Loft creep anyone??

Kgrove wrote:

There are multiple sides to the loft creep argument. There's no doubt there is a marketing angle to it - "these clubs are longer" when in fact they just strengthened the loft. On the other hand, moving the center of gravity and perimeter weighting in newer club designs helps launch the ball higher, so some of the strengthened loft may be to keep the ball flight consistent with what golfers expect from that club. If they added all that stuff and launched higher, we might be sitting here whining about how newer clubs now balloon the ball and our 9-irons are really gap wedges 30 years ago.

Keep in mind the number on the bottom of the club was never defined to be anything specific. In that context, 7-iron could mean 34*, whatever club goes approximately X yards on a full swing, the iron that has a launch angle of about X degrees, or just the 7th most difficult iron to hit (assuming that 1-irons actually existed any longer). In reality the number on the bottom of the club is just a name. Frankly even if lofts were stamped on the bottom, not all 34* clubs hit with the same launch angle, so even loft doesn't fully define a club. One 34* iron might play more like another 36* iron.

In the end, it doesn't matter. When your standing 150 yards from the pin with hazards in front and behind the green, you won't care whether the bottom of your club says 6, 7, 34 degrees, niblick, or even if it's blank. You're going to grab the club you think carries the right distance and with enough spin to stop the ball. Worrying too much about loft and club numbering is missing the point about golf... which is to take all the money you can from the rest of your foursome while simultaneously hiding out from your wife. Or maybe that's just me.

Hi Essex

I have ordered a set of hot metals 4 to GW ( which in reality is 3 to PW)

I still have my beloved MP32's and my fully restored MP 14's which are lovely and a set of MP37's which are shaped very like my Zoid Pro 2's that I sold to my brother when he decided to play golf again a couple of years ago.

The 37's are very long distance wise and a great penetrating mid flight down to the 5 iron but then I just cant hit a barn door with the 4 or 3. Perhaps the 5 iron is the optimum length for my height (5 foot 9) and swing plane.

I have watched Bryson Dechambeau and his theory is interesting but I am not sure about his address with the arms and club being in a straight line.

Perhaps keep the club lengths the way they are but make the 4 and 3 the same length as the 5 but a couple of degrees stronger to make up for the shorter length of the shaft.

I know that 25 years ago the pro's were experimenting with drivers 2 inches shorter but with only 4 or 5 degrees of loft.

I do agree with the theory of practicing with a set of blades then when you use the cavities in competition it will be easier.

Just my opinion guys

Hi Essex

I have ordered a set of hot metals 4 to GW ( which in reality is 3 to PW)

I still have my beloved MP32's and my fully restored MP 14's which are lovely and a set of MP37's which are shaped very like my Zoid Pro 2's that I sold to my brother when he decided to play golf again a couple of years ago.

The 37's are very long distance wise and a great penetrating mid flight down to the 5 iron but then I just cant hit a barn door with the 4 or 3. Perhaps the 5 iron is the optimum length for my height (5 foot 9) and swing plane.

I have watched Bryson Dechambeau and his theory is interesting but I am not sure about his address with the arms and club being in a straight line.

Perhaps keep the club lengths the way they are but make the 4 and 3 the same length as the 5 but a couple of degrees stronger to make up for the shorter length of the shaft.

I know that 25 years ago the pro's were experimenting with drivers 2 inches shorter but with only 4 or 5 degrees of loft.

I do agree with the theory of practicing with a set of blades then when you use the cavities in competition it will be easier.

Just my opinion guys

Steve Smith wrote:

Hi Essex

I have ordered a set of hot metals 4 to GW ( which in reality is 3 to PW)

I still have my beloved MP32's and my fully restored MP 14's which are lovely and a set of MP37's which are shaped very like my Zoid Pro 2's that I sold to my brother when he decided to play golf again a couple of years ago.

The 37's are very long distance wise and a great penetrating mid flight down to the 5 iron but then I just cant hit a barn door with the 4 or 3. Perhaps the 5 iron is the optimum length for my height (5 foot 9) and swing plane.

I have watched Bryson Dechambeau and his theory is interesting but I am not sure about his address with the arms and club being in a straight line.

Perhaps keep the club lengths the way they are but make the 4 and 3 the same length as the 5 but a couple of degrees stronger to make up for the shorter length of the shaft.

I know that 25 years ago the pro's were experimenting with drivers 2 inches shorter but with only 4 or 5 degrees of loft.

I do agree with the theory of practicing with a set of blades then when you use the cavities in competition it will be easier.

Just my opinion guys

When I first heard BD's explanation for the single length clubs, it made some intuitive sense - one club length and one swing should be easier. The more I thought about it, the more I've thought that the hypothesis either is wrong or hasn't been pushed far enough, but as is it doesn't make sense. Even if my full iron set is one club length, what about specialty wedges? Hybrids? Fairway woods? Drivers? They're all different lengths and need different swings. What about when I want to hit a low punch shot or and extra floaty high shot? Those are different swings too. I love that BD is pushing the envelope and not just accepting that clubs have to be a certain way just because they always have (applies to the loft issue as well...), but in the club length case it doesn't feel right to me. At best it seems like a minor improvement, but in the end you still need to learn to swing a bunch of different ways to be a good golfer.

Hi Kgrove and DGMP.

Thanks for your thoughts and input on this thread.

I have just taken delivery of my JPX Hot Metal irons (4-GW) and yes they do go further. Whether that is due to the thin face technology or the stronger lofts I don't know.

I suspect it is a combination of both. The manufacturers are able to deloft the clubs because of the lower centre of gravity which gives a better launch angle, hence more distance.

I have always been a blade player (MP14, MP32 and MP 37) but now I am at the age (52) where a little bit of help is needed more than my "purist" ethos. However I will keep all of my Mizuno blades and game them a few times in the summer in casual games just for old times sake

The 900 Hot metals are a lovely looking iron, yes the top line is thick and the sole is quite wide but the shape and aesthetics have a very classical look. No great deal of offset apart from the 4 iron and that is the only club where the flange comes into your eye line. 

In bone hard summer conditions I would probably use the 32's or 37's but in soggy conditions the 900's will really give me the confidence not to fat it. 

The Hot Metal also feel really nice, much better feel than the Callaway SGI's or the Cobras I tried. I had no intention of ever buying anything apart from Mizunos but I just thought I would give the competition a try

The Cobras go an absolute country mile but just feel "dead" like there is no sweet spot wherever you hit it.

Once a Mizuno guy, always a Mizuno guy. The Hot Metals are in my humble opinion the best game improvement irons out there right now. They are long and high and straight with a great feel for non forged irons. The Cobras are longer but the muzzies are far and away the best all rounder for SGI irons. 

They have been categorized in the SGI, but I think they are more just GI because of their relative softness, their shape and their playability and beautiful looks XXXX

Cheers guys 

Last summer I was testing a few game improvement irons as potential replacements for my MP5s. Long story short I ended up doing a head to head test between my 27 degree MP5 (5 iron) and a 27 degree JPX900 (6 iron) targeting a green at about 185 yds. There were big differences in how the clubs felt, but both clubs were hitting the same distance, at least as far as I could tell given normal variations in my swing and the bounce of the ball.

Granted - I was not using a launch monitor, the 900F isn't massively different from an MP5 (not as much as a Hot Metal), and my goal was a general evaluation of which clubs I liked best, not a scientific test of loft vs distance. Still... my verdict was that loft explained everything about the distance difference. Thinking back to other clubs I've hit... I've never found an iron that I thought was longer than another where I couldn't explain the distance gain with a stronger loft.

Thanks K Grove

I would definitely agree that the most difference is made by the lofts. I have now got the 900 Hot Metals 4,5,6,7,8,9,P,G,S,L

But in essence I think of them as 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,P,S,L.

Nothing wrong with that but the number on an iron is just a number and pretty meaningless really, unless you are the sort of golfer who wants to brag to your friends about how far you can hit your irons. 

There was no such thing as a Gap wedge when I was young as it was not needed, a PW was 50 or 51 and a SW 55 or 56.

My point is that iron play has two aims - getting the ball close to the hole and consistency of distance control.

With that in mind, the newer game improvement irons offer a lot more forgiveness and therefore more consistency of distance and accuracy for an average golfer. The new thin face technology DOES add a few yards to the irons, but more to do with the fact of the lower centre of gravity and higher MOI, which allows a better launch angle with less effort and less twisting that causes pulls or slices.

That is what I believe us mere mortals should be concerned more about than simply how far they go.

Just my humble opinion. I still have my MP32's, MP37's and my beloved restored MP14's with a tiny sole width. Will game them when the fairways are bone hard in July! LOL

Thanks for the reply dude, always nice to hear from a fellow Muzzzy fan 

Best Regards

Smudger

Thanks K Grove

I would definitely agree that the most difference is made by the lofts. I have now got the 900 Hot Metals 4,5,6,7,8,9,P,G,S,L

But in essence I think of them as 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,P,S,L.

Nothing wrong with that but the number on an iron is just a number and pretty meaningless really, unless you are the sort of golfer who wants to brag to your friends about how far you can hit your irons. 

There was no such thing as a Gap wedge when I was young as it was not needed, a PW was 50 or 51 and a SW 55 or 56.

My point is that iron play has two aims - getting the ball close to the hole and consistency of distance control.

With that in mind, the newer game improvement irons offer a lot more forgiveness and therefore more consistency of distance and accuracy for an average golfer. The new thin face technology DOES add a few yards to the irons, but more to do with the fact of the lower centre of gravity and higher MOI, which allows a better launch angle with less effort and less twisting that causes pulls or slices.

That is what I believe us mere mortals should be concerned more about than simply how far they go.

Just my humble opinion. I still have my MP32's, MP37's and my beloved restored MP14's with a tiny sole width. Will game them when the fairways are bone hard in July! LOL

Thanks for the reply dude, always nice to hear from a fellow Muzzzy fan 

Best Regards

Smudger

Steve Smith wrote:

With that in mind, the newer game improvement irons offer a lot more forgiveness and therefore more consistency of distance and accuracy for an average golfer. The new thin face technology DOES add a few yards to the irons, but more to do with the fact of the lower centre of gravity and higher MOI, which allows a better launch angle with less effort and less twisting that causes pulls or slices.

That is what I believe us mere mortals should be concerned more about than simply how far they go.

This doesn't quite match with my experience. When I've tested forgiving vs unforgiving clubs for myself, I find dramatic differences in how they feel on bad strikes, but the shot results aren't that much different, certainly not as much different as you would expect given the feedback transmitted through the club. In other words, if I put a bad swing on a forgiving club, it might end up 20 yards short and left and subjectively feels not good but not terrible, but I put that same bad swing on an unforgiving club it might end up 23 yards short and left but feels like a pants down spanking. Yes, 20 yards short and left is better than 23 yards short and left, but my chance of getting up and down in 2 is probably the same. For me anyway, forgiving clubs FEEL more consistent, but I'm not sure they actually play much more consistent. That said, for many golfers the pants down spanking they receive hitting 4-iron blade too thin is such a confidence killer that they might run away from the right shot or be so tentative hitting it that their consistency drops. I'm just saying that the perception of consistency may not be the same as the reality... unless the placebo impact of clubs that feel more consistent starts to make it real. If you hook yourself up to a launch monitor, you'll see that shot results on forgiving vs unforgiving clubs aren't as much different as you would think for the same amount of a poor strike.

I always try to keep in mind in picking irons... no matter what irons I pick, they are capable of posting MUCH lower scores than I am. You can't buy your way onto the PGA tour (though I won't stop trying!).

FINALLY! Somebody did a test similar to what I've been looking for. Michael Newton reviewed a strong lofted 7 iron vs a traditional lofted 5-iron, in this case a Rogue X 7-iron vs a Wilson V6 5-iron, both at 27* loft. See the youtube link below. The results were even more starkly obvious than I was expecting. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAzu_SjAAAM

Long story short: trajectory, spin, distance, etc was almost identical between the two clubs. He makes some subjective comments about the Wilson having better feel given that its a more traditional design with a forged head and mentions the Rogue being more forgiving, but you can't really see it much in the launch monitor data. The Wilson 5 iron carried 4 yards further and had about 2mph higher ball speed than the Callaway 7-iron... My guess is this is due to different shaft lengths. He also comments that the Rogue was not bent to his preferred lie angle where the Wilson was, so that could have had a small influence on the strike locations as well.

For all practical purposes, it appears loft is almost entirely responsible for distance, spin rate, etc, which would leave club design only impacting feel and forgiveness. I expected at least spin rate to be influence by the head design, but that too seemed dominated by loft. 

Granted... one golfer, still some imperfections in both the test and my conclusions... but this is a huge improvement over what I've seen in the past.