Strong lofts

[RichA]

The information put out by manufacturers and various publishers says that modern, strong lofted game improvement irons have been engineered to deliver the same launch angle as their weaker lofted predecessors. Phrases like, "towering trajectory," are common. Supposedly they are easier to launch high but go further.

I'm finding, with my new Ping G425s, that I can only achieve trajectories like my old, weakly lofted irons, if I really go after it. When I really go after it, I'm more likely to make a poor strike. The poor strikes are marginally better than the old clubs, but surely that's not the only intended benefit for an average golfer.

The net result is that I'm yet to be convinced that they are improving my game.

Anybody "improvers" experiencing similar or proper golfers willing to impart an opinion?

 

[Orikoru]

I never know what to believe. Plenty of people believe that they simply strengthened lofts so they would go further than people's older clubs. Others believe their reasoning about lowering the loft to improve the ball flight. All I know is, I can't hit my 26° 6 iron, and my bag technically has five wedges in it, which I think is a bit silly. Whenever I get my next irons I would like to try slightly weaker lofts if I can, just to make things a bit more sensible.

 

[Bdill93]

Ive got the Wilson D9's and the lofts are so strong its a bit of a joke!

Ill be honest, on a clean strike they fly brilliantly - my bad shots spray wildly if im using my 6 or 5 but thats a swing issue - not the clubs.

I dont really see the need for strong lofts personally, its more of a gimmic in my eye to make some people feel like they hit the ball further, but, most game improvement irons these days seem to be following the same concept.

Biggest issue for me as ive stated in another thread, is the joke of a PW. 42 degrees of loft - leaving me a 10 degree gap to a commonly used gap wedge in my 52! I need a gap wedge for my gap wedge....

I dont see the strong loft being something that helps game improvement, I think the cavity and bounce is what makes the difference.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I've got a set of G400 irons. Personally I don't care what the number says on the bottom. I have a set of clubs with 4*ish gapping from my 58* wedge up. That works nicely for me.

The 7 iron in this set is pretty much the same loft and length as the 6 iron in my Callaway Diablo Forged. But I hit the ball further with the Ping. The Ping is also much more forgiving.

Now. The Callaway 6 iron is almost the 5 iron from my old Macgregor Blades. So loft jacking if you want call it that has been going on for a long time.

I have 4 wedges. But so what its just another club in a set. The name or number on the bottom is irrelevant. The PW and U could easily be called a 10 and 11 iron.
Don't get hung up on the number on the bottom.

The long irons are so easy to hit it feels like cheating.

 

[Orikoru]

I've got a set of G400 irons. Personally I don't care what the number says on the bottom. I have a set of clubs with 4*ish gapping from my 58* wedge up. That works nicely for me.

The 7 iron in this set is pretty much the same loft and length as the 6 iron in my Callaway Diablo Forged. But I hit the ball further with the Ping. The Ping is also much more forgiving.

Now. The Callaway 6 iron is almost the 5 iron from my old Macgregor Blades. So loft jacking if you want call it that has been going on for a long time.

I have 4 wedges. But so what its just another club in a set. The name or number on the bottom is irrelevant. The PW and U could easily be called a 10 and 11 iron.
Don't get hung up on the number on the bottom.

The long irons are so easy to hit it feels like cheating.

I partly agree but it is annoying from a financial point of view. I spent my money on a 5 to PW set, but two of those clubs live in the cupboard now, and I've still had to pay out for four additional wedges all bought individually. If the lofts weren't as strong, perhaps my 6 iron would be in the bag, and I've saved myself buying one of the wedges.

 

[sweaty sock]

I think its easy to get too indulged in the technical and forget about the result. Whatever the loft/length/lie/polymer insert, all it has to do is go the distance you expect and stop where you expect. It may be that you cant hit your 29 degree 7 iron as high as your 35 degree 7 iron, but as long as your 160 yard club goes 160 yards and stops on the green, who really cares?

Agree with your last point, fitters should really be doing a better job of fitting for yardages across the whole set....

 

[Crow]

More weight to the sole of the club = easier launch on mis-hits from the bottom grooves because the CoG is lower.
Perimeter weighting = less loss of distance on mis-hits left or right of sweet spot.
A centred strike from the sweet spot on a blade and a GI iron should have very similar launch angles for equal lofts.
"Hot" faces will give greater distance by increasing the trampoline effect, these have become much more common with thinner faces and hollow bodies.

Lofts on irons have been getting stronger since they started putting numbers on them, it's just that the increases have accelerated in the last 10 or 20 years to the point of being ridiculous.
In the 1930s irons stopped at a number 8 and the number 9 was your putter, the 8 iron would typically be around 50 to 52 degrees. Wedges weren't a thing then, but in the mid 1930s the sand iron was developed and gradually gained acceptance.
By the early 1950s the putter was a putter and a 9 iron had made it's appearance.
Wedges followed soon after, a single wedge called a double duty wedge that was used for bunkers and short game shots was a popular option.
By the 1960s most off the shelf sets comprised nine clubs; 3 to 9 iron with PW and SW, a 1 and 2 iron might be available as options.

The 1960s are, for me, the optimum date for iron lofts making complete sense:
SW = 56 deg
PW = 52 deg
9 iron = 48 deg
and so on in 4 degree steps to a 24 degree 3 iron
A 20 degree 2 iron might be available if you wanted one.

Not all 1960s sets came with these exact lofts but a good number of manufacturers were very close.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I am not an improver - might be the opposite. Whether I'm a proper golfer is debateable. Current HI is 3.4. Varied between 3.0 and 4.3 already this year.

Last three years I've been losing a bit of distance due to age.
Using Ping G10 3 and 4 iron and i10 5-PW and a Ping 52W. So I am due a change, I feel.
I used to hit my 3-iron over 200, now it is more like 195. The losses in distances decrease down the set to maybe only a yard or two with the PW and 52W.
Something with a stronger loft than my current 3-iron would not be a problem as I have no difficulty getting it up in the air.

What I would like to do now is go for a fitting with my agenda of,
"Give me 9 irons. I want the longest one to go 200 yards and the shortest one to go 100 yards with reasonably equal differences between clubs. I don't care what numbers and lofts you put on them. In fact I would prefer you just number them 1 to 9. I'm paying money for this fitting so if you can not do what I ask say now."

This is my idea of customer lead marketing.

 

[RichA]

I've got a set of G400 irons. Personally I don't care what the number says on the bottom. I have a set of clubs with 4*ish gapping from my 58* wedge up. That works nicely for me.

The 7 iron in this set is pretty much the same loft and length as the 6 iron in my Callaway Diablo Forged. But I hit the ball further with the Ping. The Ping is also much more forgiving.

Now. The Callaway 6 iron is almost the 5 iron from my old Macgregor Blades. So loft jacking if you want call it that has been going on for a long time.

I have 4 wedges. But so what its just another club in a set. The name or number on the bottom is irrelevant. The PW and U could easily be called a 10 and 11 iron.
Don't get hung up on the number on the bottom.

The long irons are so easy to hit it feels like cheating.

I get what you're saying. I'm not worried about the numbers on the bottom, but they are useful reference points.
My old 6 iron (my longest reliable iron for launching high and straight) was 32° and reliably carried about 160. That loft falls between my new 7 and 8 irons. The 7 is only going 160 if I crush it, and then only the 50% of decent strikes.
The reality I'm seeing is 1.5 clubs worth harder to launch for a slight increase in distance and minimal improvement in forgiveness. I haven't measured it, but I feel that any increase in distance is roll rather than carry. I'm certainly not dropping the ball on greens with tons of backspin and a near vertical descent. I didn't fall for the marketing and expect that to happen, but didn't imagine that the reality would be quite so different.
I'm going to have to hit a few shots side by side with the old and new set - comparing like for like lofts - just for curiosity's sake.
The net result is that my short game, which used to be my saving grace, is now all over the shop. If my negligible level of skill hadn't miraculously transferred itself to my driver and hybrids, I'd be screwed.

 

[RichA]

More weight to the sole of the club = easier launch on mis-hits from the bottom grooves because the CoG is lower.
Perimeter weighting = less loss of distance on mis-hits left or right of sweet spot.
A centred strike from the sweet spot on a blade and a GI iron should have very similar launch angles for equal lofts.
"Hot" faces will give greater distance by increasing the trampoline effect, these have become much more common with thinner faces and hollow bodies.

Lofts on irons have been getting stronger since they started putting numbers on them, it's just that the increases have accelerated in the last 10 or 20 years to the point of being ridiculous.
In the 1930s irons stopped at a number 8 and the number 9 was your putter, the 8 iron would typically be around 50 to 52 degrees. Wedges weren't a thing then, but in the mid 1930s the sand iron was developed and gradually gained acceptance.
By the early 1950s the putter was a putter and a 9 iron had made it's appearance.
Wedges followed soon after, a single wedge called a double duty wedge that was used for bunkers and short game shots was a popular option.
By the 1960s most off the shelf sets comprised nine clubs; 3 to 9 iron with PW and SW, a 1 and 2 iron might be available as options.

The 1960s are, for me, the optimum date for iron lofts making complete sense:
SW = 56 deg
PW = 52 deg
9 iron = 48 deg
and so on in 4 degree steps to a 24 degree 3 iron
A 20 degree 2 iron might be available if you wanted one.

Not all 1960s sets came with these exact lofts but a good number of manufacturers were very close.

I can't help thinking that my second hand (more likely third, fourth or fifth hand) Ping Eye 2 irons from the mid 80s, even though they were too short in the shaft and flat of lie, have ruined me for other clubs. Too far ahead of their time.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Agree with your last point, fitters should really be doing a better job of fitting for yardages across the whole set....

They should. But what are the customers asking for?

Someone further down has nailed it. As a consumer, you need to ask the fitters to fit you for the gaps you need.

I struggle to comprehend how someone can buy a set of irons and can't use 2 of them.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I get what you're saying. I'm not worried about the numbers on the bottom, but they are useful reference points.
My old 6 iron (my longest reliable iron for launching high and straight) was 32° and reliably carried about 160. That loft falls between my new 7 and 8 irons. The 7 is only going 160 if I crush it, and then only the 50% of decent strikes.
The reality I'm seeing is 1.5 clubs worth harder to launch for a slight increase in distance and minimal improvement in forgiveness. I haven't measured it, but I feel that any increase in distance is roll rather than carry. I'm certainly not dropping the ball on greens with tons of backspin and a near vertical descent. I didn't fall for the marketing and expect that to happen, but didn't imagine that the reality would be quite so different.
I'm going to have to hit a few shots side by side with the old and new set - comparing like for like lofts - just for curiosity's sake.
The net result is that my short game, which used to be my saving grace, is now all over the shop. If my negligible level of skill hadn't miraculously transferred itself to my driver and hybrids, I'd be screwed.

Apologies if I've missed it. But were you fit for the 425s?

 

[RichA]

Apologies if I've missed it. But were you fit for the 425s?

No apology needed. Yes. They were comfortably the best for me of the irons I tested, including slightly weaker lofted Mizunos, more similar to the old Eye 2s.
I'm always rubbish off a mat, so I find fittings difficult, but hoped that like new cars, shoes, bikes, once you get used to something that's built to your spec you'll get used it. Hopefully, I'm expecting too much too soon. This goes back to elements of differing views on the "Fitting" thread.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

No apology needed. Yes. They were comfortably the best for me of the irons I tested, including slightly weaker lofted Mizunos, more similar to the old Eye 2s.
I'm always rubbish off a mat, so I find fittings difficult, but hoped that like new cars, shoes, bikes, once you get used to something that's built to your spec you'll get used it. Hopefully, I'm expecting too much too soon. This goes back to elements of differing views on the "Fitting" thread.

I'm supprised that they are a struggle to hit. It almost sounds like you have the wrong shafts if you are struggling launch them. Which is why I asked about the fitting.

 

[Maninblack4612]

My view is that the longest club in your bag should be the one you can still hit reasonably well & get airborne. I went for 4 to GW when I was fitted. I recently discovered that my 4, 5, & 6 irons carried more or less the same distance due to less carry on the longer ones. I therefore had the lofts on these irons increased progressively so that I now have 4° gaps throughout, rather than some at 4° & some at 5°. Still need a gap wedge though after telling everyone that nobody needs more than three. ?

 

[sweaty sock]

They should. But what are the customers asking for?
.

Fitters should be the experts though? They should be asking questions and providing info so customers get what they need. Or understand the pitfalls of what they want

You shouldnt have to be an equipment expert, knowledgable, cat 1 golfer (Voyager...) before you're entitled to a decent iron fit!

 

[jim8flog]

I have a simple views the straighter the face the more likely it is that any side spin will exagerated.

The straighter the face the harder it will to hit in the first place - good loft and good distance only comes from a good hit.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Fitters should be the experts though? They should be asking questions and providing info so customers get what they need. Or understand the pitfalls of what they want

You shouldnt have to be an equipment expert, knowledgable, cat 1 golfer (Voyager...) before you're entitled to a decent iron fit!

With regards to current equipment and fitting procedures, I am the least knowledgeable (previously described as) cat 1 golfer you are likely to find.

 

[Buckbeak]

I think my club change has improved my game. Changed from Nike to Wilson D7 Forged last year and my HC has dropped and continuing to do so. Not sure if it’s in my head having more confidence the club is fitted for me or that I’m just swinging it better with more practice.

The strong lofts on the new clubs were bizarre at first. But after a while I just got used to my yardages for each. I don’t really think about what my playing partners are hitting from the same yardage.

However I must say, the ball comes off the club really well. High and handsome with a nice shape - mainly when the stars align and I hit a really good swing.

 

[Golfnut1957]

The information put out by manufacturers and various publishers says that modern, strong lofted game improvement irons have been engineered to deliver the same launch angle as their weaker lofted predecessors. Phrases like, "towering trajectory," are common. Supposedly they are easier to launch high but go further.

I'm finding, with my new Ping G425s, that I can only achieve trajectories like my old, weakly lofted irons, if I really go after it. When I really go after it, I'm more likely to make a poor strike. The poor strikes are marginally better than the old clubs, but surely that's not the only intended benefit for an average golfer.

The net result is that I'm yet to be convinced that they are improving my game.

Anybody "improvers" experiencing similar or proper golfers willing to impart an opinion?

I know exactly what you are on about. I've played a lot of blades over the years, more recently, Apex mb, MP4 and Wilson Staff model. With a blade how they launch a ball is significantly impacted by the CG location and not much else. The MP4 and Wilson's have a lower CG which helps with a higher launch the Apex have a slightly higher CG, so they launch lower, but they are more workable. The MP4 and Wilson's launch incredibly high.

I bought some Titleist 718 AP3 as I had always fancied them. They met your description perfectly, strong lofts configured for high launch and maximum distance. They were fitted with the Elevate shaft.

What a disappointment. The launch was significantly lower than a correspondingly lofted blade. I had no increase in distance whatever, but the dealbreaker was the total lack of feel, they just felt dead.

I genuinely believe that the whole thing is just marketing. First off they say that you don't need a 3 or 4, or even a 5 iron and go on to produce sets without those clubs, but charge you the same price as they did previously when it was 3-PW. Then they tell you that you need hybrids to fill the gaps, and sell them to you separately. Finally, they start selling you a set with a set with a 20 degree 4 iron and tell you that it's ok, the lofts aren't strong it's just to counteract the lower CG and incredibly high launch.