Robster59
Tour Rookie
Agreed. Same as with Coke Zero and Irn-Bru Xtra. They certainly don't taste the same.
What does forgiving actually mean in golf clubs?
- Thread starter phillarrow
- Start date
Robster59
Tour Rookie
You're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?
phillarrow
Well-known member
Annoyed is a strange word to use?? I'm curious as to what the word 'forgiveness' is supposed to mean, not annoyed by it??
In terms of traditional lofts, I would define it as a 7I being 34 degrees rather than 30 (or even 28).
And in terms of buying something, that is why I am asking the question.
I am in the market for new irons later this year and much prefer the top-down look of blades/players irons, compared with my current Ping G irons. However, I will play whatever set is best for me. My definition of 'best' is the set that gives the tightest front to back dispersion on all but total mishits, I'm not interested in what the number on the bottom of the club says or how far the seven iron actually carries. The marketing would suggest that I should stay in a set like my G irons, but other evidence suggests that what I might need is a players iron. I'm curious as to the experience/knowledge of others on this subject, I'm most definitely not annoyed by it?
Britishshooting
Club Champion
I certainly wouldn't attribute front/back dispersion as 'forgiveness' albeit imo the most important result from an iron. I also don't think data from high handicappers / playing left handed when right helps. If anything you want somebody highly consistent so you can get a solid comparison of what each club is doing differently with somewhat of a consistent input. If bothing else however it shows anyone can hit a blade or GI to a certain level.
I like the TXG guys stuff before Matty left as he is like a robot at times and he really does highlight the comparisons between different set-ups.
I recall from a video they did blade vs GI and it yielded the results you'd expect (both clubs bent to same loft with same shaft).
GI - Faster ball speeds by almost 2mph on a 6 iron with a lower standard deviation
GI - Higher Launch Angle and More BackSpin
GI - Peak height was 12ft higher
GI - Carry was 3 yards more and had a front back dispersion of 3 yards rather than 4 yards of the blade.
I genuinely believe other than maintaining higher ball speeds with the GI that each club just has characteristics which suit some players better than others.
Give me a GI and i'd hit it much worse than the blade. The huge offset and massive sole just do not suit me. I like minimal offset and my turf interaction is much better with a narrow sole than a GI / Large Cavity sole.
Give someone a blade and they may really struggle due to lack of some of the aforementioned characteristics driven by design features.
I like the TXG guys stuff before Matty left as he is like a robot at times and he really does highlight the comparisons between different set-ups.
I recall from a video they did blade vs GI and it yielded the results you'd expect (both clubs bent to same loft with same shaft).
GI - Faster ball speeds by almost 2mph on a 6 iron with a lower standard deviation
GI - Higher Launch Angle and More BackSpin
GI - Peak height was 12ft higher
GI - Carry was 3 yards more and had a front back dispersion of 3 yards rather than 4 yards of the blade.
I genuinely believe other than maintaining higher ball speeds with the GI that each club just has characteristics which suit some players better than others.
Give me a GI and i'd hit it much worse than the blade. The huge offset and massive sole just do not suit me. I like minimal offset and my turf interaction is much better with a narrow sole than a GI / Large Cavity sole.
Give someone a blade and they may really struggle due to lack of some of the aforementioned characteristics driven by design features.
Last edited:
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
That's what a fitting is for. Tracking loads of shots and seeing which one gives you that consistency. Try before you buy
Foxholer
Blackballed
It's the weight of the head that defines 6, 7 or whatever.! Here's typical values, though a small amount of variance exists.
3i: 240g
4i: 247g
5i: 254g
6i: 261g
7i: 268g
8i: 275g
9i: 282g
PW: 289g
FWIW. The value I stated earlier appears different from those above. From ancient memory, My Miuras 7is - both Blades and CBs were as above 268gm +/- 2gm.
By placing more weight lower down, the flight of any iron can be adjusted, so delofted 7-iron can have the same peak height as previous 7 irons.
Peak height also depends on spin, so would be an entirely arbitrary attribute to use!
Last edited:
sweaty sock
Hacker
hybrids have come along, you know, easier to hit
We all agree that a modern hybrid is near identical to a vintage 5 wood though? Don't we...?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Why not call it what it really is...least (though tightest is ok) distance dispersion!
phillarrow
Well-known member
A) Because what difference does it make, its not as if my choice of words is ambiguous?
B) Because I was specifically making the distinction between 'left to right dispersion' and 'front to back dispersion'. Whilst trying to be clear that I'm not talking about left to right dispersion, my mind went to the opposite of that which naturally settled on "front to back".
C) See A! ?
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Annoyed is a strange word to use?? I'm curious as to what the word 'forgiveness' is supposed to mean, not annoyed by it??
In terms of traditional lofts, I would define it as a 7I being 34 degrees rather than 30 (or even 28).
And in terms of buying something, that is why I am asking the question.
I am in the market for new irons later this year and much prefer the top-down look of blades/players irons, compared with my current Ping G irons. However, I will play whatever set is best for me. My definition of 'best' is the set that gives the tightest front to back dispersion on all but total mishits, I'm not interested in what the number on the bottom of the club says or how far the seven iron actually carries. The marketing would suggest that I should stay in a set like my G irons, but other evidence suggests that what I might need is a players iron. I'm curious as to the experience/knowledge of others on this subject, I'm most definitely not annoyed by it?
You may not be annoyed, but did come across as a bit irritated. I may have read that wrong, so apologies. But there are people on here who are genuinely annoyed by anything new.
Like you. I don’t care how far each club goes, the number on the bottom is irrelevant. I have 14 clubs that cover the gaping I need. My new irons are about half a club shorter than the ones they replaced.
sunshine
Well-known member
For a lot of iron manufacturers, forgiving = weighting the clubhead to help people with slower swing speeds to get the ball airborne. Get a pro with a fast swing speed to hit graphite shafted super game improvement irons and we will see moon balls.
sunshine
Well-known member
I don't understand some of the comments about front to back gaping. Sounds like they belong on an adult forum.
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
Not in the slightest. I still struggle with modern woods off the deck, a hybrid is nothing like a 5 wood
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
I’m more interested in reducing left to right dispersion. Taking properly miss hit shots out of the equation. Typically Left to right dispersion will be bigger then from to back.
Foxholer
Blackballed
But that would be inconsistent with the concept of 'same peak height for a particular numbered iron' suggested by @phillarrow
Robster59
Tour Rookie
No, definitely not. Hybrids are easier off the deck than a vintage 5 wood from my personal experience.
sweaty sock
Hacker
Any data to support?
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
Robster59
Tour Rookie
How about playing golf for 50 years and using both old and current clubs. It's called experience. That is why I used the term "personal experience". They didn't really have Trackman in those days.
Let's switch it around. Have YOU any data to support all the statements you have been making?
I refer you to my question in Post #42.
Crow
Crow Person
Differences between GI irons and blades for me are as follows:
Size:
GI clubs are bigger, this can be a huge factor if you're not hitting the ball well or if changing from GI to blades.
Bigger heads mean you have more leeway before you're getting towards the edge of the club..... or the hosel!
It also helps with MOI as more weight can be put towards the perimeter, away from the sweet spot.
Loft:
GI clubs are generally stronger lofted, this doesn't affect forgiveness in any way but can inspire confidence as the user thinks that they're longer than their old blades, but on the downside they have to buy extra wedges.
Face trampoline effect:
This is probably the element that contributes most to the OPs concerns about distance.
Modern GI clubs tend to have hot faces (high trampoline effect) which can produce the occasional shot that goes much further than normal.
It used to be that blades were a one piece lump of solid metal, cast or forged, and they were very predictable. More and more modern blades, however, are going to multi material and hollow head construction with thin faces which allows the manufacturers to increase the trampoline effect and squeeze some extra yardage out, after all, distance is everything isn't it?
Perimeter weighting:
This is probably how a GI club is most easily recognised, a cavity back with weight moved to the perimeter. This doesn't increase the size of the sweet spot, that's a spot and doesn't have a size as such, but it does mean that strikes away from the sweet spot will lose less speed than a true blade. But this is where the waters are being muddied. Many modern blades are now multi-material with tungsten weights in the heel and toe or hollow headed with disguised perimeter weighting that you can't see as it's inside the hollow head.
Again a true blade is a single, solid piece of metal.
To answer the OP I'd say that the most forgiving and consistent club you could use would be an older GI club without a hot face, but the very movement of weight to the perimeter tends to create a thinner face which leads to the trampoline effect so look for one without too thin a face.
The least forgiving clubs are those with small heads and weight concentrated behind the sweet spot, these were produced back in the early part of the 20th century but luckily it was recognised that they weren't doing what was hoped and the design was dropped.
Three examples below:
Solid, predictable GI club; 1970s Ryder Heel Toe (easy to find for little money on ebay)
Diamond back, hickory iron, weight concentrated at the sweet spot
Centre weighted blade; 1950s Slazenger STM (an older model so not very easy to find)
Size:
GI clubs are bigger, this can be a huge factor if you're not hitting the ball well or if changing from GI to blades.
Bigger heads mean you have more leeway before you're getting towards the edge of the club..... or the hosel!
It also helps with MOI as more weight can be put towards the perimeter, away from the sweet spot.
Loft:
GI clubs are generally stronger lofted, this doesn't affect forgiveness in any way but can inspire confidence as the user thinks that they're longer than their old blades, but on the downside they have to buy extra wedges.
Face trampoline effect:
This is probably the element that contributes most to the OPs concerns about distance.
Modern GI clubs tend to have hot faces (high trampoline effect) which can produce the occasional shot that goes much further than normal.
It used to be that blades were a one piece lump of solid metal, cast or forged, and they were very predictable. More and more modern blades, however, are going to multi material and hollow head construction with thin faces which allows the manufacturers to increase the trampoline effect and squeeze some extra yardage out, after all, distance is everything isn't it?
Perimeter weighting:
This is probably how a GI club is most easily recognised, a cavity back with weight moved to the perimeter. This doesn't increase the size of the sweet spot, that's a spot and doesn't have a size as such, but it does mean that strikes away from the sweet spot will lose less speed than a true blade. But this is where the waters are being muddied. Many modern blades are now multi-material with tungsten weights in the heel and toe or hollow headed with disguised perimeter weighting that you can't see as it's inside the hollow head.
Again a true blade is a single, solid piece of metal.
To answer the OP I'd say that the most forgiving and consistent club you could use would be an older GI club without a hot face, but the very movement of weight to the perimeter tends to create a thinner face which leads to the trampoline effect so look for one without too thin a face.
The least forgiving clubs are those with small heads and weight concentrated behind the sweet spot, these were produced back in the early part of the 20th century but luckily it was recognised that they weren't doing what was hoped and the design was dropped.
Three examples below:
Solid, predictable GI club; 1970s Ryder Heel Toe (easy to find for little money on ebay)
Diamond back, hickory iron, weight concentrated at the sweet spot
Centre weighted blade; 1950s Slazenger STM (an older model so not very easy to find)
