What does forgiving actually mean in golf clubs?

fundy

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
27,026
Location
Herts/Beds border
Visit site
Can you name any set of clubs that are in the GI or SGI category that have traditional lofts? I've looked and can't find any??

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the ball flight because that is exactly why the manufacturers have moved weight to the bottom of the club. Modern seven irons are designed to fly at the same peak height as traditional seven irons, despite having the loft of an old six iron. It is the peak height that the manufacturers use to 'define' a club as a particular iron - 7, 6, 5 etc.


depend what you call traditional lofts, not sure there are actually any clubs these days that have lofts of clubs from 50 years ago

The Orka CTI are probably as close as you will get in a GI iron with the PW at 46 and 4 degree gaps down from there (2 degrees less than their MBs for eg)
 

sweaty sock

Hacker
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
1,147
Visit site
Yeah of course I have, gear effect on old wooden woods would make you think a straight shot was impossible, but, we all still managed to hit greens, we all still managed to score...

We're treating the question like theres been a massive shift in the game, I dont think there has been, and handicaps and scores are the same... so for all the "its so much easier" why are we not seeing golfers improve? My point is that while it may seem easier to hit better shots, the data doesnt support that.

Well, i dont think it does? I would be interested in any data that supports it...
 

sweaty sock

Hacker
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
1,147
Visit site
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. :rolleyes:
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.

Ofcourse I have played with wooden woods, for nearly all the 80s and most of the 90s, and yes the gear effect on wooden clubs could nearly bend the ball behind you, but, we all still hit greens we all still hit fairways, the data to support my statements are the handicaps and scores of golfers the world over. Theyve not improved, despite better greens, etc etc etc. So as much forgiveness as new clubs provide, golfers arent playing any better, so data would suggest the forgiveness makes little or no difference....
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
5,138
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
:LOL::LOL:

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?
I would define a traditionally lofted 7-iron to be 38 degrees. At least, that would be typical from the 1970s to the 1990s.

Typical Iron Lofts.
2 18d
3 22d
4 26d
5 30d
6 34d
7 38d
8 42d
9 46d
PW 52d
SW 58d
I've taken those numbers from Bradbeer and Morrison, The Golf Handbook, published in 1997.

Ten years later and my Ping i10 PW is 46d. A whole club different. And so it is continuing.

Lofts have been getting stronger and stronger so that we need lots of names for the more lofted clubs AW, GW, etc,
What's wrong with numbers 10,11,12?
Or we could go back to calling the 4-iron a 2-iron etc . This would make more sense to me.

My set of Forgan blades from circa 1961

SDC11306.JPG

As these are older, they are even more lofted than the above figures. The 7-iron is the same shaft length and loft as a Sim Max 9-iron.
The 9-iron is 49d and the 10-iron (PW) is 54d.

I find them to be as forgiving as my Ping i10s.

Good shots are equally good, poor shots are equally poor.
Off the toe or thinned - sometimes get away with it - sometimes not - same with both sets.
Newer clubs have better shafts and not so worn-out faces - that does make some difference to distance, spin etc.

My verdict on "forgiveness"?
Purely subjective.
Everyone entitled to their own view or definition.
Doesn't mean much to me.

If I hit a poor shot with the a Forgan blade it might not reach the bunker on the front right of the green. But a more forgiving club and the ball reaches the bunker. Have I got that correct?
 

sweaty sock

Hacker
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
1,147
Visit site
Ofcourse I have played with wooden woods, for nearly all the 80s and most of the 90s, and yes the gear effect on wooden clubs could nearly bend the ball behind you, but, we all still hit greens we all still hit fairways, the data to support my statements are the handicaps and scores of golfers the world over. Theyve not improved, despite better greens, etc etc etc. So as much forgiveness as new clubs provide, golfers arent playing any better, so data would suggest the forgiveness makes little or no difference....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.go...uch-golfers-have-improved-in-recent-years/amp

Ahhh balls, I was sure I'd seen conflicting data....

So yeah, if you have clubs from the late 90s, todays clubs (lets say nothing else has changed) could improve you by 2 shots. 2.5 shots max...

Unless your a woman, then its 4 shots max...
 
Last edited:

phillarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
496
Visit site
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! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
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)

View attachment 40950View attachment 40953View attachment 40951

Great post! Thanks for this.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,785
Location
Canary Wharf
Visit site
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.go...uch-golfers-have-improved-in-recent-years/amp

Ahhh balls, I was sure I'd seen conflicting data....

So yeah, if you have clubs from the late 90s, todays clubs (lets say nothing else has changed) could improve you by 2 shots. 2.5 shots max...

Unless your a woman, then its 4 shots max...

Fair play for posting a contradicting article (y)

I would hazard a guess that with the increased accessibility of golf. Players with a handicap has increased, and would bring the average index up. No data, just a guess!

As for me, I used beautiful Tiger woods blades. I enjoy my golf much more with p770's.
 

evemccc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,594
Visit site
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! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
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)

View attachment 40950View attachment 40953View attachment 40951

Really interesting info Crow person ?
 

Crow

Crow Person
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
9,010
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.go...uch-golfers-have-improved-in-recent-years/amp

Ahhh balls, I was sure I'd seen conflicting data....

So yeah, if you have clubs from the late 90s, todays clubs (lets say nothing else has changed) could improve you by 2 shots. 2.5 shots max...

Unless your a woman, then its 4 shots max...

Could that be down to the more "flexible" approach to scoring used in the US?
Mulligans, drops to the side rather than stroke and distance, gimmees within 10 feet, etc, etc.
Very few people enter organised handicap competitions such as monthly medals or Stablefords in the US.
 

phillarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
496
Visit site
But that would be inconsistent with the concept of 'same peak height for a particular numbered iron' suggested by @phillarrow :rolleyes::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but I think you're incorrect. As far as I am aware, there is no standard set weight for the heads of irons. Have a look at this for one example and note the use of the word "about" when discussing iron head weights.

https://www.onthegolfgreen.com/how-much-do-golf-clubs-weigh/

You may not wish to believe it, but golf manufacturers do define their clubs by using peak height under normalised conditions. Their goal in recent years has been to produce a 7 iron that has the same normalised peak height as previous 7 irons, but goes longer, descends sharper, and travels more consistently. Going back to the original point you made, a modern seven iron does not fly like an old six iron, it flies like an old seven iron (i.e. has the same normalised peak height) but carries further.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,785
Location
Canary Wharf
Visit site
You may not wish to believe it, but golf manufacturers do define their clubs by using peak height under normalised conditions. Their goal in recent years has been to produce a 7 iron that has the same normalised peak height as previous 7 irons, but goes longer, descends sharper, and travels more consistently. Going back to the original point you made, a modern seven iron does not fly like an old six iron, it flies like an old seven iron (i.e. has the same normalised peak height) but carries further.

I'm not sure about this, all my irons from pw-5 peak at around the same height of 85ft

Screenshot 2022-02-03 at 17.21.08.png
 

Foxholer

Blackballed
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
24,160
Visit site
I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but I think you're incorrect. As far as I am aware, there is no standard set weight for the heads of irons. Have a look at this for one example and note the use of the word "about" when discussing iron head weights.

https://www.onthegolfgreen.com/how-much-do-golf-clubs-weigh/

You may not wish to believe it, but golf manufacturers do define their clubs by using peak height under normalised conditions. Their goal in recent years has been to produce a 7 iron that has the same normalised peak height as previous 7 irons, but goes longer, descends sharper, and travels more consistently. Going back to the original point you made, a modern seven iron does not fly like an old six iron, it flies like an old seven iron (i.e. has the same normalised peak height) but carries further.
Be happy then! :rolleyes::ROFLMAO:

In spite of those weights being different from the ones I've seen and quoted, they are very specific - which indicates standardisation. I've actually seen the same values elsewhere too.
I'm not disagreeing with you about what may be the design goals of normalising peak height of 'new' irons with previous models, simply your assertion that that is how each iron head is defined!
My assertion is that a lump of metal of a standard weight is moulded to a shape that achieves the design goals!
 
Last edited:

HomerJSimpson

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
70,408
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
Visit site
For my tuppence worth a GI club will simply eek out a few more yards off a toe or heel strike compared to a more bladed model. Is it quantifiable? Not really as it is simply golfer individual and what they bring to each strike although front to back dispersion will change. It is definitely a marketing phrase that has been there since way back. I can remember when clubs like the Ping Eye came out and people cottoned onto more cavity backs in the early 80's it was all about "forgiveness" and nothing much has changed
 

RichA

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
3,160
Location
UK
Visit site
For my tuppence worth a GI club will simply eek out a few more yards off a toe or heel strike compared to a more bladed model. Is it quantifiable? Not really as it is simply golfer individual and what they bring to each strike although front to back dispersion will change. It is definitely a marketing phrase that has been there since way back. I can remember when clubs like the Ping Eye came out and people cottoned onto more cavity backs in the early 80's it was all about "forgiveness" and nothing much has changed
I honestly think some of you guys are too good at golf too appreciate the forgiveness.
Sample size of 1, I know, but 18 months ago I was hacking around with my 40 year old Mizuno blades and Ping Eye 2 irons, celebrating sub-100 rounds. 3 months into owning the G425s and I was just one screwed up tee shot from breaking 80. Now I'm playing off 15, with nothing to explain it other than the clubs.
Another major difference we haven't mentioned is recovery. A year ago, if my tee shot went into the rough (shin deep at our place, not the stuff that hasn't been mowed for a week at the better clubs), I would've been taking my medicine and hacking sideways towards the fairway. Now I'm reasonably confident that I can smash my 9 iron 150 yards towards the green. That is possibly a bigger game changer than the fairway forgiveness for guys like me, who expect their 3rd shot to be a wedge into the green rather than a birdie putt
 
Last edited:

phillarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
496
Visit site
Be happy then! :rolleyes::ROFLMAO:

In spite of those weights being different from the ones I've seen and quoted, they are very specific - which indicates standardisation. I've actually seen the same values elsewhere too.
I'm not disagreeing with you about what may be the design goals of normalising peak height of 'new' irons with previous models, simply your assertion that that is how each iron head is defined!
My assertion is that a lump of metal of a standard weight is moulded to a shape that achieves the design goals!

Turns out it made me less happy than I thought it would. ??
I stand corrected! ?
 

HomerJSimpson

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
70,408
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
Visit site
I honestly think some of you guys are too good at golf too appreciate the forgiveness.
Sample size of 1, I know, but 18 months ago I was hacking around with my 40 year old Mizuno blades and Ping Eye 2 irons, celebrating sub-100 rounds. 3 months into owning the G425s and I was just one screwed up tee shot from breaking 80. Now I'm playing off 15, with nothing to explain it other than the clubs.
Another major difference we haven't mentioned is recovery. A year ago, if my tee shot went into the rough (shin deep at our place, not the stuff that hasn't been mowed for a week at the better clubs), I would've been taking my medicine and hacking sideways towards the fairway. Now I'm reasonably confident that I can smash my 9 iron 150 yards towards the green. That is possibly a bigger game changer than the fairway forgiveness for guys like me, who expect their 3rd shot to be a wedge into the green rather than a birdie putt

I see your point totally. When I started way back in 1976 in the 1980's it was primarily blades and more blades. I was a kid really and so knew no different. As I progressed and got a job and money in my pocket I changed clubs (more often than I perhaps should have) then of course I got sucked into the fads and cavity backs were the way forward. To be fair my Callaway X-14 were probably the best I ever had. As you say though, blades out of semi (or deeper) rarely works well and so it was out the shortest way. With the more "forgiving" clubs it does seem to offer a degree of opportunity to progress down the hole
 

Golfnut1957

Newbie
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
1,489
Visit site
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.
When it comes to irons surely you are talking about face open or closed face, swing path, and target line. A driver may have tech which can help you square the club face but hit an iron with an open face on an out to in path and nothing in the club is stopping the ball going right.
 

Golfnut1957

Newbie
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
1,489
Visit site
I honestly think some of you guys are too good at golf too appreciate the forgiveness.
Sample size of 1, I know, but 18 months ago I was hacking around with my 40 year old Mizuno blades and Ping Eye 2 irons, celebrating sub-100 rounds. 3 months into owning the G425s and I was just one screwed up tee shot from breaking 80. Now I'm playing off 15, with nothing to explain it other than the clubs.
Another major difference we haven't mentioned is recovery. A year ago, if my tee shot went into the rough (shin deep at our place, not the stuff that hasn't been mowed for a week at the better clubs), I would've been taking my medicine and hacking sideways towards the fairway. Now I'm reasonably confident that I can smash my 9 iron 150 yards towards the green. That is possibly a bigger game changer than the fairway forgiveness for guys like me, who expect their 3rd shot to be a wedge into the green rather than a birdie putt
Nothing on you but there have been numerous references to older blades on this thread. It may be heresy, but the modern blade has no comparison to older versions.
I've played the older versions, an example being Hogan Anniversary Apex blades, sweet spot smaller than a pea and I couldn't hit the 8i 100 yards. Fast-forward to the newer blades, Mizuno MP4, Apex18. Wilson Staff Model, all of which I have played. The manufactures have designed them optimising the weighting and CofG, and they are as easy to play as anything out there. They won't go as far, they fly higher and generally have weaker lofts, but then you just need to club appropriately, and of course you get to play blades.
 

Crow

Crow Person
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
9,010
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
Nothing on you but there have been numerous references to older blades on this thread. It may be heresy, but the modern blade has no comparison to older versions.
I've played the older versions, an example being Hogan Anniversary Apex blades, sweet spot smaller than a pea and I couldn't hit the 8i 100 yards. Fast-forward to the newer blades, Mizuno MP4, Apex18. Wilson Staff Model, all of which I have played. The manufactures have designed them optimising the weighting and CofG, and they are as easy to play as anything out there. They won't go as far, they fly higher and generally have weaker lofts, but then you just need to club appropriately, and of course you get to play blades.

I think it's more likely that you've improved. :)
The Mizuno MP4 and Callaway Apex 18 (not sure which Staff model you're referring to) are proper blades with little to differentiate them from blades gone by.
 
Top