Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

Loft Jacking - Who Cares?


Recommended Posts

Spin-Loft-Illustration-3.jpg

 

 

Brought this up in another thread, but thought it might be interesting to hear what you guys think...

 

 

It thought it was an epiphany at the time, but it might just have been a "duh" moment for my thick skull, but during the PGA show I stopped caring about so-called "loft-jacking."  Maybe it was watching some of the discussions here and maybe it was eavesdropping on conversations while looking at equipment, but I just can't get worked up about 29* 7-irons anymore.  Just don't care.  Also don't care about OEM marketing distance claims either...distance has ALWAYS been a marketing tool for golf equipment, dating back to the 30's and 40's (look it up).

 

One thing I found refreshing about our visit to Nike in 2014 is that they came out and said it -- the average golfer cares about distance first and foremost, so that's how they market. 

 

While looking over the Bridgestone line, I found the new JGR irons have a 7 iron with a 26* loft.  Their various J15 irons have 7 iron lofts in the 30 to 32* range while their forged blades have a 7 iron with a more traditional 35* loft.

 

My question is, who cares?  A guy playing the blades is in no way the same golfer who is going to game the JGR hybrid irons. Virtually everything about the two golfers is completely different, so what does it matter that one has a 26* 7 iron and the other a 35* 7 iron?  If the JGR irons give the target golfer more distance than other irons in the same category, does it really matter why?  That guy needs help getting the ball in the air and with distance, so the OEM's make irons that give it to him.

 

Where OEM's lose me sometimes is the marketing of product evolution as product innovation, but that happens in most industries where competitors are vying for your attention. 

 

But loft-jacking? Put me squarely in the category of "couldn't care less."  All I want to know is how far do I hit certain clubs and will the stop when I want them to.  Beyond that, you could put an animal name on the bottom for all I care...

 

Hey, that's it -- instead of numbers or lofts, maybe each club should have an animal name...

 

"I'm about 145 yards out, think I'll hit an easy Wallaby...."

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I feel the outcries for loft jacking is just something for people to complain about. You think Jason Day cares his lofts are stronger than normal? Whatever gets the wins and your score low should be the main concern. I know my lofts are stronger and that's to get my launch angle down because of how high I hit the ball. Doesn't mean I can't make the ball land how i want it.

Driver:   :callaway-small: Epic 10.5 set to 9.5 w/ Tour AD-DI 44.5

FW:   :cobra-small: F6 baffler set at 16º

Hybrid:  NONE
Irons:   :taylormade-small:  3i 2014 TP CB  4-PW 2011 TP MC w/ TT S400

Wedges:   :nike-small: 52º :nike-small: 56º  :edel-golf-1: 60 º w/ KBS C-Taper XS Soft-stepped

Putter:   :ping-small: Sigma G Tyne 34 inches Gold dot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the outcries for loft jacking is just something for people to complain about. You think Jason Day cares his lofts are stronger than normal? Whatever gets the wins and your score low should be the main concern. I know my lofts are stronger and that's to get my launch angle down because of how high I hit the ball. Doesn't mean I can't make the ball land how i want it.

 

I agree with you Theoo -- seems like the world is filled with self-appointed "guardians of the game."

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care a whole goddamned lot, Theoo and Barbajo.

 

It's one thing not to care yourself and quite another to disparage others for caring.

 

I don't care a bit about being a "guardian of the game."  I care about being a guardian of MY game.  I care about having alternatives to stuff I really don't like. I'm totally cool with people liking the new protocols but put at a disadvantage when I can't get what I like..

 

I also don't care even a little about what today's young tour players are hitting.  I guess we can't all care about everything.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care a whole goddamned lot, Theoo.

 

It's one thing not to care yourself and quite another to disparage others for caring.

 

What I don't care about at all about is what tour players are hitting. I guess we can't all care about everything.

I understand you care but it's not like you don't have options to get the iron specs you seek. I would agree with you more if there wasn't any other choice but there is.

Driver:   :callaway-small: Epic 10.5 set to 9.5 w/ Tour AD-DI 44.5

FW:   :cobra-small: F6 baffler set at 16º

Hybrid:  NONE
Irons:   :taylormade-small:  3i 2014 TP CB  4-PW 2011 TP MC w/ TT S400

Wedges:   :nike-small: 52º :nike-small: 56º  :edel-golf-1: 60 º w/ KBS C-Taper XS Soft-stepped

Putter:   :ping-small: Sigma G Tyne 34 inches Gold dot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care a whole goddamned lot, Theoo and Barbajo.

 

It's one thing not to care yourself and quite another to disparage others for caring.

 

I don't care a bit about being a "guardian of the game."  I care about being a guardian of MY game.  I care about having alternatives to stuff I really don't like.

 

I also don't care even a little about what today's young tour players are hitting.  I guess we can't all care about everything.

So what part of "loft jacking" do you have a problem with? If you can get clubs today that fit your specs, why does it matter what anyone else has in their bag? 

Driver:  :ping-small: G30 9*

 

Irons:  :callaway-small:  X-Forged 3-PW

 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX 2.0 52*

                :ping-small:  Glide 58*

 

Putter:   :taylormade-small: Itsy-Bitsy Spider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy for the end user to not care one jot what the loft of their particular club is, so long as the required distance is achieved.

However, from a club head designers point of view, it's not quite as simple. Loft manipulation is also a key element in making the discretionary weight distribution in the head work to the desired shot trajectory and spin. The ball flight is already directed towards a high trajectory with a SGI club with low weight placement and a fat sole and offset to assist launch - so loft "jacking" is a sensible thing to do.

Little wonder then that you rarely see a thin soled blade with a perceived "stronger" loft unless the club bounce angle has been designed that way for a player with a steep AoA - the greater the angle between dynamic loft and AoA, the more spin you develop. Hence loft manipulation again is a useful tweak to use.

So, depending on how you look at it, loft jacking is important enough to make visible and measurable differences in ball flight - but you'd really have to be a club designer to care enough to question it's use and implementation. Which the majority of us aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to throw this out there for all to see.  Distance irons (or irons with jacked lofts) actually go the same distance as traditional irons when comparing the same loft.

 

http://pluggedingolf.com/distance-irons-really-longer-golf-myths-unplugged/

 

As many have stated does it really matter what number is stamped on the bottom of the club???

 

Nifty I'm curious on your opinion on this.  Do you dislike that a certain number is stamped on the club, or do you dislike the types of ball flights that modern GI and SGI irons are designed to achieve?

 

If it's the former then yes, you hate jacks lofts.  At the end of the day though it's arbitrary what number OEM's put on the bottom.

 

If it's the latter then we can agree you aren't the target market and maybe you don't have as much of an issue with jacked lofts as you thought at first glance.

 

The whole idea of jacked lofts is that you can get 6i distance with 7i trajectory.  Flight higher, fly farther and stop quicker.

Driver: :taylormade-small: SLDR w/ Fujikura Ventus Black

3w: :taylormade-small:'16 M2 hl w/ Diamana D+ 82

5w: :cleveland-small: Launcher HB w/ HZRDUS Yellow

Hybrid: :cleveland-small: 22 deg. Launcher HB w/ HZRDUS Black

Irons: :cleveland-small: 5i - gap Launcher CBX w/ Nippon Modus 3 125

Wedges: :cleveland-small: 54 CBX & 58 Zipcore w/ Nippon Modus 3 125

Putter: :odyssey-small: Red 7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting an old-time seven iron loft (40º) on a nine-iron length shaft does NOT, in my opinion, produce seven iron distance with nine iron trajectory.

The 40º club is now on a shaft once inch shorter. The club head therefore strikes the ball at a slower speed than a one inch longer shafted 40º clubhead would hit the ball. It's like the skaters joining the spinning line at an ice show. The last ones to join can't quite skate fast enough. The ends of the line--where the line is longer--move too fast.

First of all, if your lofts are right, then every club should hit the ball to the very same height. That apex height simply occurs further down the target line with each longer club.

The effect of putting strong lofts on short shafts is to transform the shape of the shot arc to a rainbow shape where the ball descends on a flatter plane. The ball is supposed to descend on a steep plane once the it stops gaining altitude. This is more readily achieved by putting a weaker loft on a longer shaft.

To me, when a number is stamped onto the sole of an iron, that number should correlate to both the loft AND the length of the club. If they wanted to change the correlation of the loft to the length as it applied to a club number, they should have advertised with each loft jacking that a new numbering system was now in place.

Another thing with which I strongly disagree is that the ball launches higher with the new clubhead designs. You had to have seen the first game improvement irons when casting stainless steel first became popular. You had to have seen Spalding Executives. You had to have seen Wilson 1200GEs. You had to have seen Browning 440s. These old clubs were MORE sole weighted than most of todays GI irons--maybe not the JGR-- but they had the old standard weak lofts. And coinciding with the arrival of non-wound balls, the first ones being MUCH harder than today's balls, these clubs hit the ball a mile on a high trajectory. And those old golf balls came down steeply, not like a rainbow. Young players today are thinking that all thirty or forty year old clubs looked like the irons Jack Nicklaus played, but I can assure you, they did not.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on it, for anyone, how are the lofts "jacked", do you have a 30* club, how about a 45* club, or a 35* club, so are they jacked?. What makes it "jacked" if we all have a club with varying degrees of loft, or similar lofts, what mKes them so called or perceived to be jacked.

When I have a 160 yard shot, I grab the club that I can hit to 160 yards, for me it's 8 iron, does that mean my lofts are jacked? I read the comments here and think it don't make sense, we all have clubs with the same lofts, the number on the club is just a number, I don't care what the number is it just helps me get a club I need for the yardage I have. It could say 99, or 82, or whatever, I have to learrn what club number I can hit for a yardage, and remember it, have clubs numbered with 3-9 just makes it easier to do that so I say who cares what that number is.

Lefties are always in their Right Mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me, when a number is stamped onto the sole of an iron, that number should correlate to both the loft AND the length of the club. If they wanted to change the correlation of the loft to the length as it applied to a club number, they should have advertised with each loft jacking that a new numbering system was now in place.

 

 

 

So where does custom fitting fall within that proposal? Since each or any of those values is ultimately variable from a custom fitting standpoint (i.e. length, loft and lie are all variable depending on user fit and preference), how would that meet your requirements for a correlated numbering system?

Personally I find it irritating when anyone tries to dictate what anyone else should be playing - and even more irritating when someone tries to say how it should be standardised to fit their OCD view of golf equipment. 

Ever since golf clubs were invented, markings have been put on each club for one reason only - to tell them apart because you play with more than one and they all look similar. The actual specs on loft and length are pretty much meaningless in relation to the number written on the club, especially when you consider that each club also has the ability of hitting it's target with any equally variable speed and trajectory - which is nicely demonstrated by Luke Donald here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where does custom fitting fall within that proposal? Since each or any of those values is ultimately variable from a custom fitting standpoint (i.e. length, loft and lie are all variable depending on user fit and preference), how would that meet your requirements for a correlated numbering system?

Personally I find it irritating when anyone tries to dictate what anyone else should be playing - and even more irritating when someone tries to say how it should be standardised to fit their OCD view of golf equipment.

Ever since golf clubs were invented, markings have been put on each club for one reason only - to tell them apart because you play with more than one and they all look similar. The actual specs on loft and length are pretty much meaningless in relation to the number written on the club, especially when you consider that each club also has the ability of hitting it's target with any equally variable speed and trajectory - which is nicely demonstrated by Luke Donald here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BiwghcvToY

Awesome video! My coach actually has me do the same thing in our lessons because I have a tendency to just want to hit whatever the number says. It teaches you that the number on the bottom not matter because there are many ways to get the ball there.

Driver:   :callaway-small: Epic 10.5 set to 9.5 w/ Tour AD-DI 44.5

FW:   :cobra-small: F6 baffler set at 16º

Hybrid:  NONE
Irons:   :taylormade-small:  3i 2014 TP CB  4-PW 2011 TP MC w/ TT S400

Wedges:   :nike-small: 52º :nike-small: 56º  :edel-golf-1: 60 º w/ KBS C-Taper XS Soft-stepped

Putter:   :ping-small: Sigma G Tyne 34 inches Gold dot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that got me thinking about all this was Josh Kinchen from Bridgestone talking about the JGR irons and the fact that they're labelled 6 thru PW2.  I guess that's how they buy them in Japan.  I asked why didn't they just have them labelled 5 thru PW and he said there are some fights you don't win with corporate. 

 

But in the bigger picture, if they labelled them 3 thru 9 it wouldn't change how anyone used them.  

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was worth it just to see that video!

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since golf clubs were invented, markings have been put on each club for one reason only - to tell them apart because you play with more than one and they all look similar. 

 

Bingo!

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't care. If it makes someone feel better to think they are hitting their SGI as far as my blades then good for them.

 

 

On a side note I hit one of my buddies Callaway X hot something or other SGI yesterday on a par 3. 160 yard hole I hit my 9i about 10 feet below the hole. Grabbed his PW to do a little experiment and toed it just a bit but it went hole high to the right of the green. Basically a full club and a half longer than my sticks. The uniflex shaft felt like a piece of rope with something on the end lol

Driver- Tmag 2017 M2 tour issue 8.5* actual loft 7.8* w/ HZRDS Green PVD 70TX"
Fairway Metal- Taylormade SLDR Mini Driver 12* w/ Fujikura Rombax TP95-X"

Utility- Mizuno MPH5 1 iron w/ Aldila RIP 85X (depending on course/ conditions)

Irons- Mizuno MP- FLI HI 2i w/ Aldila Proto ByYou 100X
          Mizuno MP59 4i-6I w/ PX 6.5

          Mizuno MP69 7i-PW w/ PX 6.5

Wedges- Scratch 8620 Driver/Slider set.  50*, 54* bent to 55* and 60*

Putter- Taylormade Spider Tour w/ flow neck
Ball- Bridgestone Tour B X

Bag- Sun Mountain C130 Supercharged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What some are missing I respectfully say is shaft flex or kick at the bottom end and weight placement. Different for everyone. A lot of people wonder how I hit my old blades so high. It is all in my swing and the kick and weight factor of my clubs. the shafts in mine were pullout DG S-300 high launches from a set of AP 1 s. Now the guy with the APs was hitting moonballs with them. We ended up putting him a set of Rifle 7,0s in them and it got him where he needed to be. I knew the weights and CPM numbers on those HLs and I knew the weights on my irons, Knew they would work in mine. the same guy that had the APs hit my irons with the HLs in them and hit moon balls with my irons. I hit them a little high but that is what I needed.

It does not make 3 hoots to me what lofts someone plays and I do not care if someone hits a PW @ 43* loft where I hit my 9 or 8 iron from

Driver ---- Callaway Big Bertha Alpha  Speeder 565 R flex- 5W TM V-Steel Fubuki 60r--- 7W TM V-Steel UST Pro Force Gold 65R----- 9 W TM V Steel TM MAS stiff---- Irons 2015 TM TP CB Steel Fiber 95 R--- GW Callaway Mack Daddy 2 52* shaft unknown junk pile refugee. SW Callaway PM Grind 56*  Modified sole grind--- KBS Tour Wedge-- LW Vokey 58* SM5 L grind--- Putter Ping B90I Broom Stick 

 

 

 G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that it's a good thing that I'm immune to peer pressure, guys. I'm alone in my perspective and unmoved even a millimeter by the overwhelming support for the opposite view.

 

Hogan came along and relieved me of the annoyance of looking at club number stampings that, for whatever reason, seriously pissed me off. It sure took long enough, but I've eliminated club numbers throughout my set, top to bottom, and removed one more distraction from my game. I'll live with a club number as long as it means what it meant during the Truman administration.

 

You see, I really don't care about the numbers stamped on the bottom of somebody else's set. That doesn't bother me one bit. But when I shell out good cash for my own clubs, I want what I want and the marketing considerations of the manufacturer are of less than no concern to me. I don't worship at the altar of American unfettered free enterprise as so many typically conservative linksters do. I worship at the altar of getting what I want and reward with my patronage that source that will give it to me. I don't care if it's the new Hogan company or Bernie Sanders. I suppose that's how an unrepentant, inflexible 1960s kid rolls!

 

But I do enjoy the exchange with my friends here at MGS. It takes all kinds to make a diverse internet forum, and I'm happy to do my part here at ours.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have a big problem with loft jacking and I will credit the MGS forum for setting me straight. My annoyance with loft jacking started because I have played wit the same group of guys since high school. We always asked each other what club each other hit to try to narrow down club choices (I know that is poor etiquette but hey). I haven't changed my irons in 15 years. They have. I used to the big hitter, now we all hit the same iron into greens and mentally I couldn't handle it.

 

I give credit to MGS member hckymeyer for setting me straight. Get fitted! Find your 150 yd club and gap off of that. Who cares if the numbers are in sanskrit. I never realized I already started doing this. Now I ask my buddies what yardage they played and not what club number they hit.

 

With irons, all I care about is gap/yardage consistency since I am still pre-middle age. This is one reason why I mentally can't relate to the Mizzy MP25. A hot face that transitions to a normal face between 6 and 7. Does that mean I have to strengthen my >6 irons to keep consistent gaps?

 

Bottom line: I used to get animated about this, but it was just my ego.

Bag: Bennington Quiet Organizer 9-Lite (link)

Cart: :Clicgear: 3.5+

Driver:  :cobra-small:  F9 speedback, Accra iWood

Woods:  Sonartec GS Tour 14*, Fujikura Six S
DI:  :titelist-small:  T-MB 2 iron, KBS Tour-V 120 X,
Irons: :Miura: PP-9003SN 4-GW, Nippon 1150GH Stiff
Wedges: :Miura: 1957 K-grind SW, LW, Nippon 1150GH Stiff
Putter: :odyssey-small: EXO Indianapolis (link)
Ball: :Snell: MTB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have a big problem with loft jacking and I will credit the MGS forum for setting me straight. My annoyance with loft jacking started because I have played wit the same group of guys since high school. We always asked each other what club each other hit to try to narrow down club choices (I know that is poor etiquette but hey). I haven't changed my irons in 15 years. They have. I used to the big hitter, now we all hit the same iron into greens and mentally I couldn't handle it.

 

I give credit to MGS member hckymeyer for setting me straight. Get fitted! Find your 150 yd club and gap off of that. Who cares if the numbers are in sanskrit. I never realized I already started doing this. Now I ask my buddies what yardage they played and not what club number they hit.

 

With irons, all I care about is gap/yardage consistency since I am still pre-middle age. This is one reason why I mentally can't relate to the Mizzy MP25. A hot face that transitions to a normal face between 6 and 7. Does that mean I have to strengthen my >6 irons to keep consistent gaps?

 

Bottom line: I used to get animated about this, but it was just my ego.

 

 

 

What is great about this forum is we all have different opinions and we can share them freely. I hope people don't feel like because we don't agree with them we think they are wrong. We just differ in opinion and thats okay. There isn't one correct blanket statement that covers everything in the game, golf is too difficult for that unfortunately. If more people understood (or something like that) their game like you and Nifty, people would at least set themselves up for better scores. Nifty knows what works for him and won't buy into the marketing crap OEM's are throwing out there. Just because I think people can benefit from newer clubs and technology doesn't make me right and Nifty wrong or Nifty right and myself wrong. As long as what you're playing works for you, life's good. 

Driver:  :ping-small: G30 9*

 

Irons:  :callaway-small:  X-Forged 3-PW

 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX 2.0 52*

                :ping-small:  Glide 58*

 

Putter:   :taylormade-small: Itsy-Bitsy Spider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice posts in an interesting thread. Like chemgolf I've learned here that loft jacking is no big deal and in fact to some extent it's not even "jacking" in that it's purpose is proper ball flight.

 

Golf is a funny game. I'd be willing to bet that a truly neutral test reveals that every golfer should play some sort of GI club. They will be more accurate, more consistent and every bit as workable as a blade or players type club. However none of us is neutral, most of us if not all of us will hit what fits our eye better than what doesn't regardless of what we "should" be using.

 

Actually for me the biggest take away from the Donald video is what all of us know but often forget, take one more club than you think you need and swing easier. We see the pros on TV amped up on Sunday afternoon hitting 9 iron from 170 and of course we think we can do the same thing. Maybe it's not 9 from 170 but it's 7 because that's our top end for that club. No wonder we have so many three putts. It's not our putting or ball striking it's our decision making! Next time I'm tempted to take less club I'm going to remember the Donald video, take more, aim at the pin and swing easy.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I usually don't know when to shut up, and once a post has reached its logical conclusion to everybody's satisfaction, the genius that is Nifty Niblick has to add the one post that sends the mud flying again.

In that tradition........

The average USGA handicap index for an American male golfer is presently 16.1.

We know a couple of things about this number. First, it has wavered between 16 and 17 for literally decades. Second, it includes only those players serious enough to maintain an actual handicap. It is reasonably estimated that the average overall recreational player is more than even money against for legitimately breaking 100 every time he tees it up.

This is roughly four decades after the "game improvement model" concept was applied to golf clubs. Games, statistics tell us, are NOT improving.

I can tell you what I conclude from this. The OEMs have the technical knowledge to offer clubs that might improve play, but the consumer won't even consider buying them. The OEMs, therefore, instead offer stuff that their marketing departments can sell.

There are exceptions, of course, and those exceptions lie with companies who aren't structured to survive on massive gross sales. The late, great Kenneth Smith company probably improved games. They've passed on into history, but if we look hard enough, we can probably find something on the hardware side that will work hand in hand with our own physical efforts to improve.

But statistics tell us this: unless we're well off the beaten path as to what's selling big, our equipment is not contributing much to any improvement we may be experiencing.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I usually don't know when to shut up, and once a post has reached its logical conclusion to everybody's satisfaction, the genius that is Nifty Niblick has to add the one post that sends the mud flying again.

 

In that tradition........

 

The average USGA handicap index for an American male golfer is presently 16.1.

 

We know a couple of things about this number. First, it has wavered between 16 and 17 for literally decades. Second, it includes only those players serious enough to maintain an actual handicap. It is reasonably estimated that the average overall recreational player is more than even money against for legitimately breaking 100 every time he tees it up.

 

This is roughly four decades after the "game improvement model" concept was applied to golf clubs. Games, statistics tell us, are NOT improving.

 

I can tell you what I conclude from this. The OEMs have the technical knowledge to offer clubs that might improve play, but the consumer won't even consider buying them. The OEMs, therefore, instead offer stuff that their marketing departments can sell.

 

There are exceptions, of course, and those exceptions lie with companies who aren't structured to survive on massive gross sales. The late, great Kenneth Smith company probably improved games. They've passed on into history, but if we look hard enough, we can probably find something on the hardware side that will work hand in hand with our own physical efforts to improve.

 

But statistics tell us this: unless we're well off the beaten path as to what's selling big, our equipment is not contributing much to any improvement we may be experiencing.

 

Interesting perspective -- but again, I tend to look at things from a much more micro point of view and try to avoid sweeping generalizations.  There are any number of reasons why overall handicaps haven't come down, I'm not sure equipment is the major factor.  Time, limited practice, relative commitment to improvement, short game issues - all of these contribute.  

 

The right equipment helps - I think we can all agree on that.  I know with my own progression as a golfer, my equipment has changed as I've improved (although I'm still looking for that magic driver that always does what I want it to do -- why the hell can't they invent that????).  The biggest thing that's helped my game has been getting properly fit irons - the right head, shaft and lie for me, as well as being fit for driver, FW's, wedges and putters. At least now I know the equipment is working with me instead of against me - after that, it's up to me to put a good swing on it.

 

I tend to be less cynical than most when it comes to OEM's and their marketing - it all has to be taken with a grain of salt -- and in some cases, a salt-shaker. But I can say that after sitting in rooms with some of the R&D people from various OEM's is that they take their jobs seriously and they do strive for constant improvement in what they produce.  PING's presentation on the G irons was fascinating -- what they did to convert standard 17-4 stainless steel into hyper 17-4 was nothing short of remarkable, in my opinion.  It gives them the ability to boost CT so they can get more distance out of their G irons. Their goal is a higher flight for those who need it, more distance and a steep enough angle of descent so that the ball will hold the green.  Not sure if they accomplished it or not, but after hitting those irons on the range for an hour or so they've developed something pretty interesting.

 

Have talked extensively with the R&D people at Wilson, as well. Their goal is to create a line of clubs to fit most any golfer out there.  They have their Feel, Crossover and Distance categories, and two sets of irons for each one -- it represents a pretty interesting spectrum -- the new DeFy hybrid iron set and D200's in the SGI category, the C200's are definitely GI, the F5's are a pretty forgiving forged players iron - both are in the C category, and then the V4's and FC 100 blades in the feel category.  That's a pretty solid lineup and a logical progression.  

 

Bridgestone has a similarly impressive lineup, but where they fall short is outlining what type of golfer each iron is targeted to.  They offer a fairly wide range of targets, leaving too much, IMO, to improvisation. I'm still confused - more research is needed.

 

I thought TaylorMade had a good thing going with its Tour Preferred series a couple of years ago -- it was logical and the clubs were spot on - but then they scrapped it and went with the RSi package.  I guess they felt the slots were enough of a technological advancement that the change was justified. I've never played the RSi's so I can't really say, but people I trust - and MGS for that matter - validated the technology.

 

So what does this all mean? I don't really know -- marketing people do tend to transform technological advancement and evolution into earth-shattering innovation. Hell, that's their job - to differentiate. I don't begrudge them that at all - I do think it's our responsibility as consumers to weed through it all and be smart about what we buy.  But if someone wants to buy something because an ad promises the moon and stars, well hell, it ain't my money.  Have at it...

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part I don't care, BUT I'd prefer my clubs to be stamped 3-PW rather that 4-GAP.  It's just semantics though.  In casual rounds with regular buddies we talk in terms of distance not the number stamped on the bottom anyway.  IE...."1/2 club less than 150" or "up 2 clubs because of the wind".

MENTOR, L4 COACH & TRAINER  FIRST TEE GREATER HOUSTON
HDCP: 8.3  (GHIN: 3143312)
In my bag, April 2023
:titelist-small: TS3 Driver & 4 Wood Hzrdous Smoke Shaft (Stiff Flex)
:titelist-small: TS2 Hybrids  Mitsubishi Tensei Shaft (Stiff Flex)
:mizuno-small:  MP-59 5-PW; KBS Tour (Regular Flex)
:titelist-small: SM8 Wedges

EVNROLL ER2  Putter
SRIXON Z-STAR DIAMOND BALL
Sun Mountain Cart Bag
:Clicgear: 4.0 Push Cart (I'm walking 9 outta 10 rounds!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to give a different perspective.  I play stronger lofts for one reason and this is that I add 2* to every club in my swing.  I know that is not the best but it works for me and not something that I am ever going to try and change.  In effect my 26* static loft turns into a little over 28* at impact.  Conversely, I have a good friend that plays his lofts week since he delofts the club between 2* and 3*.  There are a lot of ways to play this game and stick with what works.  I always tell anyone that plays with me to never judge a distance off of what club I hit since I hit the shot that fits my eye and makes me comfortable.  I played with some guys last year and we were all about the same length off the tee and with our irons.  I generally hit one to two clubs more into most holes since that was the swing that I had that day and was the low score in the foursome by a wide margin.

WITB 2024

   Qi10 LS 9* HZRDUS RDX Smoke Blue 60g 6.5

   M5 15* Evenflow Black 75g 6.5

   Sim Ti 22* HZRDUS Red 75g 6.5

   Sim2 Rescue 22* Diamana Thump 100x

   X Forged CB 5 - PW MMT 105 TX 

   Jaws Raw 50*, 54* & 58* TTDG "OG" Spinner

   Toulon Madison BGT Fire 34.75"

   Z Star Diamond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never ask someone else what club they hit anymore nor do I peak in the bag until after I've hit my shot.  If it's someone I know I can tell that they miss judged the conditions based on the result of their shot and I'll know their relative abilities vs. mine and adjust my club selection accordingly. 

 

I'll take all the distance I can get with the driver and then some - that was true even when I was young and much longer relatively speaking.  With any other club I will take the club necessary to hit the ball the proper distance with ease (when I'm on my game.)  Generally speaking I will be hitting more club into the green than a guy who hits it the same distance or sometimes even shorter than I do.

 

Back to Barbajo and Nifty's discussion about handicap I think that a hidden factor in handicaps not improving are the distances and difficulties of golf courses.  Back in the 60's/70's it was important that a course be considered a Championship course from a marketing standpoint - to do that it needed to be 6,000 yards long.  Watering systems weren't great then and unless it was an expensive private club fairways got baked pretty good in the summer months when most people were playing - you could hit the ball a long way by slinging a hook or hitting a power fade. 

 

Today Championship Courses stretch to over 7,000 yards and most people play a set of tees that is too long for them, couple that with the course keeping the greens too fast because that's what the public wants and you have 5 hour rounds and higher scores.

 

And yes of course there will be a spate of replies that say - I putt better on fast greens just like there are always those replies about 300 yard drives - I'm not going to judge who is correct when they say they putt better on fast greens or hit the ball 300 yards.  Statistically though the average player putts worse on faster greens and hits it 210 or so.  Given the male ego it's no surprise that handicaps haven't improved even though equipment and the fitting process have.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you guys know, ('I've made no secrets about it') I'm a huge nerd. A programming nerd. This conversation is one that leaves me gasping for air laughing so hard. You see nerds, and programmer nerds especially, are famous for 'purist' comparisons and bullshit.  I mean that lovingly. I love my nerds, but they are, more often not the smartest idiots you will ever meet. 

Seriously, you want to see examples? Google "VI versus EMACS", or why C is better than every other language. Or CSH versus TCSH, the list is endless. 

They'll get into the most heated arguments of the esoteric merits of using { } instead of [ ] or ' instead of ". It is worse than religion or politics. 

To me, the loft jacking debate falls into the same category. It is a group of people that are arguing about esoteric details and the 'purity' of something when 99.9999% of the population only cares that it works, and simply doesn't give half a second of thought to the esoteric why, how, or if the design is philosophically flawed.

Dru - Owner, President & Janitor, Druware Software Designs

RH 13.1 Handicap in soggy Georgia 

WITB
* 1W 10.5* @ PXG 0211 ( HZRDUS Smoke Black X-Stiff )
* 3W PXG 0211 ( HZRDUS Smoke Black X-Stiff ) 
* 5W 18* Tailor-made AeroBurner ( Stock Stiff )
* 7W  Sub70 949x ( HZRDUS Smoke Black X-Stiff )
* 5i-PW @ PXG 0211 ( Gen 1 )
* 52 @ Hogan Equalizer
* 56 @ Sub70 
* 60 @ Hogan Equalizer
* Carbon Ringo 1/4
* Vice Pro Plus

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I usually don't know when to shut up, and once a post has reached its logical conclusion to everybody's satisfaction, the genius that is Nifty Niblick has to add the one post that sends the mud flying again.

In that tradition........

The average USGA handicap index for an American male golfer is presently 16.1.

We know a couple of things about this number. First, it has wavered between 16 and 17 for literally decades. Second, it includes only those players serious enough to maintain an actual handicap. It is reasonably estimated that the average overall recreational player is more than even money against for legitimately breaking 100 every time he tees it up.

This is roughly four decades after the "game improvement model" concept was applied to golf clubs. Games, statistics tell us, are NOT improving.

I can tell you what I conclude from this. The OEMs have the technical knowledge to offer clubs that might improve play, but the consumer won't even consider buying them. The OEMs, therefore, instead offer stuff that their marketing departments can sell.

There are exceptions, of course, and those exceptions lie with companies who aren't structured to survive on massive gross sales. The late, great Kenneth Smith company probably improved games. They've passed on into history, but if we look hard enough, we can probably find something on the hardware side that will work hand in hand with our own physical efforts to improve.

But statistics tell us this: unless we're well off the beaten path as to what's selling big, our equipment is not contributing much to any improvement we may be experiencing.

You are forgetting 2 important things. That more people are playing the game now, so that means more bad golfers. And that golf courses are getting longer and harder to accommodate the advances in equipment. Courses today are much different than 50 years ago.

 

Edit: Rev already beat me to both points. That's what I get for taking 30 min to write 3 sentences at work.

Driver- Tmag 2017 M2 tour issue 8.5* actual loft 7.8* w/ HZRDS Green PVD 70TX"
Fairway Metal- Taylormade SLDR Mini Driver 12* w/ Fujikura Rombax TP95-X"

Utility- Mizuno MPH5 1 iron w/ Aldila RIP 85X (depending on course/ conditions)

Irons- Mizuno MP- FLI HI 2i w/ Aldila Proto ByYou 100X
          Mizuno MP59 4i-6I w/ PX 6.5

          Mizuno MP69 7i-PW w/ PX 6.5

Wedges- Scratch 8620 Driver/Slider set.  50*, 54* bent to 55* and 60*

Putter- Taylormade Spider Tour w/ flow neck
Ball- Bridgestone Tour B X

Bag- Sun Mountain C130 Supercharged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...