Finally, some real data on Iron forgiveness…

[nsxguy]

35 minutes ago, ernotte said:

This is really interesting.  I thought those clubs were supposed to be more forgiving.  So could it be said that player's irons are actually more forgiving?

 

 

"The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) have the worst vertical dispersion, and the biggest gap from a center strike to the best mishit,,, essentially, its hot in the middle but no more forgiving than anything else on misses"

 

This is a classic example of something that is TRUE, but STILL can be very misleading.

 

Advertising is chock full of this, both written and visual.

 

The FACT is we really aren't sure how far off the effective sweet spot the "misses" are. All we really know is that the misses were hit off the (relatively) same spot on each club face.

 

We also don't know the size of the effective sweet spot of each iron; i.e. the area from the pinpoint ss where the strike would result in essentially the same result as dead center. THAT is what shows us the true(?) forgiveness of each iron.

 

Which brings me to a point I mentioned earlier that I haven't seen explained or referenced. The black dots shown in the (2nd ?) video @ 1:40.

 

If these black dots represent where the center of the golf ball is being struck the results, at least of the toe & heel strikes, IMO, are useless.

 

Both the heel and the toe dots appear to be about 1/4" from the ends of the grooves.

 

If I hit the ball on that part of the club, I don't care where the ball goes, I deserve whatever bad results I get. So I don't care what those results are.

 

IMO, those dots are nowhere near the effective sweet spot. So, also nowhere near where I typically strike the ball.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by nsxguy

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

"The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) have the worst vertical dispersion, and the biggest gap from a center strike to the best mishit,,, essentially, its hot in the middle but no more forgiving than anything else on misses"

 

This is a classic example of something that is TRUE, but STILL can be very misleading.

 

Advertising is chock full of this, both written and visual.

 

The FACT is we really aren't sure how far off the effective sweet spot the "misses" are. All we really know is that the misses were hit off the (relatively) same spot on each club face.

 

We also don't know the size of the effective sweet spot of each iron; i.e. the area from the pinpoint ss where the strike would result in essentially the same result as dead center. THAT is what shows us the true(?) forgiveness of each iron.

 

Which brings me to a point I mentioned earlier that I haven't seen explained or referenced. The black dots shown in the (2nd ?) video @ 1:40.

 

If these black dots represent where the center of the golf ball is being struck the results, at least of the toe & heel strikes, IMO, are useless.

 

Both the heel and the toe dots appear to be about 1/4" from the ends of the grooves.

 

If I hit the ball on that part of the club, I don't care where the ball goes, I deserve whatever bad results I get. So I don't care what those results are.

 

IMO, those dots are nowhere near the effective sweet spot. So, also nowhere near where I typically strike the ball.

 

And tests aside, in my real-world experience there is no iron or hybrid or whatever that's going to let me get the ball on the green if I hit it a blooming inch out toward the toe (which I am perfectly capable of doing once a round or so). I'm not going to pick clubs due to how they handle my worst iron shot of the round, like yourself I'm more interested in those multiple halfway-decent iron shots per round that are just fraction high/low/toe/whatever (almost never in the heel for me).

 

But still, I see in a testing plan where you only will be hitting a small number of impact locations it would be tempting to go ahead and test way off-center strikes. Some people may be shopping for irons that only lose 20 yards on a severe toe-jam rather than 25 yards. 

[Red4282]

4 hours ago, ernotte said:

This is really interesting.  I thought those clubs were supposed to be more forgiving.  So could it be said that player's irons are actually more forgiving?

At the very minimum, this shows players irons are not any worse on mishits when it comes to distance control/dispersion, and in my opinion slightly better. Id like to see more test with other irons to see if the horizontal dispersion is worse or not. The srixon had bad horizontal, but if the low heel is thrown out, its right there with the rest. 
 

 

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

"The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) have the worst vertical dispersion, and the biggest gap from a center strike to the best mishit,,, essentially, its hot in the middle but no more forgiving than anything else on misses"

 

This is a classic example of something that is TRUE, but STILL can be very misleading.

 

Advertising is chock full of this, both written and visual.

 

The FACT is we really aren't sure how far off the effective sweet spot the "misses" are. All we really know is that the misses were hit off the (relatively) same spot on each club face.

 

We also don't know the size of the effective sweet spot of each iron; i.e. the area from the pinpoint ss where the strike would result in essentially the same result as dead center. THAT is what shows us the true(?) forgiveness of each iron.

 

Which brings me to a point I mentioned earlier that I haven't seen explained or referenced. The black dots shown in the (2nd ?) video @ 1:40.

 

If these black dots represent where the center of the golf ball is being struck the results, at least of the toe & heel strikes, IMO, are useless.

 

Both the heel and the toe dots appear to be about 1/4" from the ends of the grooves.

 

If I hit the ball on that part of the club, I don't care where the ball goes, I deserve whatever bad results I get. So I don't care what those results are.

 

IMO, those dots are nowhere near the effective sweet spot. So, also nowhere near where I typically strike the ball.

 

Keep reaching…. Im not here to say its a perfect test, and its absolutely flawless. Even so, you can still gain valuable information (that is if your perceptive and open minded). Thats why I posted this for discussion. If you want just just throw it all in the trash and move on, go ahead. 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

And tests aside, in my real-world experience there is no iron or hybrid or whatever that's going to let me get the ball on the green if I hit it a blooming inch out toward the toe (which I am perfectly capable of doing once a round or so). I'm not going to pick clubs due to how they handle my worst iron shot of the round, like yourself I'm more interested in those multiple halfway-decent iron shots per round that are just fraction high/low/toe/whatever (almost never in the heel for me).

 

But still, I see in a testing plan where you only will be hitting a small number of impact locations it would be tempting to go ahead and test way off-center strikes. Some people may be shopping for irons that only lose 20 yards on a severe toe-jam rather than 25 yards. 

Cant really argue with speculation.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

Keep reaching…. Im not here to say its a perfect test, and its absolutely flawless. Even so, you can still gain valuable information (that is if your perceptive and open minded). Thats why I posted this for discussion. If you want just just throw it all in the trash and move on, go ahead. 

 

And you got a discussion.

 

But I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally.

 

I don't consider it reaching at all. IF those black dots are strike points, I see nothing I'm interested in vis-a-vis those strikes.

 

You do. No worries Red. 👍

[nvr3putt]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:48 PM, Valtiel said:

Also important to note that the scale on the X-axis of the is different in the PING graph vs. the others which artificially makes it look way tighter by comparison. 

Not to mention the y-axis! Look carefully and there's literally NO DIFFERENCE.

How does one make any scientifically valid conclusions without any statistical comparisons? 

This is me right now  , except I ain't no genius.

[Andygolderson]

Hot Face is a big issue i.m.o

 

I re-shafted a set of cavity backs and then after the investment and a few range sessions over the weeks, it struck. PW to 160yds, rolling out to 180. Not ideal when i'm playing it to 135 for 90% of the time.

 

I vividly remember one time i flushed a 9 iron in the past, carried additiona 30yard green + 30yards extra before OB. Straight into someone's front yard..

 

It's rare, but not so consistent for a "forgiving set"

[nsxguy]

16 hours ago, Andygolderson said:

Hot Face is a big issue i.m.o

 

I re-shafted a set of cavity backs and then after the investment and a few range sessions over the weeks, it struck. PW to 160yds, rolling out to 180. Not ideal when i'm playing it to 135 for 90% of the time.

 

I vividly remember one time i flushed a 9 iron in the past, carried additiona 30yard green + 30yards extra before OB. Straight into someone's front yard..

 

It's rare, but not so consistent for a "forgiving set"

 

 

I have to wonder why you picked this particular thread, one in which the distance consistency of the "hot faced" irons is every bit as consistent as the "player's CBs",,,,,,,,,, with the exception of the Ping i230s,,,,,,,,,,,, which, btw, is the subject of the original video "Ping i230 Irons Robot Iron Testing".

 

Personally, I remember vividly hitting a 6 iron (normal carry ~160), playing for a 145 shot to a front pin into a 15 mph or so wind, quartering into me and flushing it over the green.

 

It is, IMO, FAR more likely I misjudged the wind direction and, instead of quartering INTO me was probably quartering BEHIND me.

 

I've been playing GI irons for 30+ years and, other than the instance above, have NEVER seen anything like what you're suggesting, with the possible exception  of coming out of rough (wet or dry) - certainly never off a normal fairway lie.

 

So why in this thread ? Have you already posted about these "flyers" in on all the other available ones ?

 

 

[Andygolderson]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

I have to wonder why you picked this particular thread, one in which the distance consistency of the "hot faced" irons is every bit as consistent as the "player's CBs",,,,,,,,,, with the exception of the Ping i230s,,,,,,,,,,,, which, btw, is the subject of the original video "Ping i230 Irons Robot Iron Testing".

 

Personally, I remember vividly hitting a 6 iron (normal carry ~160), playing for a 145 shot to a front pin into a 15 mph or so wind, quartering into me and flushing it over the green.

 

It is, IMO, FAR more likely I misjudged the wind direction and, instead of quartering INTO me was probably quartering BEHIND me.

 

I've been playing GI irons for 30+ years and, other than the instance above, have NEVER seen anything like what you're suggesting, with the possible exception  of coming out of rough (wet or dry) - certainly never off a normal fairway lie.

 

So why in this thread ? Have you already posted about these "flyers" in on all the other available ones ?

 

 

umm there's no reason, sorry for posting, i guess ?

 

Not sure i really get your point. if you have something to say, i prefer you just say it.

 

I read the OP and replied on the fact he mentioned vertical dispersion with hot faced irons. it's a thing, i experienced it before, so i confirmed it. I don't have any such issue like that when I play blades. I wanted to highlight the point that cavity backs tend to have hot faces and can be unreleliable at times due to this, which ironically makes them less forgiving. I thought it was relevant to the topic. At least if others recognise it, then some people interested might consider it before going to buy a certain set of clubs.

On the range recently, my PW (of the same CB mentioned above) can often carry to almost 160yds repeatedly, let's say 10 balls out of 50, for example. This may or may not become a problem on the course. that's not very helpful when i'm relying on it to carry 135.

 

I didn't recently read any other posts highlighting hot face iron discussions. i can delete the post if you're in some way offended by it.

 

 

[nsxguy]

19 hours ago, Andygolderson said:

Not sure i really get your point.

 

I thought I'd made it pretty clear.

 

The "data" here shows no evidence of hot spots/flyers which, I personally believe, is one of golf's most popular myths..

 

Yet you thought it important. I didn't. And still don't.

 

You've seen flyers. I haven't.

 

I guess those are my points.

 

Hope you enjoy(ed) your Thanksgiving. 👍

[miamistomp]

 Only carries 160 PW for a 13 capper ?

 

  Wow- time for new clubs

[Andygolderson]

5 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I thought I'd made it pretty clear.

 

The "data" here shows no evidence of hot spots/flyers which, I personally believe, is one of golf's most popular myths..

 

Yet you thought it important. I didn't. And still don't.

 

You've seen flyers. I haven't.

 

I guess those are my points.

 

Hope you enjoy(ed) your Thanksgiving. 👍

a lot of people believe in jesus or santa clause, yet they've never seen them either...

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, Andygolderson said:

a lot of people believe in jesus or santa clause, yet they've never seen them either...

 

So you're saying you believe in fliers but have never seen them ?

[Andygolderson]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

So you're saying you believe in fliers but have never seen them ?

i'm saying that just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesnt exist.

[North Butte]

I wonder how long of a thread it would create if the moderators merged the last decade's worth of this blades versus cavity back discussion into one thread. I'm guessing it would be several thousand pages, well over 100,000 replies. 

[nsxguy]

8 hours ago, Andygolderson said:

i'm saying that just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesnt exist.

 

And the reverse is also true.

 

Just because you've "seen" them doesn't mean they do exist; at least not for the reason(s) you are suggesting.

[ALIF]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

And the reverse is also true.

 

Just because you've "seen" them doesn't mean they do exist; at least not for the reason(s) you are suggesting.

I think his flier is a shot that he actually caught dead flush.

[North Butte]

32 minutes ago, ALIF said:

I think his flier is a shot that he actually caught dead flush.

That's always my problem. I've got 125 yards, pick a club where my normal high-toe push-fade goes 125 and if it's a back flag I'll catch the sweet spot every time. Boom! 135 yards and one-hops off the back of the green into the rough.

 

Where's that crummy shot when you're counting on it? 

Edited November 26, 2022 by North Butte

[Red4282]

“Flyers” isnt the best term really, they can happen with any club. I like to call em jumpers. Ive seen it on a launch monitor when just suddenly you get a big boost of ball speed, like 3-5mph out of nowhere, even though strike, speed and delivery difference was pretty much negligible. No need for “oh, you actually hit the sweet spot” comments because it honestly doesnt matter, its just about consistency on all strikes and in this case vertical dispersion patterns. 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Red4282

[Andygolderson]

On 11/26/2022 at 8:12 AM, ALIF said:

I think his flier is a shot that he actually caught dead flush.

assuming it was on a single shot, sure. as I said, you can hit 100 balls an get a few like that. Especially from higher lofted clubs. What i didn't mention here is those clubs are also one length, which is also a little attributed to their design flaw (success?) in that shorter irons are longer and longers irons are not so much impacted. You might also compare why some people play mixed sets.

Anyway, I can take a joke, however, in this case it's just not relevant.

On 11/25/2022 at 11:27 PM, nsxguy said:

 

And the reverse is also true.

 

Just because you've "seen" them doesn't mean they do exist; at least not for the reason(s) you are suggesting.

As for this, it's just clutching at straws to try to win an argument. Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine.

On 11/26/2022 at 8:59 AM, Red4282 said:

“Flyers” isnt the best term really, they can happen with any club. I like to call em jumpers. Ive seen it on a launch monitor when just suddenly you get a big boost of ball speed, like 3-5mph out of nowhere, even though strike, speed and delivery difference was pretty much negligible. No need for “oh, you actually hit the sweet spot” comments because it honestly doesnt matter, its just about consistency on all strikes and in this case vertical dispersion patterns. 

jumper is definately for a better word. sometimes they just "spring" from the face (I find) on these particular irons. of course, being an amateur, I won't say i'm hitting the center every time, but somwhere around ~80%.

Sorry to detract the topic, and yes blades vs cavity is another disucssion.

 

Interesting that you still get some variation from a robot. this is what I ultimately should say.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Andygolderson said:

Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine.

 

Exactly.

 

2 hours ago, Andygolderson said:

jumper is definately for a better word. sometimes they just "spring" from the face (I find) on these particular irons. of course, being an amateur, I won't say i'm hitting the center every time, but somwhere around ~80%.

 

Interesting that you still get some variation from a robot. this is what I ultimately should say.

 

Actually what is interesting, from a robot, is that the spring faces in the test were extremely close in distance, certainly within an expected tolerance, and nary a flier. And yes, I realize there were relatively few shots "dead center" ?

 

But what's more interesting, some might say hysterical, is a 13 handicapper hitting the center of the face ~80% of the time.

 

THIS is what @ALIF was playfully suggesting when he said you'd probably hit the middle when you, among MANY others,  got these 25 yard fliers.

Edited November 28, 2022 by nsxguy

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Exactly.

 

 

Actually what is interesting, from a robot, is that the spring faces in the test were extremely close in distance, certainly within an expected tolerance, and nary a flier. And yes, I realize there were relatively few shots "dead center" ?

 

But what's more interesting, some might say hysterical, is a 13 handicapper hitting the center of the face ~80% of the time.

 

THIS is what @ALIF was playfully suggesting when he said you'd probably hit the middle when you, among MANY others,  got these 25 yard fliers.

Respectfully, just let it go. Now we are getting into passive aggressive insults, and this thread of discussion of data and an interesting test that we havent really seen much of has now just turned into speculation and mud slinging.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Red4282

[metaldog]

they've uploaded to their youtube channel recently with tons of iron reviews, I find it quite interesting, and something that's been of particular interesting for me is front to back dispersion with more compact heads vs big heads, in particular i've always wondered about top bottom moi like in the t100 potentially affecting front back, and the p7tw on the other hand has such a tiny circle, or how the new cobra line gets more distance from the heel than center/toe. 

 

This has been much more insightful for me vs. human anecdata, where it's really hard to tell if thinish misses or toe/heel misses really have that much more of an effect.