Jump to content
Firebird

Stronger Lofts - is this a Good or Bad Thing

Recommended Posts

Our Sponsors

18 minutes ago, russtopherb said:

Sorry, not my job to educate you. I know that sounds like a harsh reply, however there is a wealth of information on this website from the staff and contributors who speak directly with OEMs about why newer materials, different weighting, center of gravity, etc. all dictate what the lofts on the specific clubs are. MGS is far more than a forum that "gives away free stuff". Take a few minutes and go back through the articles discussing newer iron releases and I'm sure you'll find plenty of info there.

Or, you can continue to say things like "it's marketing BS and new paint". Your choice.

There are stories the manufacturers tell how they lowered cg here or there, but again, no new territory is being broken in regards to cg placement as already mentioned. New materials? Like what? Tungsten titanium carbon, steels have been around for 15 plus years...The jobs of manufacturers is to get you to buy new equipment, period. They have to give SOMETHING in regards to a story, to differentiate itself from competitors and older stuff... but 99% is just jargon and cannot be shown to actually make a difference.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is it marketing, or is it advancement in science?  Its both, in my opinion.  Marketing isn't new, the people responsible for making money have always sought to find ways to describe how their newest product is better than the previous one, or better than their competitor's product.  Some of the marketing is fact-based, some is definitely jargon.  And there will always be people who will choose a specific set of clubs because the 7-iron goes 175 yards instead of 155 yards like their old set.  Most car-buyers, most refrigerator-buyers, and yes, most golf club buyers don't really research the technical stuff, they're victims of marketing.  So yes, marketing is a significant factor.

On the other hand, and totally ignoring the number stamped on the bottom of the club, advancements in science have made irons which, for a given carry distance, launch higher and descend steeper.  Put it another way, for a given launch/descent angle, the ball goes further.  For most (not all) players, the ability to hit a 150 yard shot higher and have it stop faster is a significant improvement.  In many cases, these same club offer tighter dispersion on off-center strikes due to advancements in technology.  Again, an advantage for the newer clubs.  These changes are real.  And to be honest, I don't care whether the advancements are due to a change in CG, in tungsten weights, launch angle changes, or magic pixie dust, if my 150-hard club launches higher and stops faster, that's a good thing..  

Edited by DaveP043
  • Like 4

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moose4282 said:

Which is fine except thats not really whats happening. A clubfitter is supposed to put you in whats best for your game. They are professionals. Most consumers get sucked into the distance numbers and its up to the clubfitters to explain to them WHY its happening and WHY it may not be best for them. Some clubfitters do, and some will not, which is a shame. 
 

You say its on the consumers to be educated.. ok yea maybe but its still ethically not right. When we go to the doc we expect him to give us medicines to actually feel better and have no motive to make extra money and possibly make us feel worse by pushing the wrong meds. Is thats the consumers fault for not being educated there?

You went from blaming the club manufacturer to now blaming the fitters. Most golfers don’t get fit. It’s up to the club fitter to fit you based on what information you provide him/her. The more info you provide the better the fitting experience. It’s not the fitters job to educate the consumer. The good ones will provide some helpful information but it’s not the the fitters job to educate just like it’s not the a salesman job to educate a consumer on a product. As I stated and you are confirming most consumers only care about distance and don’t care about the how’s and whys. I have worked numerous demo days for my local range and as a demo day rep for a brand. I can tell you the number of people that asked about lofts, lengths or design factors around clubs was very small. The ones that did were the educated consumer and it was usually about how the loft compared to another brand. The rest only cared about the total number from the launch monitor and not the carry number. They wanted to know the flex of the shaft because nobody wants to be in a reg flex when they thing they should be in a stiff.

You comparing a doctors visit to a consumer product is apples to oranges. One is there to keep a person healthy and the other is to sell a product that isn’t life altering. If I walk into an electronics store and didn’t do my research and decide to buy a camera because I saw a friend with that camera or I liked how it looked compared to another model it’s not the sales persons job to ask me what I’m using it for or why I chose that one. Will some ask what you are using for it? Yes. Will they explain to you what may be a better option for your use? Yes. Are they required to? No. Is it unethical if they don’t? No.

you don’t like stronger lofts and that’s fine but every club on the market these days is stronger lofted than they were just 15 years ago. Blades used to have a 50* pw and now they are between 47 and 45. Play what you like and enjoy the game. 


Driver: Titleist 917D3 9.5 with Graphite Design MAD Pro 65g S

Wood: Titleist 917F2 with UST Mamiya Helium 5F4

Hybrid: Titleist 816H1 21 with Atmos Blue 85 S

Irons: Titleist 718 AP3 4i, 718 CB 5-6, MB 7-9 with KBS $ Taper 125

Wedges: Vokey SM7 46/50/54/60 with DG s200

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that its not all marketing BS.  I know that today, at age 40, Im playing better, shooting lower scores and hitting the ball farther than I ever have.  I can also tell you that as someone who plays vintage clubs fairly often that there is a difference from old clubs to new  clubs.

On a course that I play often, if I go from my persimmon woods and blades to my modern set, its a 14 shot swing because the new clubs absolutely hammer the ball compared to the old ones.  Part of it is the stronger lofts but part of it also is because they are lighter.

I will also say thought that with my modern irons, I dont enjoy hitting any of the irons that are longer than the 6-iron.  The lofts as strong that I struggle to get a lot of height on the shots unless I absolutely smoke the ball but to be fair, I can hit the 6-iron 170 yards, so I may not really need to carry anything longer than the 6.


Whats in my Sun Mountain 2.5+ stand bag?:

Woods: Titleist 913FD 13.5* 3-wood

Hybrid: Titleist 915HD 3H 

Irons: Titleist DCI 822 OS 6, 8 and PW

Wedges: Ping Glide 2.0 56*

Putter: Titleist Bullseye Standard

Ball: Titleist Pro V1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Is it marketing, or is it advancement in science?  Its both, in my opinion.  Marketing isn't new, the people responsible for making money have always sought to find ways to describe how their newest product is better than the previous one, or better than their competitor's product.  Some of the marketing is fact-based, some is definitely jargon.  And there will always be people who will choose a specific set of clubs because the 7-iron goes 175 yards instead of 155 yards like their old set.  Most car-buyers, most refrigerator-buyers, and yes, most golf club buyers don't really research the technical stuff, they're victims of marketing.  So yes, marketing is a significant factor.

On the other hand, and totally ignoring the number stamped on the bottom of the club, advancements in science have made irons which, for a given carry distance, launch higher and descend steeper.  Put it another way, for a given launch/descent angle, the ball goes further.  For most (not all) players, the ability to hit a 150 yard shot higher and have it stop faster is a significant improvement.  In many cases, these same club offer tighter dispersion on off-center strikes due to advancements in technology.  Again, an advantage for the newer clubs.  These changes are real.  And to be honest, I don't care whether the advancements are due to a change in CG, in tungsten weights, launch angle changes, or magic pixie dust, if my 150-hard club launches higher and stops faster, that's a good thing..  

What you are describing is a hybrid redisigned to look like an iron. Hot face irons arent new technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

You went from blaming the club manufacturer to now blaming the fitters. Most golfers don’t get fit. It’s up to the club fitter to fit you based on what information you provide him/her. The more info you provide the better the fitting experience. It’s not the fitters job to educate the consumer. The good ones will provide some helpful information but it’s not the the fitters job to educate just like it’s not the a salesman job to educate a consumer on a product. As I stated and you are confirming most consumers only care about distance and don’t care about the how’s and whys. I have worked numerous demo days for my local range and as a demo day rep for a brand. I can tell you the number of people that asked about lofts, lengths or design factors around clubs was very small. The ones that did were the educated consumer and it was usually about how the loft compared to another brand. The rest only cared about the total number from the launch monitor and not the carry number. They wanted to know the flex of the shaft because nobody wants to be in a reg flex when they thing they should be in a stiff.

You comparing a doctors visit to a consumer product is apples to oranges. One is there to keep a person healthy and the other is to sell a product that isn’t life altering. If I walk into an electronics store and didn’t do my research and decide to buy a camera because I saw a friend with that camera or I liked how it looked compared to another model it’s not the sales persons job to ask me what I’m using it for or why I chose that one. Will some ask what you are using for it? Yes. Will they explain to you what may be a better option for your use? Yes. Are they required to? No. Is it unethical if they don’t? No.

you don’t like stronger lofts and that’s fine but every club on the market these days is stronger lofted than they were just 15 years ago. Blades used to have a 50* pw and now they are between 47 and 45. Play what you like and enjoy the game. 

The blame really goes every which way in my opinion. Manufacturers, fitters and consumers all have their part. Im a little salty because i KNOW fitters who push this stuff on people. At the end of the day, i have NO problem with people playing what they want to play, strong lofter or not. Its their money have fun. Im more less expressing my opinion that fitters should be doing the customers better, and consumers need to inform themsleves. Heck im sure there are a bunch that dont even care to know. And thats fine too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Retrogolfer36 said:

I would say that its not all marketing BS.  I know that today, at age 40, Im playing better, shooting lower scores and hitting the ball farther than I ever have.  I can also tell you that as someone who plays vintage clubs fairly often that there is a difference from old clubs to new  clubs.

On a course that I play often, if I go from my persimmon woods and blades to my modern set, its a 14 shot swing because the new clubs absolutely hammer the ball compared to the old ones.  Part of it is the stronger lofts but part of it also is because they are lighter.

I will also say thought that with my modern irons, I dont enjoy hitting any of the irons that are longer than the 6-iron.  The lofts as strong that I struggle to get a lot of height on the shots unless I absolutely smoke the ball but to be fair, I can hit the 6-iron 170 yards, so I may not really need to carry anything longer than the 6.

Im not talking persimmons man. Lol. Last 20 with irons and last 10 with woods, we are at a technological wall. Not entirely the manufacturers fault as in they are limited with what they can do. Dont give equipment all the credit, your scores Dropping and you hitting it further could be credit to you, not the equipment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moose4282 said:

The blame really goes every which way in my opinion. Manufacturers, fitters and consumers all have their part. Im a little salty because i KNOW fitters who push this stuff on people. At the end of the day, i have NO problem with people playing what they want to play, strong lofter or not. Its their money have fun. Im more less expressing my opinion that fitters should be doing the customers better, and consumers need to inform themsleves. Heck im sure there are a bunch that dont even care to know. And thats fine too. 

So you know some people that don’t operate in a way you choose and that’s an industry issue somehow that you think needs to be addressed. 
 

Consumers last time I checked are free to know as much or as little about a product as they choose or use whatever platform or method to gain the knowledge they choose to get their info from. Whether that’s the marketing materials that any company puts out about any consumer product or thru forums, outlets that do reviews or studies or the professional in their sport of choice.
 

Consumers are also free to not spend money where they think they are being taken advantage of and spend it elsewhere. Since these golf companies are making billions of dollars I would say the vast majority of consumers are happy with the products they put out and the products that don’t do well tend to not come back. 
 

Just like you are free to not give the fitters you think so a disservice to the consumer based on your perspective.

But again this perceptions or issues aren’t only related to golf but somehow golf is the only product that gets bashed. 

 


Driver: Titleist 917D3 9.5 with Graphite Design MAD Pro 65g S

Wood: Titleist 917F2 with UST Mamiya Helium 5F4

Hybrid: Titleist 816H1 21 with Atmos Blue 85 S

Irons: Titleist 718 AP3 4i, 718 CB 5-6, MB 7-9 with KBS $ Taper 125

Wedges: Vokey SM7 46/50/54/60 with DG s200

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be aggravated this morning, because all I thought when I started reading this is, “How many threads exist about present day lofts , and do we need another?”

Good gracious.

Best quote on here, “Ad infinitum.”

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

  • Like 6
  • Love 2

Driver: :honma: TR20 460, :Fuji: Ventus Black 70X

Fwy: :titelist-small: TS3, 15*, Veylix Rome 888 X

Hybrid: :callaway-small: X2 Hot Pro, 20*, :Fuji: Rombax 8D07HB TM27 X

Irons: :srixon-small: Z585 4/5 iron, Z785 6-PW, :Nippon:Modus 120X

Wedges: Vega VW-06 50*/54*/58*, Dynamic Gold S400

Putter: :seemore-small: Platinum M5 HT Mallet, 36"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PMookie said:

I must be aggravated this morning, because all I thought when I started reading this is, “How many threads exist about present day lofts , and do we need another?”

Good gracious.

Best quote on here, “Ad infinitum.”

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

It’s a topic that won’t ever die on the internet and the only place lofts matter apparently is on forums. I’ve played with so many random strangers that have no idea about lofts id clubs or why things are designs the way they are. I’ve played a couple rounds with an older gentlemen at the former home course of or beloved CG2. When I met him the first time a couple years ago he had a full pxg bag after doing a fitting with them. When we played last year he still had them at the house and plays with them periodically but had bought a set of Callaway irons because they went further and were easier to hit. He didn’t know or care they lofts were stronger or difference in head size. He was happy he could go out play golf and break 100 a little easier than he did with his pxg.

The guys I have played with since I took the game up in 96 are mostly retirees and play 3x a week now. They only care that they can pull a certain club and it goes the distance they expect it too. Doesn’t matter to them what the loft is they just care that they hit their 7i the same distance today that they did the last time they bought clubs. They also tend to buy the same brand of clubs when they purchase and only 2 of them have ever done a fitting and both were in the last 3-4 years

  • Like 3

Driver: Titleist 917D3 9.5 with Graphite Design MAD Pro 65g S

Wood: Titleist 917F2 with UST Mamiya Helium 5F4

Hybrid: Titleist 816H1 21 with Atmos Blue 85 S

Irons: Titleist 718 AP3 4i, 718 CB 5-6, MB 7-9 with KBS $ Taper 125

Wedges: Vokey SM7 46/50/54/60 with DG s200

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be aggravated this morning, because all I thought when I started reading this is, “How many threads exist about present day lofts , and do we need another?”
Good gracious.
Best quote on here, “Ad infinitum.”
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

It’s not just you, MGS posts in general are more aggravating.
  • Like 4

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* with UST Proforce V2
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :srixon-small: 765 6-AW with KBS Tour shafts
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  :odyssey-small: Ten S      Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330,   :EVNROLL: ER2.2,  

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Is it marketing, or is it advancement in science?  Its both, in my opinion.  Marketing isn't new, the people responsible for making money have always sought to find ways to describe how their newest product is better than the previous one, or better than their competitor's product.  Some of the marketing is fact-based, some is definitely jargon.  And there will always be people who will choose a specific set of clubs because the 7-iron goes 175 yards instead of 155 yards like their old set.  Most car-buyers, most refrigerator-buyers, and yes, most golf club buyers don't really research the technical stuff, they're victims of marketing.  So yes, marketing is a significant factor.

On the other hand, and totally ignoring the number stamped on the bottom of the club, advancements in science have made irons which, for a given carry distance, launch higher and descend steeper.  Put it another way, for a given launch/descent angle, the ball goes further.  For most (not all) players, the ability to hit a 150 yard shot higher and have it stop faster is a significant improvement.  In many cases, these same club offer tighter dispersion on off-center strikes due to advancements in technology.  Again, an advantage for the newer clubs.  These changes are real.  And to be honest, I don't care whether the advancements are due to a change in CG, in tungsten weights, launch angle changes, or magic pixie dust, if my 150-hard club launches higher and stops faster, that's a good thing..  


I can't get on board with a "both" answer, as the science side doesn't add up.

Manufacturers tell us they've had to make the lofts stronger because they've moved the center of gravity lower, and farther back.  Golfworks data shows us that isn't the case.  Advances in materials is often mentioned, but using different materials doesn't change anything by itself; the entire purpose of using tungsten, carbon, aluminum, etc, is to manipulate the center of gravity.  Which isn't any different, generally speaking.

You could make a case for hollow clubs, or the TM slots, but those aren't new, either.  Both were on the market decades ago.  They failed, but the golf market is slow to adjust; single length failed previously, also, but seems to be doing much better these days.  <shrug>

Even trajectory improvements aren't new.  In Ye Olde Tymes, there were clubs that produced higher trajectories, and some that flew lower.  Even the seeminly-limited-at-a-glance world of blades had not inconsiderable differences, or so I've found in the sets I've owned or hit.  

It's not unlike the old line about TM drivers.  If all these clubs kept hitting the ball as much higher as their predecessors, we'd all be taking down satellites by now.  🙂

  • Like 1

Cobra King LTD @ 10.5*, ProtoPype 80 X, 43.5"
2h:  TaylorMade Stage 2 Tour, Aldila NV105 S
3-PW:  Mizuno MP37, DGS300
GW: Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
SW:  Ram TG-898 56* -or- Wilson Staff PMP 58*
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, Cleveland Designed By, or Mizuno TPM-2, all at 34", or Cleveland Huntington Beach 1, 35"
Ball:  Wilson Staff Duo Pro or FG Tour, or Kirkland Signature 3 pc

Sometimes play 2-PW Golden Ram TW282 or 2-PW 1980 Golden Rams

Occasionally swap in Orlimar or Ram persimmons at the top end of bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moose4282 said:

The blame really goes every which way in my opinion. Manufacturers, fitters and consumers all have their part. Im a little salty because i KNOW fitters who push this stuff on people. At the end of the day, i have NO problem with people playing what they want to play, strong lofter or not. Its their money have fun. Im more less expressing my opinion that fitters should be doing the customers better, and consumers need to inform themsleves. Heck im sure there are a bunch that dont even care to know. And thats fine too. 

The blame fully lands on you. If you are not educated on what you buy that's your fault and not anybody else's. OEM's and fitters are in the business of selling you something. YOUR JOB is to understand what you are buying, this is not just in golf products but every product you buy. 

  • Like 4

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 9.5* (Ventus Black 6X) 45"

:taylormade-small:             M5 15* (Ventus Black 7x) 43"

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 18* (Tensei AV Blue 70 X)

:srixon-small:                     Z585 4-5 (KBS C Taper S)

:srixon-small:                     Z785 6-AW (KBS C Taper S)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 55 08 M (KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 59 04 L   (KBS 610)

:bettinardi-1:                Studio Stock 28 Slotback 33.5"

:bridgestone-small:       Tour BX

:Arccos:

Twitter         @THEZIPR23

 

"One thing Golf has taught me, is that my muscles have no memory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:


I can't get on board with a "both" answer, as the science side doesn't add up.

Manufacturers tell us they've had to make the lofts stronger because they've moved the center of gravity lower, and farther back.  Golfworks data shows us that isn't the case.  Advances in materials is often mentioned, but using different materials doesn't change anything by itself; the entire purpose of using tungsten, carbon, aluminum, etc, is to manipulate the center of gravity.  Which isn't any different, generally speaking.

You could make a case for hollow clubs, or the TM slots, but those aren't new, either.  Both were on the market decades ago.  They failed, but the golf market is slow to adjust; single length failed previously, also, but seems to be doing much better these days.  <shrug>

Even trajectory improvements aren't new.  In Ye Olde Tymes, there were clubs that produced higher trajectories, and some that flew lower.  Even the seeminly-limited-at-a-glance world of blades had not inconsiderable differences, or so I've found in the sets I've owned or hit.  

It's not unlike the old line about TM drivers.  If all these clubs kept hitting the ball as much higher as their predecessors, we'd all be taking down satellites by now.  🙂

But it is both. It is marketing in the fact that distance sells in golf. It is science in the fact that I can hit the same launch angle, descent angle with more distance with an iron that is stronger lofted and keep the spin resonable. If I bent a Titleist 962 to today's lofts the club would not work the same. 

  • Like 4

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 9.5* (Ventus Black 6X) 45"

:taylormade-small:             M5 15* (Ventus Black 7x) 43"

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 18* (Tensei AV Blue 70 X)

:srixon-small:                     Z585 4-5 (KBS C Taper S)

:srixon-small:                     Z785 6-AW (KBS C Taper S)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 55 08 M (KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 59 04 L   (KBS 610)

:bettinardi-1:                Studio Stock 28 Slotback 33.5"

:bridgestone-small:       Tour BX

:Arccos:

Twitter         @THEZIPR23

 

"One thing Golf has taught me, is that my muscles have no memory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, THEZIPR23 said:

But it is both. It is marketing in the fact that distance sells in golf. It is science in the fact that I can hit the same launch angle, descent angle with more distance with an iron that is stronger lofted and keep the spin resonable. If I bent a Titleist 962 to today's lofts the club would not work the same. 


How do you know?  Have you tried it?

Even if it didn't work for the 962, it's hardly definitive.  Just means the 962 doesn't meet the spin requirements.  There may well be other clubheads that do.

Speaking from my own experience, I found a clubhead that would have met those requirements for the game I had 10 years ago, too high with too much spin.  They were part of what got me in a set of Eye2+ for a year.


Cobra King LTD @ 10.5*, ProtoPype 80 X, 43.5"
2h:  TaylorMade Stage 2 Tour, Aldila NV105 S
3-PW:  Mizuno MP37, DGS300
GW: Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
SW:  Ram TG-898 56* -or- Wilson Staff PMP 58*
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, Cleveland Designed By, or Mizuno TPM-2, all at 34", or Cleveland Huntington Beach 1, 35"
Ball:  Wilson Staff Duo Pro or FG Tour, or Kirkland Signature 3 pc

Sometimes play 2-PW Golden Ram TW282 or 2-PW 1980 Golden Rams

Occasionally swap in Orlimar or Ram persimmons at the top end of bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:


How do you know?  Have you tried it?

Even if it didn't work for the 962, it's hardly definitive.  Just means the 962 doesn't meet the spin requirements.  There may well be other clubheads that do.

Speaking from my own experience, I found a clubhead that would have met those requirements for the game I had 10 years ago, too high with too much spin.  They were part of what got me in a set of Eye2+ for a year.

It is not about lowering spin or height, it is about hitting the same window with more distance. 

  • Like 1

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 9.5* (Ventus Black 6X) 45"

:taylormade-small:             M5 15* (Ventus Black 7x) 43"

:callaway-small:                      Epic Flash Sub Zero 18* (Tensei AV Blue 70 X)

:srixon-small:                     Z585 4-5 (KBS C Taper S)

:srixon-small:                     Z785 6-AW (KBS C Taper S)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 55 08 M (KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                      Vokey SM8 59 04 L   (KBS 610)

:bettinardi-1:                Studio Stock 28 Slotback 33.5"

:bridgestone-small:       Tour BX

:Arccos:

Twitter         @THEZIPR23

 

"One thing Golf has taught me, is that my muscles have no memory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats really funny is how some manufacturers have brought back old “technology”. Taylormade SIM line brought back the V steel soles and suddenly its “aerodynamic”. My favorite ones are on golf ball boxes- “improved aeronynamics for more distance!” Hmm translation-this ball spins lower...and probably when put on a LM, it very likely wouldnt. 
 

I wonder if there is an endgame to the loft jacking...maybe, maybe not-I can see it in 10 years... playing a 150 yard par 3...

me- “hey what club ya hitting?”

buddy- “oh i got my T wedge”

me- “ what the heck is a “T“ wedge?”

buddy- “oh its the club between my U wedge and my gap wedge”

me-“mmm ok, well i got a 9 iron”

buddy- “9 iron!! Ha! Thats WAY too much club for me!”

me- “alright well dang didnt realize you were such a long knock” 🤭

buddy- “ yea its this equipment man, every year, the new technology is CRAZY! I just keep longer and longer every year!”

Me- “ahhhh ok” 🙄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

It is not about lowering spin or height, it is about hitting the same window with more distance. 


You mentioned descent angle earlier.  Hence my mentioning spin.

 


Cobra King LTD @ 10.5*, ProtoPype 80 X, 43.5"
2h:  TaylorMade Stage 2 Tour, Aldila NV105 S
3-PW:  Mizuno MP37, DGS300
GW: Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
SW:  Ram TG-898 56* -or- Wilson Staff PMP 58*
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, Cleveland Designed By, or Mizuno TPM-2, all at 34", or Cleveland Huntington Beach 1, 35"
Ball:  Wilson Staff Duo Pro or FG Tour, or Kirkland Signature 3 pc

Sometimes play 2-PW Golden Ram TW282 or 2-PW 1980 Golden Rams

Occasionally swap in Orlimar or Ram persimmons at the top end of bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Moose4282 said:

Im not talking persimmons man. Lol. Last 20 with irons and last 10 with woods, we are at a technological wall. Not entirely the manufacturers fault as in they are limited with what they can do. Dont give equipment all the credit, your scores Dropping and you hitting it further could be credit to you, not the equipment!

I could put my Titleist DCI 981s in the bag and the result would be the same.  I would still hit the Atomics about 10 yards longer per club and theres some clubs in the 981 set which I simply cannot hit because I dont swing the club fast enough.

For most people, hitting the ball farther is going to lower their scores and for some, its a game-changer.


Whats in my Sun Mountain 2.5+ stand bag?:

Woods: Titleist 913FD 13.5* 3-wood

Hybrid: Titleist 915HD 3H 

Irons: Titleist DCI 822 OS 6, 8 and PW

Wedges: Ping Glide 2.0 56*

Putter: Titleist Bullseye Standard

Ball: Titleist Pro V1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this topic today and I had another thought about all this.  Hitting the ball farther is a wonderful thing, no one argues that.  I do think thought that hitting it farther alone isnt the end-all, be-all.  You still have to be able to put the ball close to the hole from 100 yards and in, get up and down for par and make your putts.

I do think that we make more about jacked lofts than there really is there.  Who cares what number is stamped on the club?  Its more about what club you can hit the ball to a certain distance with.

I also think that while much is made about lofts and whether or not clubheads have a lower CG or have hotter faces than they ever have that what often gets overlooked in shaft technology and how shafts today are so much more advanced than they have ever been and part of what allows stronger lofts is that shafts today launch the ball higher than they ever have.

So, is it about marketing?  Yes.  Is it ALL marketing?  I used to think so but I dont so much anymore because Ive seen how jacked lofts have allowed me to play the best golf of my life as Im nearing age 40.  Ive also seen by playing vintage clubs what a game changer it can be, if you know how to use it.

I also think that its a slippery slope when you stand on the soapbox of traditional lofts because what exactly are, "traditional lofts?"  If you are going to rage against jacked lofts, where do you draw the line on technology?  Are we going to get rid of graphite shafts too?  Metal-headed woods?  Should we go back to hickory shafts and the feathery balls?  At what point do you draw the line on technology and how do we decide what era of equipment was the golden age and that we should have stopped there?  I mean, honestly, I think the biggest advancement in golf equipment technology in the last 50 years is the modern ball.  Modern golf balls are so good.  I mean, the fact that they dont spin much off the woods, hybrids and long irons but spin like crazy off the wedges is amazing.

I think that someone else said it best when they said that if you dont like jacked lofts, you dont have to play irons that have jacked lofts.  You can play blades (although blades technically have jacked lofts nowdays too) or you can play vintage irons.  No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play the latest and greatest clubs.

  • Like 5

Whats in my Sun Mountain 2.5+ stand bag?:

Woods: Titleist 913FD 13.5* 3-wood

Hybrid: Titleist 915HD 3H 

Irons: Titleist DCI 822 OS 6, 8 and PW

Wedges: Ping Glide 2.0 56*

Putter: Titleist Bullseye Standard

Ball: Titleist Pro V1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...