.

Looks as if PXG took Titleist, Callaway, TM, and Ping staffers ... there's probably a Cobra in there somewhere...

Edited January 4, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[iacas]

Titleist often loses guys.

Phil, Ernie, Tiger, Davis… the list is long. They often leave when they get too expensive. I've always had the impression Titleist cares more about weekly totals than having any one particular standout player.

I had heard Spieth was heavily courted by PXG but may have turned them down. After the season he had, that would have been wise.

[SavvySwede]

I remember seeing the images for their irons not too long ago. Just checked their website it appears every club in their lineup is riddled with Torx screws.

2 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I had previously heard that Zach was only going to play a 60 wedge -- this sounds like a lot more.

Looks as if PXG took Titleist, Callaway, TM, and Ping staffers ... there's probably a Cobra in there somewhere...

 

The whole bag except the putter it seems

[Mr. Desmond]

9 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

I remember seeing the images for their irons not too long ago. Just checked their website it appears every club in their lineup is riddled with Torx screws.

 

The whole bag except the putter it seems

Even though I do not keep up with equipment as I once did, my former clubmaker is a Parsons dealer - so I see the images on facebook. If you're an excellent player, fine tuning with the weights should help dial in your game. For the rest of us, I do not see the advantage in the irons - but possibilities in the wedges and driver with the weighting. The only similarity between Zach and me is driver length -- 45.25.... lol

[mvmac]

Only player I was really surprised at was Zach Johnson. Just because he has been a Titleist guy for so long, doesn't switch clubs every year and has been successful.

Would love to know how much each player signed for.

2 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I had previously heard that Zach was only going to play a 60 wedge

I assume that was just in there for testing while he still had to honor his Titleist deal. Like with Horschel and the PXG fairway woods he has in the bag.

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

I've always had the impression Titleist cares more about weekly totals than having any one particular standout player.

Yep, it's part of their marketing strategy to "seed" a bunch of players, along with making sure they dominate the ball count, and I think they just dislike the idea of giving one "name" player a bunch of money. 

[natureboy]

I just looked up this club's construction. Do the equipment rules specify a maximum trampoline effect for irons as well as metal woods?

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I've always had the impression Titleist cares more about weekly totals than having any one particular standout player.

 

51 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Yep, it's part of their marketing strategy to "seed" a bunch of players, along with making sure they dominate the ball count, and I think they just dislike the idea of giving one "name" player a bunch of money. 

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

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I just looked up this club's construction. Do the equipment rules specify a maximum trampoline effect for irons as well as metal woods?

No.

I think the limit on the CoR thing is 15°.

Which is fine, because who wants a 7I that goes 167 one time, 179 the next time, and then 154 the third time, all because you hit it on slightly different parts of the clubface?

[natureboy]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

No.

I think the limit on the CoR thing is 15°.

Which is fine, because who wants a 7I that goes 167 one time, 179 the next time, and then 154 the third time, all because you hit it on slightly different parts of the clubface?

How do you know if a possible trampoline effect on the face of one of these or another thin faced iron wouldn't be by design fairly uniform across the likely ample sweetspot?

Quote

So let’s say we have two golfers, one with a 65mph middle iron speed and the other with an 85mph iron speed. If both golfers switch from a traditional thick face lower COR iron to one with a high COR, for the 5 iron the 65mph player could expect to see a carry distance increase in the order of 5-6 yds while the 85mph player would see that COR increase give him 10-12 yds more carry. - Tom Wishon

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

How do you know if a possible trampoline effect on the face of one of these or another thin faced iron wouldn't be by design fairly uniform across the likely ample sweetspot?

Because the sweet spot is one place on the golf club. It's an infinitely small spot. It's a point.

Distance and the trampoline effect would not be constant across the face of an iron. It's not even across the face of a driver, and going above 0.83 would simply increase the range of variability. We don't care as much about that range of variability with the driver because… we aren't trying to hit it a precise number, like we are with our irons.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

How do you know if a possible trampoline effect on the face of one of these or another thin faced iron wouldn't be by design fairly uniform across the likely ample sweetspot?

It can't be designed that way. It's the reason why the one of the thicker parts of the driver is the center of the clubface. 

The primary issue is still consistent ball speeds, predictability and club feel. In the end I rather take a 5-10 yard loss to my irons if it tightens up my vertical dispersion. Meaning if I average 175 with a 7 iron, I would rather take 170 with the 7 iron if it means the standard deviation of my shots is smaller. 

I contest that modern super game improvement irons that have a lot higher COR produce a wide range of ball flights that are not conducive to better players. 

[Phil McGleno]

Yeah-What those two said.

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

How do you know if a possible trampoline effect on the face of one of these or another thin faced iron wouldn't be by design fairly uniform across the likely ample sweetspot?

Iron technology is not a place where anybody really cares for or needs extra distance.  That comes in the woods and technique.  With irons, all we strive for is consistent distance.  So even if you changed Erik's numbers from 167, 179 and 154 to 167, 174 and 159, the point still stands.  Iron tech should be about mitigating the variations caused by inconsistent contact, not exacerbating it.

If I'm 235-240 yards out on a par 5 or long par 4 and there is trouble behind the green, then I probably am stuck hitting a hybrid that, perhaps 7 or 8 times out of 10, will not reach the green, even though a perfectly struck hybrid may only go 230 and my average hybrid is more like 215-220.  This even with an average 3 wood distance of probably something close to 230, simply because of the possibility of the perfectly struck 3 wood going 245-250 and OB. If we introduced that type of variation into irons, then we're taking a step back and screwing with peoples games.

I see @iacas and @saevel25 have both already answered but this took me a few minutes so I'm not deleting it! 

[natureboy]

38 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because the sweet spot is one place on the golf club. It's an infinitely small spot. It's a point.

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?

Quote

Distance and the trampoline effect would not be constant across the face of an iron. It's not even across the face of a driver, and going above 0.83 would simply increase the range of variability. We don't care as much about that range of variability with the driver because… we aren't trying to hit it a precise number, like we are with our irons.

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.

 

37 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The primary issue is still consistent ball speeds, predictability and club feel. In the end I rather take a 5-10 yard loss to my irons if it tightens up my vertical dispersion. Meaning if I average 175 with a 7 iron, I would rather take 170 with the 7 iron if it means the standard deviation of my shots is smaller.

Good point. Me too. I'd just take a longer club. But might being able to hit farther with the same loft (without de-lofting) gain you something in stopping power that might improve your shot patterns?

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?

Quote

I contest that modern super game improvement irons that have a lot higher COR produce a wide range of ball flights that are not conducive to better players. 

Possibly true. I don't know. I went with irons that have only minimal GI features, because I wanted some 'negative' feedback on poor strikes for practice. But aren't some pros now putting clubs with some of these GI features in their bags at the top end of the set?

Edited January 5, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

1 minute 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?

Not really. Its more ball speed retention over lateral dispersion.

3 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.

The more slower the clubhead speed the more game improvement the longer irons need to be. With slow swing speeds they just can't  produce enough ball speed to maintain the flight on longer irons. This is why hybrids have become so popular with older golfers and women golfers. In the short irons it doesn't matter. 

5 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?

They deloft the club because they want to hit down on the ball for the irons. If you move the ball back in the stance from where the club bottoms out (typically near the lead armpit), then you are delofting the club. They are not doing it on purpose on their stock shot. It's just a natural thing due to how you should hit an iron. 

 

[natureboy]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not really. Its more ball speed retention over lateral dispersion.

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

Edited January 5, 2016 by natureboy

[Phil McGleno]

17 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?

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.