Selecting a shaft for my new irons

[rf53]

In another thread I asked members here to comment on how often they buy new irons. I did so because it has been quite a long time since I have purchased a new set, and I am starting to wonder if I an missing out on all this new technology? Interestingly enough, so far over 71% of the responses to my other thread stated that they wait 6-10 years (about 52+%) with approximately 18% saying they wait over 11 years. 

Anyway, since I am 13 years into my current set, I have been doing quite a bit of homework on new irons, and I have quickly noticed that many OEM's now offer very light shafts (105g, 95g, 90g, and even 85g) on their game improvement irons, but even some "players" iron sets are coming stock with lighter steel shafts. I assume that the reason for this is to help the average golfer achieve a higher launch angle, but I have also read that even some tour players are reducing the weight of their shafts.  

This has me bit confused. Based on a full static/dynamic fitting I had done years ago by a very reputable golf club fitter, I have been playing DG S300 shafts (130g). From the results of recent rounds I have played I still believe these shafts work for me. I am still getting a nice penetrating ball flight with the longer irons, and the short irons come in nice and high. Nevertheless, I think based on my age and the fact that my new irons will probably be with me for several years to come, I would like to explore new possibilities.

Before you rush to your keyboard to respond, "go get fitted again", I will say two things. First, there is a school of thought that posits the fact that dynamic fittings are a waste of time for amateurs because they rarely deliver the club to the ball with consistency. Second, I would love to avoid that time and expense based on what I already know. What I would like to discuss is the benefits, if any, to selecting a lighter steel shaft for my new iron set. Everything I know tells me I should not, and I have even read that heavier shafts promote more distance and better shot disbursement. The only experience I have with lighter shafts is that the other day I hit my buddy's Ping G's that come with an AWT 2.0 regular shaft (98g) and the 8 iron ballooned on me with no noticeable gain in distance. I would never think of going that light, but the thought has crossed my mind to reduce the weight to somewhere between 105 and 120.

Any thoughts?   

[Vinsk]

Well the thing is it’s not an exact science with standard settings that fit ‘x’ player. And shaft weight is only one component of what makes up a shaft and how it will affect your ball flight. If you feel you have good results with your DG S300 maybe a change isn’t necessary. Unfortunately you won’t realky know unless you try a more thorough experiment than hitting your friends club. Keep in mind many places will waive the cost of a fitting if you purchase a set of irons there. We’ve got some shaft gurus here who will help you more but I thought I’d mention my two cents. Cheers!

[rf53]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well the thing is it’s not an exact science with standard settings that fit ‘x’ player. And shaft weight is only one component of what makes up a shaft and how it will affect your ball flight. If you feel you have good results with your DG S300 maybe a change isn’t necessary. Unfortunately you won’t realky know unless you try a more thorough experiment than hitting your friends club. Keep in mind many places will waive the cost of a fitting if you purchase a set of irons there. We’ve got some shaft gurus here who will help you more but I thought I’d mention my two cents. Cheers!

I appreciate your response and I totally understand what you are saying. I am trying to educate myself as much as possible before making a decision. As for the places in my area that conduct a free fitting as long as you buy their clubs, I have a few of those retail outlets available. However, the 25 year old sales associate that conducts the fitting is just some guy who works there and has been taught how to run the launch monitor. Those places tend to rely pretty heavily on the static fitting and then they push the clubs/shafts that they have in stock, which tend to be outrageously overpriced as opposed to the prices one can find online. There are also some very knowledgeable golf shops around that charge big for their services. I used one of these years ago and I was happy with the results, but I am trying to avoid that expense this time around and piggyback on the old results plus some newly acquired knowledge...so here I am.   

[klineka]

You said you are 13 years into your current iron set. Most of the high end club fitters I see are around $150 for an iron fitting lasting around an hour and a half. (Club champion, TrueSpec, etc) 

If you plan to keep your next clubs for 10+ years too, that $150 spread out over the duration you own your clubs is less than $20 per year to know you are playing with irons that have been built to your exact swing and specifications.

I'd feel much more comfortable spending $1000+ on an iron set knowing they are fit exactly for me even if I have to pay an extra $150 up front. 

[rf53]

46 minutes ago, klineka said:

You said you are 13 years into your current iron set. Most of the high end club fitters I see are around $150 for an iron fitting lasting around an hour and a half. (Club champion, TrueSpec, etc) 

If you plan to keep your next clubs for 10+ years too, that $150 spread out over the duration you own your clubs is less than $20 per year to know you are playing with irons that have been built to your exact swing and specifications.

I'd feel much more comfortable spending $1000+ on an iron set knowing they are fit exactly for me even if I have to pay an extra $150 up front. 

Thanks, but I think you are not understanding my point, or perhaps I am not communicating it correctly. I have gone through a dynamic fitting. Based on that, I know that the standard for my 5 iron should be:

Length 38in, Lie 61 degrees read, Shaft DG S300 (130g), Swing Weight D2/D3, Grip .580 std. This all presupposes that I deliver my club to the ball in the same way I did that day forevermore, which is unlikely even from day to day.

In any case, I'm just wondering if I should consider any slight changes like reducing the shaft weight a little. I'm not sure I have to pay $150 to get an answer to that question and then receive a piece of paper with pretty much the same information as cited above..

So my questions are:

1. Why have OEM's reduced the weight of the shafts they are using over the last ten years?

2. Should I consider reducing the weight of the shaft I am using a few grams, or leave well enough alone?

[Adam C]

The OEMs are always looking for a way to get more distance out of clubs, and beyond flexing face technology, the other option is going lighter. Lighter shafts should give more distance but it will depend on the golfer. There are cases where that heavier S300 gives more distance but that assumes you possess the power to use it. I would say most golfers will be best fit in something in the 110-115g weight. I realize this is a generalization but runs pretty true in my experience. Everything else being equal the heavier shaft should offer more consistency, and launch lower with lower spin. This of course is not always what happens with a given golfer but is what you would usually expect.

The other reason why the shafts are lighter now is that they can be. That is to say that until recently lighter steel shafts were less reliable and consistent than heavy ones. Now shaft manufacturers can make lighter steel just as consistent as the heavy steel.

My recommendation is reshaft one or two clubs only with a lighter shaft. Maybe the 110 version of DG if you like the S300. Make sure whoever does it keeps the old shafts and returns them. If you like the new shafts, finish off the set. If not, just pull them and go back to the old ones. That is what I would do if you want to keep your current sticks.

[billchao]

5 hours ago, rf53 said:

I have gone through a dynamic fitting. Based on that, I know that the standard for my 5 iron should be:

Length 38in, Lie 61 degrees read, Shaft DG S300 (130g), Swing Weight D2/D3, Grip .580 std. This all presupposes that I deliver my club to the ball in the same way I did that day forevermore, which is unlikely even from day to day.

In any case, I'm just wondering if I should consider any slight changes like reducing the shaft weight a little.

I don't understand. You don't think there's a benefit to a fitting because the average golfer strikes the ball inconsistently? Then what difference would it make if you dropped a little weight from your shafts?

You really have to try it yourself and see how you react to different shaft weights. Yes there are generalizations, but I know from personal experience that sometimes people are anomalies and outcomes don't always end up as expected.

[grantec]

I've done the lighter shaft thing - it taught me a bit or two about tempo or l got some interesting results. Not a bad thing, but I went back to standard weight shafts after two seasons. 

My advice, for what it's worth (which isn't much), if you like S300, stick with it. It's what you know, and golf has too many other complications to keep you busy than to change up something so fundamental as the shaft... Especially if you already like a winner such as the S300. 

I'm partial to my original shaft, rp rifles. I got a new flighted matched set a few years ago on clearance and you can pry them out of my cold dead hands... Or until they start rusting, whichever comes first. I've been known to scour used shops for just those shafts so I can toss the heads and build the set I want. 

Fairways and greens... Doesn't matter how long your 7i goes, as long as you hit the short stuff. 

[klineka]

17 hours ago, rf53 said:

So my questions are:

1. Why have OEM's reduced the weight of the shafts they are using over the last ten years?

2. Should I consider reducing the weight of the shaft I am using a few grams, or leave well enough alone?

I dont have an answer to question #1, but if I had to guess, I'd say they reduced the weight to help people swing faster which can equal more distance, the lighter shaft might also help some people launch the ball higher, which would help combat the strong lofts that have been introduced

For #2, I would ask you a question in return. Are you currently getting the desired ball flight, distance, accuracy, etc with your current shafts? If so, I wouldnt change it. If you arent, then it might be worthwhile to change it. Although if you are going to start tweaking the shaft weight, buying a different shaft, etc at that point you might as well just go pay the $150 and get a full fitting that way you can try multiple different shaft/weight combinations quickly, and it can serve as reassurance that your specs havent change from the last time you got fit. If you're already going to spend $1000+ on a new iron set I dont understand the hesitation to spend another $100-150 to make sure they are properly dialed in for your swing, which I'm sure has changed some in the last 10+ years.

10 hours ago, grantec said:

Fairways and greens... Doesn't matter how long your 7i goes, as long as you hit the short stuff. 

It absolutely matters how long your 7i goes.

Par 3, 180 yds. Would you rather hit a 7 iron in or a 5 iron in? 

Instead of "Fairways and greens..." it should be "Distance and greens..." If you gave me the choice of 140yds left in the rough vs 170 left in the fairway, I'm choosing 140 in the rough every time (Assuming that it is open enough and you have a full swing/shot with each)

DJ only hits 58% of his fairways, Brooks only hits 56%, Tiger and Rory are at 55% yet they are all very successful and have either won this season or have runner up finishes. Hitting the fairway is overrated.

 

[rf53]

11 hours ago, billchao said:

I don't understand. You don't think there's a benefit to a fitting because the average golfer strikes the ball inconsistently? Then what difference would it make if you dropped a little weight from your shafts?

You really have to try it yourself and see how you react to different shaft weights. Yes there are generalizations, but I know from personal experience that sometimes people are anomalies and outcomes don't always end up as expected.

I guess it is your right not to understand, but the fact is, as I explained, that I have gone through a full fitting in the past. If you are suggesting that everyone should go through a full fitting everytime they buy a new set of clubs I would respectfully disagree. I am simply asking others who may have the knowledge, or others who have gone through the experience to comment on what the likely results of switching to a lighter shaft could be. Notwithstanding the fact that every swing is different, blah, blah, blah, there are constants. This is the perfect forum to explore such an issue. I knew when I posted this question that a cacophony of "go get fitted again" responses would be the likely result. Nevertheless, a few good suggestions have come in, and I look forward to hearing other observations.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, rf53 said:

I guess it is your right not to understand, but the fact is, as I explained, that I have gone through a full fitting in the past. If you are suggesting that everyone should go through a full fitting everytime they buy a new set of clubs I would respectfully disagree.

No, I thought you were saying that fittings don't really matter but were also worried about the effects of 10g difference in shafts. I couldn't wrap my head around how someone could think club fitting doesn't matter but the specs of the club do, you know what I mean?

I get what you're saying now.

2 hours ago, rf53 said:

I am simply asking others who may have the knowledge, or others who have gone through the experience to comment on what the likely results of switching to a lighter shaft could be. Notwithstanding the fact that every swing is different, blah, blah, blah, there are constants.

You still have to at least try them even if you're not going to get a fitting. Last time I did a fitting, I ended up switching to heavier and stiffer shafts to get more spin and a higher launch. It flies in the face of every "rule" about shaft fitting, but it had to do with my swing and transition, so I know for certain that the general effects of shaft flex and weight changes can't be applied across the board.

[grantec]

On 8/24/2018 at 6:30 AM, klineka said:

It absolutely matters how long your 7i goes.

Par 3, 180 yds. Would you rather hit a 7 iron in or a 5 iron in? 

Instead of "Fairways and greens..." it should be "Distance and greens..." If you gave me the choice of 140yds left in the rough vs 170 left in the fairway, I'm choosing 140 in the rough every time (Assuming that it is open enough and you have a full swing/shot with each)

DJ only hits 58% of his fairways, Brooks only hits 56%, Tiger and Rory are at 55% yet they are all very successful and have either won this season or have runner up finishes. Hitting the fairway is overrated.

 

I think you missed my overall point. 7 vs 5 iron distance is relative to the player and their abilities. A shaft change is not going to be a 2 club benefit unless you're hitting old hickory sticks.

I guess we play the game a little differently. I'll always remember getting paired up with a semi retired tour pro at a course called Silvertip in Canmore, AB a few years ago. Mountain course, world class views of the Canadian Rockies, lots of dramatic elevations, lots of target golf, and just generally not easy. He played from the tips and shot the easiest looking sub par round I've ever witnessed. His course management style was to aim for the 150 yard marker on every hole (where applicable), or the widest part of the fairway regardless if that meant driver or 3 iron on a par 4. Could he have saved a swing or two going for broke on every hole? Maybe... but he may have lost a few too and missed some of the views.

So in your scenario, I'd probably look for a third option... 150 yards from the fairway. I know I hit the rough enough without intentionally aiming for it 🙂

[klineka]

7 minutes ago, grantec said:

I think you missed my overall point. 7 vs 5 iron distance is relative to the player and their abilities.

Yes 7 iron vs 5 iron distance is relative to the player and their abilities, and good chances are, if player A's 7 iron goes as far as player B's 5 iron, more often than not player A will be the better player and will likely shoot better scores (Obviously assuming all other parts of their game are equal, just player A is 20 yds longer than player B)

Distance is more important than hitting the fairway. That's a fact. It's been proven and backed up by statistics. Just because you can site one example of a semi retired tour pro who can break par by laying up to the 150 marker doesnt prove your point of "Fairways and greens... Doesn't matter how long your 7i goes, as long as you hit the short stuff."

Lets discuss a hypothetical scenario. Youre about to play a 7400 yd PGA tour golf course. You have to choose one of the following two options

A - You get Dustin Johnson's long game (every shot from outside 100yds) and your short game

B - Your long game (every shot from outside 100 yds) and Dustin Johnson's short game

Which of those scenarios will allow you to consistently shoot better scores?

The answer should be quite obvious, which highlights my point further of how important distance is to your overall score.

[grantec]

18 minutes ago, klineka said:

Yes 7 iron vs 5 iron distance is relative to the player and their abilities, and good chances are, if player A's 7 iron goes as far as player B's 5 iron, more often than not player A will be the better player and will likely shoot better scores (Obviously assuming all other parts of their game are equal, just player A is 20 yds longer than player B)

Distance is more important than hitting the fairway. That's a fact. It's been proven and backed up by statistics. Just because you can site one example of a semi retired tour pro who can break par by laying up to the 150 marker doesnt prove your point of "Fairways and greens... Doesn't matter how long your 7i goes, as long as you hit the short stuff."

Lets discuss a hypothetical scenario. Youre about to play a 7400 yd PGA tour golf course. You have to choose one of the following two options

A - You get Dustin Johnson's long game (every shot from outside 100yds) and your short game

B - Your long game (every shot from outside 100 yds) and Dustin Johnson's short game

Which of those scenarios will allow you to consistently shoot better scores?

The answer should be quite obvious, which highlights my point further of how important distance is to your overall score.

My point to the original post is that a shaft change isn't going to make much difference unless the s300 fit him very poorly. Yes, there's benefit to hitting a 7i as far as others hit 5i, not contesting that, but that's not applicable to his question. He's already playing a top tier shaft that shouldn't be limiting him in any way. So yes, in the context of the original question it doesn't matter how far his 7i goes because he will likely hit equivalent distances before and after the equipment change. If he had said he was playing uniflex graphite shafts from 1994 my advice would have been different because he'd likely see noticeable distance and accuracy gains. My comment about 7i distance and fairways/greens was to say that if you already have a decent 7i that fits you well, you're probably better served learning to use it more accurately to hit fairways and greens more often to save strokes than to change up your shafts to maybe get an extra yard or two of distance. 

I like your hypothetical question - I think it's a bit contrived and setup for me to give you the answer you're looking for, but it also reminds me of playing Dubsdread from the tips so I'll entertain it! We had no business playing from the back tees, but the course was empty and we wanted to say that we did. On any other day we probably would have played up a set, but I don't recall being completely shut out of making the distance at any time. The biggest difference I recall is that I was using the bottom half of my irons instead of the top half on my approaches, and a few of the par 3's were really, really, long. It was humbling at times, and that's why I'm not on tour, and there's not a set of clubs I could buy or equipment change I could make that would change that.

I get the point you're trying to make with your question, and don't disagree that distance is important, but adequate distance for your relative playing ability (ie. handicap/tee box) with above average accuracy that gets you nice clean approaches and 2 putt par opportunities sounds pretty nice to me. I don't think many of us are playing the back tees on 7500 yard courses with our 10 handicaps on a regular basis. 

We're probably into semantics at this point and I think our fitting advice to the original question was very similar, so I'll say peace at this point. You and I play the game a little differently and that's ok - I'll stay focused on hitting the short stuff (ie. fairways and greens...), but still join you sometimes in beating the snot out of it if I can turn a par 5 into a par 4 🙂

Hit 'em straight! (or do you have a differing view on that too? Kidding!)

[Vinsk]

19 minutes ago, grantec said:

I get the point you're trying to make with your question,

I don’t think you do. 

 

21 minutes ago, grantec said:

adequate distance for your relative playing ability (ie. handicap/tee box) with above average accuracy that gets you nice clean approaches 

And this confirms my suspicion. Please just let the ingrained myth leave your mind. The closer you are to the hole the better your score. And distance is a measure of accuracy as well. If we both hit our drives on a straight par 4 in the middle of the fairway and I hit 300yds and you hit it 240yds who’s more accurate? It’s not an admission of being wrong. It’s not a nostalgic moment. It’s not asking you to give up a sentimental attachment. It’s a matter of applying logic and statistics to the fact that your ‘playing the short stuff’ is not the best way to improve your score.

[billchao]

3 hours ago, klineka said:

Yes 7 iron vs 5 iron distance is relative to the player and their abilities, and good chances are, if player A's 7 iron goes as far as player B's 5 iron, more often than not player A will be the better player and will likely shoot better scores (Obviously assuming all other parts of their game are equal, just player A is 20 yds longer than player B)

Distance is more important than hitting the fairway. That's a fact. It's been proven and backed up by statistics. Just because you can site one example of a semi retired tour pro who can break par by laying up to the 150 marker doesnt prove your point of "Fairways and greens... Doesn't matter how long your 7i goes, as long as you hit the short stuff."

Lets discuss a hypothetical scenario. Youre about to play a 7400 yd PGA tour golf course. You have to choose one of the following two options

A - You get Dustin Johnson's long game (every shot from outside 100yds) and your short game

B - Your long game (every shot from outside 100 yds) and Dustin Johnson's short game

Which of those scenarios will allow you to consistently shoot better scores?

The answer should be quite obvious, which highlights my point further of how important distance is to your overall score.

This is a bit OT, @klineka. We're not talking about theoretical distance vs accuracy here. @grantec is right, unless the S300 shafts really don't fit the OP, he's not going to see a two club increase from switching, so 7i vs 5i is irrelevant.

Shaft selection is about optimizing launch, spin, and dispersion. It generally has more effect on accuracy than distance.

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t think you do. 

 

And this confirms my suspicion. Please just let the ingrained myth leave your mind. The closer you are to the hole the better your score. And distance is a measure of accuracy as well. If we both hit our drives on a straight par 4 in the middle of the fairway and I hit 300yds and you hit it 240yds who’s more accurate? It’s not an admission of being wrong. It’s not a nostalgic moment. It’s not asking you to give up a sentimental attachment. It’s a matter of applying logic and statistics to the fact that your ‘playing the short stuff’ is not the best way to improve your score.

[grantec]

15 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t think you do. 

 

And this confirms my suspicion. Please just let the ingrained myth leave your mind. The closer you are to the hole the better your score. And distance is a measure of accuracy as well. If we both hit our drives on a straight par 4 in the middle of the fairway and I hit 300yds and you hit it 240yds who’s more accurate? It’s not an admission of being wrong. It’s not a nostalgic moment. It’s not asking you to give up a sentimental attachment. It’s a matter of applying logic and statistics to the fact that your ‘playing the short stuff’ is not the best way to improve your score.

You forgot to include the last half of my statement in your quote. I said that it "sounds nice to me", not that it is "is the best way to lower your score". So I'm not sure what I confirmed for you, but it had nothing to do with what I said. I was never talking about the best way to shoot lower scores, I was talking about a shaft change from an s300 and impact on the ops game. But to help get back on topic and quit debating the secondary discussion, I'll confirm for you that I do believe hitting the ball as far as you possibly can all the time with reasonable dispersion (very important) will gain you more strokes per round than going for the fairway but being 60 yards back. However, that's a drastically different shot difference than I was suggesting and I think I basically confirmed what I'm being harped on for when I said my playing partner could have gained a few strokes by going for broke on every hole vs. going for the 150 marker. He just happened to like a 150 approach so it worked for his game, and he was out to enjoy the day, not win a purse. Similarly, my desire to be in the fairway more often than not has nothing to do with how far I can hit the ball or the theoretical stroke benefit I'd get from swinging at 110mph vs. 105 (not considering random variability in conditions or my play that day as a 10 handicap). I will not object if you want to swing for the hills every time, I just tend to enjoy the round more when I'm swinging more controlled, hitting more fairways, and still hitting my approaches with wedges not mid irons. Hence, "fairways and greens" nothing wrong with that.