GreenDoor

So being the club-ho that I am, I have a couple old sets that I mess around with, but I always seem to find my way back to the single-length clubs. Since I started this thread last Summer, I have only switched away once and quickly returned after the honeymoon effect wore off, as it always seems to. Admittedly, when I really middle a 4 iron from a standard set, I do get a few more yards, but as a 10 handicapper, I stubbornly realized I am better off playing the averages rather than hoping for the outlier. The value of the single length clubs for me really has been the distance consistency, especially when playing. I don't believe hitting them off range mats does the concept justice. I do hope that other companies will start to offer more single length fitting options, but am not holding my breath as this flies smack in the face to most of their current marketing of potential distance over average distance.

I was trying to be polite about the looks of these, but I am not going to disagree there; I can clearly see why Bryson went with Edel. In terms of feel, they do actually feel like an older set of Pings, like a G5 maybe. Build quality, so far, has been again, very similar to early G-series Ping irons; which is to say pretty darn good. If anyone is ever near Northern Virginia, let me know and you can swing by and hit them. As for iron designs, I am not going to defend them there either, but from a business perspective, I can't imagine they were making a whole lot before; certainly not enough to design an all new set. If they were smart, they would be all over this now because you have to know the big companies are paying attention to this; at least they should be. Hell, it's what I would consider doing with Adams if I were running Taylormade. I don't go on the One Iron site often, but I did notice they made mention of Bryson's championship even though he doesn't even play their clubs. It's almost like the single-length golf set is a micro-community in and of itself so they are willing to champion anyone who succeeds with this idea. I don't particularly feel a part of that myself; I just play what works. And wbealsd, I have actually been looking into going with Edel, but as a reforming club ho, am I reformed enough yet for a lifetime set? I know my wife would love that...

Unfortunately, I don't have Bryson's driving average of 301; he has me beat by about 40 yards. And I don't have his Iron-Byronesque swing either; my swing is fairly traditional. But I do use a standard 45" driver, 43" 3 wood, and 41" hybrid (17 degrees); only my core iron set is all the length of a typical 8 iron. The clubs from One Iron do come standard with jumbo grips, but I replaced them with standard grips after a few weeks. The makeup of their standard set is as follows: 3i - 19 degrees, 4i - 23, 5i - 27, 6i - 31, 7i - 35, 8i - 39, 9i - 43, PW - 47, GW - 51, SW - 55, and LW - 59 degrees. The club head lie angles are all 63.5 degrees, the bounce all 3 degrees (except for SW which has 6), the offset all 3.175mm, and the head weights all 273 grams. I know they make a pro-level set which has slightly lighter head weights and one degree less bounce, but I have never hit those. As for wedges, I only play their PW and SW as the gapping worked out well for me. I don't find their SW to be any longer or harder to hit than a standard SW as I have experimented with both on the course and on the range. I only keep my standard LW because it gives me a different bounce option than is offered with this set. So in all honesty, I have probably stunted my game over the years by moving from set to set, usually through ebay, knowing I could just sell it if it didn't work out. Hell, I even got 'fit' at one of the box stores a few times, but nothing took hold. In this case, it took a lot of self-convincing to order a set with One Iron because I knew I would not be able to trade them in if they were lousy. I know if you buy new, they give you 30 days to try them out, but I really don't think that is long enough to see if this would work for you. Physiologically, it makes absolute sense, but in my case, what I think or expect can color my judgment regardless of data (damn you, quantum wave-particle duality principle;-) And Big Stu is right, you can't simply cut down your current irons because each of your specific irons is manufactured to different weights and lie angles. Bryson essentially replicated the work the One Iron guys had done with his Edel irons; the One Irons are all manufactured/cast in the same weight/lie configurations but at different lofts. Once I got comfortable with these irons, I was able to just about replicate what One Iron had published regarding quality of hit and loft being way more influential on ball flight and distance than the extra half inch you typically get per iron. Of course, you don't need me to verify that; just look at Bryson's growing body of work. And I do wish other companies would get on board with this trend. I like One Iron for what they are doing, but have never found their club heads all that attractive. I would also like more options regarding shafts and offset as well. Maybe I could try Edel if I could get a good price and there wasn't too much lead tape involved.

I will post more details in the morning, but I play 3 - SW at the length of my 8 iron. I will post all the lofts tomorrow, but the 3 iron is 19 degrees. I do still play a standard lob wedge, but may eventually switch that too. The 1 Iron site has a ton of historical and club engineering data and I was able to corroborate most of it on other sites. My woods and hybrids are standard length.

Since I started playing golf just over 10 years ago, I have never been able to shoot regularly below 90. My biggest issue was with iron consistency. With a GIR% of only 11.1, I only ever found the green by sheer luck. After reading many of the great articles on this site about some of the myths between modern club design versus modern marketing, I began to wonder if there might be something I was missing. So, being the inquisitive physics geek that I am, I started researching the history of golf club design and stumbled completely by accident upon a small company in Toledo called 1 Iron Golf. Essentially, they build iron sets all to one length; whichever length that best fits you based on your unique physiology. Apparently this is what used to be done before turn-of-the-century manufactures learned they could sell more iron sets if they removed the need for everyone to get fit to one shaft length. It was way more economical to make a set of varying lengths so everyone who bought a set would find at least one club that they could really hit. Well, at the very least, I now knew why I hit my 8 iron so much better than all my other irons. I have no brand loyalty whatsoever, a true club ho, always looking for just what works. But even I am only willing to tinker so much. I really was reluctant to try something that seemed to make so much sense from a physics perspective, yet had absolutely no fairway-cred that I could find. But I ended up ordering a used set at my build specs (cheaper, cuz I am cheap). I have to admit at the beginning, it was not a smooth transition as I never would stick with them for longer than a week or two before chickening out and going back to a more modern set makeup. My biggest concern were with the long-iron distances. I always felt like I was losing too much distance compared to a traditional length 3, 4, and 5 iron. Finally, the little voice won out and I decided to play them for three months to give them a fair shot. Well, that three turned into the last 14 months. Since going mostly full time to single length irons, my handicap has dropped from 19.1 last April to 11.7; my GIR from 11.1 % to 55.6%. Oh, and those long iron distances, are now about 5 yards longer than my older/traditional set. And my iron spacing is 12-14 yards per club (3i-205, 4i-192, 5i-180, 6i-167, 7i-155, 8i-142, 9i-128, PW-115, SW-103). Before this set, I didn't have real gaps between my irons that I could rely on. The hardest part about moving to these irons, honestly, was having faith that they would actually work. Trust in what you are doing is hard when it is something so different from what everyone else is doing. There are probably hundreds of experts out there that would tell me that my 3 iron has to be 3 inches longer than my pitching wedge; maybe, maybe not. So there I am, becoming a bit more comfortable with my progress when, out of the blue, a small gift of reassurance finally arrived (because as you know, a club ho is never really, really sure;-). Another physics geek, this time some guy from SMU who found what I had found, took the idea of one length irons to the top of the 2015 NCAA Men's Championships. I checked the specs of Bryson's Edel irons and he built them to very similar weight and lie specs as the folks at 1 Iron Golf. Maybe I wasn't so crazy after all. Bottom line is I honestly feel there may be something to this idea that is worth exploring, especially if your struggle with iron consistency like I once did. At the moment, I don't know who else other than 1 Iron is building single length golf sets, but I would love to see other companies investigate this idea. I know some have attempted it in the past, but this idea requires very specific tolerances head-to-head regarding variables like head-weight and lie angle. So that's my story so far, but I get the feeling I am just getting warmed up; I shot a 76 just last week for my lowest round ever. I would love to hear your experiences or thoughts on this idea.

Congrads to all the testers; you guys should have a lot of fun testing this club.

Handicap: 12 Current 3 Wood: Cobra Bio Cell + Stiff Ozik Matrix Red Tie Why Me? When I started playing 10 years ago, I bought a Cobra 460 SZ, 3+ and 5 wood. I had no idea what I was doing buying a 3+ (I thought the + meant better;-) but I have never hit anything else I like better than Cobra woods (and boy has it been fun testing the rest). i would be honored if chosen to test the newest Fly Z 3+ Wood and review how it compares to the Bio Cell +.

You know, sometimes you get an idea stuck in your head that becomes a blind spot only hard data can remedy. I tried to play the Pro-V1 and similar balls like the Precept U-tri for years when I first started playing golf, but just could not control them off the driver. In the past few years I have finally stabilized into a more compact swing (thanks to finally getting some good lessons) and don't have the slice/hook issues I used to. I also learned, thanks in large part to this site, that most of the drivers I had been playing were high-spin drivers (it's what the box-store numbers said I needed...). So in hind-sight, my recipe for disasterous golf is right there in neon; high spin driver + high spin ball + honked-up swing = ugly, ugly drives. Thanks for the push apprenti23; very much appreciated.

No, I never did try the Nike Rzn Platinum because it was marketed as a direct competitor to the Pro-V1, but maybe I should; thanks for the recco.

So now that we are warming into Spring, I took the advice of some of the bright minds on the forum here and opened the garage lab back up for another test. This time around, I did not hit nearly as many balls (10 swings per ball per club) as with the ChromeSoft review, but I found the numbers still maintained their validity fairly well. I also only hit driver and 7 iron, again, a more efficient, yet still effective representation of the golf balls characteristics. I would like to start by thanking Golf Galaxy for sending me an unsolicited sample pack of Pro-V1s to try out; as you will see later, this ball made an unexpected impact on this test. I have played my share of Titleist balls in the past, but as typical of many higher handicappers, my ability to curve the ball out of play usually overmatched any inherent technology of the ball to magically find the fairway. The problem for me, however, is that with a 100-105 driver swing speed, the lower compression balls like the outstanding Bridgestone E6 while considerably more forgiving, did cost me quite a bit of distance. So begrudgingly, I stuck with the Pro-V1x or Nike Rzn Black because they usually kept the ball findable while not making the course longer. I tried for years to play the Pro-V1, but just spun that thing in circles. When I tested the ChromeSoft, I really did like the soft feel around the greens, but did notice enough of a distance drop to stick with the Nike ball, hard feel and all. However, Titleist has done something interesting with the Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x this year. They changed the cover to really soften it up, but seemed to have kept close to the compression numbers of last year's model. So for this test, I wanted to see if the new Pro-V1x would stand up in distance to the previous model with the newer, softer cover. For this test, I have switched to a Nike Covert 2.0 Tour driver, which for me, really dropped my spin numbers on the course. It is longer (45.5 to 43.5 inches) than the cut-down Ping G25 I was playing, so the astute observers out there will see the increase in swing speed, but drop in smash factor from my previous test. Temperature was a balmy 65 degrees and no wind (garage test). I tested the 2013 Titleist Pro-V1x against the Nike Rzn Black, 2015 Pro-V1x and 2015 Pro-V1 on my trusty SC-100 (no spin numbers, only carry, swing, and ball speeds). I also tried hard to keep swing effort below 80% on both clubs. Driver (Nike Covert 2.0 Tour) Ball Ball Speed Swing Speed Smash Factor Carry Distance '13 Pro-V1x 143 102 1.40 244 '15 Pro-V1x 143 101 1.41 247 Nike Rzn Black 143 101 1.41 250 '15 Pro-V1 148 101 1.45 257 7 Iron Ball Ball Speed Swing Speed Smash Factor Carry Distance '13 Pro-V1x 106 84 1.27 152 '15 Pro-V1x 106 83 1.28 154 Nike Rzn Black 108 87 1.27 156 '15 Pro-V1 113 86 1.30 167 So after analyzing the data, it does appear the new Pro-V1x carries a few yards further than last year's model, in both driver and 7 iron. I threw the Nike Rzn Black in there for my own personal control as I know my numbers with that ball. You can also see my smash factor is pretty low right now as I get used to the longer driver again. The biggest surprise for me, however, was the performance of the new Pro-V1; I never noticed that sort of performance leap of the Pro-V1x in the past, but there it is. Maybe I just got lucky, 20 times in a row. Or maybe, there is something to their softer cover. Or maybe, they did drop their compression numbers a bit on the Pro-V1. I don't know why, but just on ball speed and carry, the Pro-V1 seems to be significantly better for me than the Pro-V1x, which never used to be the case. Now I don't know how this ball will play for me on the course. In the test, I was finding the center of the net , but in the past, I was more likely to find the center of someone's back yard. One observation I can report is that while the new Pro-V1x does putt and chip softer, it still feels like the '13 ball off of the driver and irons, which would lead me to believe they did leave the compression alone. With the Pro-V1, I do not have an older model to directly compare it to, but I can say it did feel much softer off the driver and irons than all other balls in this test. Off the putter, it felt amazing, really transmitting a ton of feel to the hands/ears, but that is subjective. My next step is to get both golf balls out to the course to see ball flight characteristics for my swing. And if I happen to find myself in the trees and find an older Pro-V1 (and there tend to be a lot out there), I will do a quick compare test with the new Pro-V1 and post an update.

Thanks apprenti23, I did get a free sample pack of the new Pro-v1's in the mail from Golf Galaxy last week and now that the weather has warmed up a bit, my launch monitor seems to be working again (apparently didn't like sub-freezing temps any more than I did). So I might do a quick test between the new Pro-V1 and V1x and last years models to see if there's any difference. I would not predict much of a difference, but at least I would have a little data.

Has anyone noticed any erratic performance at lower temps? I could not get a single accurate reading tonight at around 32F; spec is supposedly 14F. Sorry, but even in my dreams, I don't average 151 mph swing speed with a 3 wood...

Wow, from the diversity of testers you have assembled, you could almost start building a driver-to-golfer classification profile from the data you generate. Most guys still won't get professionally fit, but I would bet just about everyone who buys a driver these days has spent some time at a golf store on a simulator and have a decent idea of their swing speed, spin rate, and launch angle. And with your testing pool being as representative as it is, I have to imagine a large population of golfers could find themselves within the shoes of one or many of your testers. I can imagine a simple system that would allow a golfer to get closer to the right driver for their specific game based on how a golfer with similar attributes tested with it. At the very least, it would be a better place to start than advertising-based rack purchases. Anyways, I do appreciate your efforts to keep things transparent and true to the data.

Congrats Plaid and thanks for the welcoming conversation and advice!

I have been considering the same thing. In fact, I did some limited testing with the Supersoft, but not enough to post any definitive data. I noticed a 2-3 mph difference between the SS and the CS, but would have to hit some more before I would post. Hopefully will get some time next week.