Stronger Lofts - is this a Good or Bad Thing

[Firebird]

Hi guys,

 

When I was forced to change my beautiful Wilson Staff Blades I was did extensive research and was shocked to find that in almost every case (blades excluded) the lofts on the irons had become stronger, in some case like Taylormade way stronger.

In the past all my 3 irons have been 21degress - today that is my 4 iron. Taylormade M6 it would be a 5 iron. One of the issue is when you get to wedges, my normal Cleveland PW is 48 degrees, my new one is 44, then the AW is 50 so there is in theory a 2 club step.

As I said I identified this, but several of my golfing buddies did not. They went through the full formal fitting process and got their beautiful new clubs. After the first round the usual comment was - Well obviously they are going to take a few rounds to get used too. After 10 rounds most had stopped hitting the 4-5 irons as they found them very hard to hit consistently. In some cases they had put their old 4-5 back in the bag as they said that they found them much easier to hit. Reason they were the loft was the same as the 6-7 iron in the new set.

Whats are your thoughts? 

[cnosil]

Lots of posts about stronger lofts or loft "jacking" and it seems to be a controversial topic.   Ultimately whatever the loft or the number on the bottom of the club you have to hit the ball certain distances and as long as you know those distances and have good gapping from the top of the bag to the bottom it shouldn't matter. 

[GolfSpy_BNG]

You hear the term loft jacking a lot nowadays. As cnosil said the only thing that should matter is that you know how the club in your hand will play when you swing.
The reason the OEM's do this (aside from the distance thing) is because they moved weight around to get the stronger lofted club to launch higher (similar to the same numbered traditional lofted club).



Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[GolfSpy BOS]

welcome to the forums!

I'd have to agree with the boys up above.  As long as you know and gap your bag correctly you'll be fine.  What I don't like is when they start at the same 50* GW and then go 5+ degrees between the short clubs.  If I know the PW is 44 and and GW is 48 for the set I can just add another "Gap Wedge" at 52 or something similar.

I don't want to go from 50 GW to 44 PW and have a 6* gap.

That's too bad about your friends fitting experience.  The fitter should have brought up wedges and hybrids/woods in the session.

[GaDawg]

I would not be concerned with what your buddies say or the club they hit. I would find my distances with you clubs and play against the golf course.

[Firebird]

I have know issues as I know how far I hit a ball but I would like to suggest that the Manufactures Performance Centres might want to advise potential customers of the changes.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

7 hours ago, Firebird said:

I have know issues as I know how far I hit a ball but I would like to suggest that the Manufactures Performance Centres might want to advise potential customers of the changes.  

They have the loft specs as well as lengths and other data on the irons specs listed on their websites. They aren’t hiding anything from the consumer. Compare the head size of your blade to one of those irons, they are bigger, have various types of tech in their design. As was mentioned above there lots of threads and discussions on here as well as all over the Internet on the reasons why the lofts are what they are so won’t get into that here, feel free to search the forums and see the discussions around the design.

You are comparing blades to CB, players distance, gi or sgi clubs. That’s like comparing high end sports cars to sedans, coupes, mini vans, suv. They all serve different purposes and thus different designs and looks. 
 

[juspoole]

I see both sides of the coin here.  So many average golfers are concerned about getting longer with each new club purchase.  Mainstream has always felt that with new technology means hitting the ball further.   What I think the average consumer fails to see is the consistency aspect and accuracy as the two most important items and the third and fourth being feel and distance.  They all play their role, but if I know I can be very consistent on strike as well as accurate with dispersion, I will sacrifice feel and distance and shoot much better scores as a result.  

On one hand, you will have a shorter club to hit with decreased loft, so while it should not go as far as your old 7 iron due to shorter length and not being able to generate the same club head speed for that same loft in theory, it should be a bit easier to hit because of the shorter length.  Example - old 7 iron has standard 34* of loft but is 1/2 inch longer should go a bit further than a new 8 iron which is a bit shorter but same loft, however a shorter club is typically easier to hit for most and be more accurate.

The problem comes into play with long irons.  When a 4 iron is now so delofted, it's nearly like hitting a 1 or 2 iron of years past.   Also, a lot of people just don't understand the loft jacking and think they are simply hitting it so much further and want to spend the money.

Edited April 24, 2020 by juspoole

[DaveP043]

8 hours ago, Firebird said:

I have know issues as I know how far I hit a ball but I would like to suggest that the Manufactures Performance Centres might want to advise potential customers of the changes.  

I was one of the lucky few selected to review the new Titleist T200 irons for MGS.  So for the first time ever, I went through a fitting at my local Titleist center.  I understood going in that the T200s are about one club stronger loft than my current AP2 714 irons, and the T200 did go just about one club longer.  What was interesting, though, is that it both the launch angle and descent angle were really close to the older clubs.  What this means to me is that the 7-iron will still go through the same "window" that my old one did, and will stop about the same as the old one did, even though the ball will fly a bit longer.  I won't need to adjust my trajectory expectations, only my distance expectations.  Of the two, I believe its easier to adjust for distance.

And of course, I'm really just guessing, I won't know for sure until I get the finished clubs.

And to answer the question posed in the title, I don't think this is either good or bad, it just is.  

[ZenGolfer]

Ive struggled with this.  I know that when I was testing the Tommy Armour Atomics, I really struggled to dial the distance in because they were so much stronger and longer than my old set was.

I think that for most people, its a good thing because we could all use to hit the ball longer.  Some would say that loft jacking is a bit of a bait and switch, myself included but if you can design a club head that launches the ball higher and you can then make the loft stronger and get more distance with the same trajectory as an older iron, whats so bad about that?

I think that in many ways, you really have to forget the actual number thats on the club and instead look at the loft and how it fits into your set.  I know that in my set, for irons really the longest iron I really need is the 5-iron because the 5-iron really has the loft of a 3-iron (22*) and with carrying a 5-wood, there is really no need for the 4-iron.

For the wedges, I go with the AW from the set (which is 48*) and they I go 52* and 56* and that seems to work well.  

I do think that with jacked lofts that it can be difficult to pick wedges because the old rules kind of get thrown out the window and if you play name brand wedges and play a full set, you at looking at having almost $400 invested just in wedges.  IMO, for most people, if you want to have clubs that are somewhat up to date, thats a bit pricey.

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, juspoole said:

I see both sides of the coin here.  So many average golfers are concerned about getting longer with each new club purchase.  Mainstream has always felt that with new technology means hitting the ball further.   What I think the average consumer fails to see is the consistency aspect and accuracy as the two most important items and the third and fourth being feel and distance.  They all play their role, but if I know I can be very consistent on strike as well as accurate with dispersion, I will sacrifice feel and distance and shoot much better scores as a result.  

Amateurs especially the older ones now have the chance to play longer and enjoy the game more because the clubs and technology make it easier to get the ball in the air and distance always sells.

for the bolder part the average consumer plays golf for many different reasons so imo it’s hard to generalize what the average consumer sees or doesn’t. Like with any product the average consumer has a range of knowledge about a product. Some know it does x,y,z and some know it does x,y,z and why and some know what goes into allowing it to do x,y,z.

the same goes for golf. You have the average consumer that only cares about the ball going further than their current club and don’t care why or how it happens. You have some that want it to go further but know they need to find the setup that also stops it on the green quickly and you have the group that understands how to go about it and that hitting it further isn’t always the goal but that the distance it goes is consistent.

i am always amazed to see comments about people willing to sacrifice one aspect of the game for another in today’s market. Imo and experience there are so many options out there that one doesn’t have to sacrifice anything and can find a product that checks all the boxes. 

 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, juspoole said:

The problem comes into play with long irons.  When a 4 iron is now so delofted, it's nearly like hitting a 1 or 2 iron of years past.  

I'm not sure this is really the case.  Yes, the 4-iron has less loft than it had before, but the technology has made it easier to get the ball in the air, and has improved forgiveness when compared to those old 2 or 3 irons.  Again, I'm speaking theoretically, but I'll get a real experience when my T200s arrive.

[juspoole]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Yes, the 4-iron has less loft than it had before, but the technology has made it easier to get the ball in the air

That's a good point. With the weighting and shafts that are out now, it certainly does help in that regard.  

[Kenny B]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure this is really the case.  Yes, the 4-iron has less loft than it had before, but the technology has made it easier to get the ball in the air, and has improved forgiveness when compared to those old 2 or 3 irons.  Again, I'm speaking theoretically, but I'll get a real experience when my T200s arrive.

Best of luck with theT200s!!  I'll be looking forward to your results.

Even when I had a higher swing speed than I do now, I never hit the 3i very high, preferring a lofted FW.  Now, with my SGI set of irons my 5i is 22º and I can hit it as high as my old 7i and a heck of a lot further.

Yes, I have a gap in my wedges but wedge tech has also changed.  Raising the CG has made it easier (for me) to flight the ball lower so that 4º gap is not as necessary as before.

[Hook DeLoft]

Some companies have kept 4 degree gaps in the short irons and wedges, for example, Callaway Mavriks.  Unfortunately, many have not.  I actually saw a set with 6 degree gaps in the short irons.  I can't imagine a weekend golfer being able to feather or nuke a 9 iron in order to hit that in-between yardage.  The main problem I have with strong lofts is the lower spin rates that go with them.  As a low ball hitter, I have a hard enough time holding greens.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Hook DeLoft

[jddaigneault]

I think this is a fascinating topic. The key (in my understanding) is to ignore the static loft of the club, and instead look at launch conditions like dynamic loft, spin, and angle of descent. I want my 7 iron to launch at a certain angle, spin at a certain rate, and descend at the right angle. A 7 iron should not roll out a lot going into a green, but should allow me to stick the green. Because companies have lowered CG, this improving launch conditions and making it easier to get the ball in the air, they need to change the loft of the club to account for these changes in launch conditions. The end benefit is you get the distance of an old 5 iron with the control and stopping power of a 7 iron.

Now...this is an altruistic view of things, they wanted to increase distance and went about finding a way to do so without altering the launch conditions of a 7 iron. 

I do think what was said about gapping is super important. It is worth paying to get a gapping session done so that your launch conditions are right for how you play each club. 

[NRJyzr]

On 4/23/2020 at 8:19 PM, blackngold_blood said:

You hear the term loft jacking a lot nowadays. As cnosil said the only thing that should matter is that you know how the club in your hand will play when you swing.
The reason the OEM's do this (aside from the distance thing) is because they moved weight around to get the stronger lofted club to launch higher (similar to the same numbered traditional lofted club).



Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

The marketing departments say this, but an examination of CG locations in irons over the last 30-50 years shows there's no real difference.  There is variation in models, so you can always find lower and higher CGs in any time period, but generally speaking, CG are not now lower and farther back than they were.

Both the 1973 Hogan Apex and Mizuno MP-14 have a PW at 50*, yet have a CG lower than .700".

Personally, I'll go with the word of Tom Wishon, who says the stronger lofts are only to sell clubs.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

Personally, I'll go with the word of Tom Wishon, who says the stronger lofts are only to sell clubs.

Isn't Tom Wishon also in the business of selling clubs?  His stated opinion may be just as much of a sales tactic as anyone else's.

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Isn't Tom Wishon also in the business of selling clubs?  His stated opinion may be just as much of a sales tactic as anyone else's.

That might make sense if he were arguing the opposite.  And, if a quick surf of CG locations didn't align with his comments.  

Edited April 25, 2020 by NRJyzr
Need caffeine to kick in, LOL

[RickyBobby_PR]

It didn’t matter what’s stamped on the bottom, if it’s designed for distance or if there’s data showing that nothings really changed in 50 years. There’s no standards for what has to be what in golf, from shaft lengths, shaft flexes, lofts on irons, and so on. 
 

If you like blades and whatever you consider traditional lofts (yes even blade are stronger today than in decades past) then play blades. If you want more help and and clan that makes it easier to hit and enjoy the game then play something more forgiving.

if you don’t like the other stuff don’t play h th e other stuff. golf is about enjoying the game how you choose to enjoy it and worrying about what companies are doing or what people are playing has no impact on anyone. There’s obviously a market out there for non blades irons and even non players cavity backs or we wouldn’t see the companies continuing to make them or in the cases of some companies have multiple sets with stronger lofts and larger clubheads. Even golfers who love the look, size, feel of a players club in the t100 want more distance. The Ap2 has been the number 1iron on tour. 
 

play what you like and let everyone else do the same
 

[Moose4282]

On 4/25/2020 at 5:27 AM, NRJyzr said:

 

The marketing departments say this, but an examination of CG locations in irons over the last 30-50 years shows there's no real difference.  There is variation in models, so you can always find lower and higher CGs in any time period, but generally speaking, CG are not now lower and farther back than they were.

Both the 1973 Hogan Apex and Mizuno MP-14 have a PW at 50*, yet have a CG lower than .700".

Personally, I'll go with the word of Tom Wishon, who says the stronger lofts are only to sell clubs.

Yes! The only thing thats “changed” is the rise of “hot face” irons. Cgs havent. Now the “hot faced” irons do produce a slightly higher launch and peak height but thats likely attributed to the thinner face and higher ball speeds. 

[Grand Stranded]

I saw something interesting a few years ago in a review of the Rogue X irons, which made me give them a try, and was the deciding factor for me in my purchase. The man said "if you can't hit a 7 iron 150 yards, give this club a try. If you can already hit it 150, they aren't for you."

At the time, I had to absolutely nut my 7 to carry it 150, so I gave them a whirl. Suddenly my 7 was a 155 club with an easy swing. If I needed to, I could get 160 out of it. My gap wedge went from 90 to 105. Sure it was the loft of my old PW, but it had the same shaft length as my prior gw. The clubs went the same (or higher) height as my old ones. It was a win win for me.

The only concession I made was changing my 54*-58* setup to 52*-58*. That hasn't hurt me at all, in fact, I think I've become better around the greens and from traps because instead of switching back and forth, I stick with my 58*. The 52* is used for full swings or longer pitch shots. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Grand Stranded

[viking]

On 4/24/2020 at 1:22 PM, jddaigneault said:

Because companies have lowered CG, this improving launch conditions and making it easier to get the ball in the air, they need to change the loft of the club to account for these changes in launch conditions. The end benefit is you get the distance of an old 5 iron with the control and stopping power of a 7 iron.

But if are the same loft and length just a difference in weight placement that is not really true.

[viking]

On 4/25/2020 at 5:27 AM, NRJyzr said:

 

The marketing departments say this, but an examination of CG locations in irons over the last 30-50 years shows there's no real difference.  There is variation in models, so you can always find lower and higher CGs in any time period, but generally speaking, CG are not now lower and farther back than they were.

Both the 1973 Hogan Apex and Mizuno MP-14 have a PW at 50*, yet have a CG lower than .700".

Personally, I'll go with the word of Tom Wishon, who says the stronger lofts are only to sell clubs.

I thought CG was a big change, you can see the weights externally and internally now via marketing graphics.

[viking]

11 hours ago, Moose4282 said:

Yes! The only thing thats “changed” is the rise of “hot face” irons. Cgs havent. Now the “hot faced” irons do produce a slightly higher launch and peak height but thats likely attributed to the thinner face and higher ball speeds. 

Major reason I am reluctant to buy a new set of irons with unknown / uncontrollable hot faces is total BS.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't follow the argument that OEM's have to strengthen the lofts to adjust for spring faces.  Why would they not keep the length the same then?  They haven't.  The length has also been extended.  It really is putting a 7 iron label on a 6 or 5 iron.

[tchat07]

My biggest issue with the loft jacking is that you have a pitching wedge that is in the low 40 degree range. If you have that you'll almost have to be carrying 4 wedges to tighten the gaps.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[jddaigneault]

16 minutes ago, viking said:

But if are the same loft and length just a difference in weight placement that is not really true.

If I leave loft and length the same but move weight it will still change launch conditions. Now my 7 iron will launch like and 8 or 6. I think the idea is I can get a ball that used to take a 5 iron get there with a 7 that is more consistent, holds greens better, etc. Assuming I understand what your comment is implying. 

[Dr Strangelove]

1 minute ago, tchat07 said:

My biggest issue with the loft jacking is that you have a pitching wedge that is in the low 40 degree range. If you have that you'll almost have to be carrying 4 wedges to tighten the gaps.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

Agreed. Soon we will have more wedges than irons.

[jddaigneault]

3 minutes ago, tchat07 said:

My biggest issue with the loft jacking is that you have a pitching wedge that is in the low 40 degree range. If you have that you'll almost have to be carrying 4 wedges to tighten the gaps.

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

In theory, wouldn’t this not matter? I can carry a 4 iron 230, I don’t need as many long clubs and can focus on more scoring clubs. I see that as a benefit. I think when building a set ignoring the club identifier (9,8,7) and focusing on loft is a better route.