MyGolfSpy Labs: 7-Iron vs. 7-Iron
Irons

MyGolfSpy Labs: 7-Iron vs. 7-Iron

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

MyGolfSpy Labs: 7-Iron vs. 7-Iron

7-Iron vs. 7-Iron

At our primary test facility in Virginia and our secondary location in Upstate New York, we do a good bit of testing that we don’t put in front of you. While we maintain the same standards in how we collect and analyze our data, we’re often just testing concepts and ideas. For example, we sometimes experiment with ways to leverage launch monitor features. Sometimes we try out new testing protocols, or, in the case of this test, we kick the tires on a concept to see if a larger test could be of value.

The act of testing itself not only provides us with knowledge; the answers we find often come in the way of more questions. In that sense, testing often provides inspiration. We’re hoping that by putting these Labs in front of you, you’ll have questions too.

To give you an example of what I’m talking about; upon completion of test detailed below, I found myself wondering two things:

  • To what extent is the relationship between loft and launch angle affected by swing speed?
  • Given the lower spin and, presumably, the lower launch of the modern game-improvement irons, would slower swing speed/senior golfers benefit from higher lofted irons?

So as you read through this Lab, think in terms of questions, not answers. Whatever questions you might have, feel free share to share them. They could help shape the next round of testing.

Iron Loft-5

The Test

We decided to conduct a simple experiment to look at the relationship between iron loft, launch angle, and distance. We pulled four clubs, each with the number 7 stamped in the sole. While there were obvious similarities (all golf clubs have a head, a grip, and a shaft), you probably won’t be shocked to learn that all 7-irons aren’t exactly created equal.

Here’s what was tested.

Iron Loft-3

Yonex’s N1-MB Blade is about as close to a traditional blade as you’ll find on the market today. It’s a compact design with minimal offset, and a razor thin topline. A graphite insert provides the only hint of modernness. While it’s not relevant to the test, I’d be remiss not to tell you that the N1-MB is absolutely the softest feeling iron I’ve hit in a considerable amount of time.

Iron Loft-1

PING’s iBlade is the epitome of a modern blade. It has the footprint of a player’s cavityback. The topline is thinnish at best. It has some offset, though I wouldn’t describe it as generous. A custom tuning port (CTP) provides vibration dampening as well as swing weighting capabilities.

Iron Loft-4

Callaway’s Apex CF16 is your textbook modern game-improvement club. It features a midsized blade, with moderate everything (topline, sole width, and offset). A multi-material forged design, Apex isn’t the most distance-centric in Callaway lineup, but guys looking for a few more yards won’t be disappointed either.

Iron Loft-2

PXG’s 0311XF is the big distance, big forgiveness iron in the PXG lineup – and within this test too. Of the included irons, it has the widest and deepest sole, the thickest topline, the most offset, and the largest overall footprint. While the PXG’s signature big blade design provides some camouflage, the XF most definitely qualifies as a super game-improvement distance iron.

Tale of the Tape

As with some other tests we’ve done, this wasn’t about creating a perfect apples to apples comparison. Instead, we took four obviously different irons that just happened to have the number 7 stamped into the sole, and without regard for much else, hit them side by side to find similarities and differences.

 

The above chart shows us what we’d more or less expect. Iron loft decreases (get stronger) as we move from the blades to the game-improvement designs. 5 degrees of loft separate the weakest (Yonex) from the strongest (PXG). It’s fair to say there’s some loft-jacking going on within this bunch. It’s also important to note that shaft length differences are reasonably minimal. There’s just a bit more than 1/4″ between longest and shortest.

Stock shafts for each of irons are inline with what you’d probably expect. The CF16’s shaft is lighter and has a softer profile, while the blades feature heavier lower launching shafts. The anomaly in the bunch is the C-Taper in the 0311XF. There’s no such thing as stock in the PXG lineup. My sample was built to my specs – and that almost always means low launch/low spin.

Expectations

Before we get to the data, let’s briefly talk about what we expected to find. Based on static specs, we would expect to see an across the board progression in performance. The blades should launch appreciably higher and spin considerably more. We’d also expect those launch conditions would come with diminished ball speed. We’d expect the game improvement clubs to fly lower and farther and ultimately create more distance. That’s the point of distance irons, right? Finally, we’d also expect the larger irons to be more forgiving.

The Data

Observations:

  • The data suggests a clear and predictable progression in ball speed. The lower lofted 7-irons produced significantly more average ball speed.
  • You may find it surprising that despite significant differences in static loft, differences in launch angle were minimal (less than 1.5 degrees between the lowest and highest launching).
  • The greatest influence in narrowing the launch gaps likely comes from increased dynamic loft from the GI and SGI designs created by the lower and deeper centers of gravity in the Apex and the 0311XF.
  • As we would expect, the higher lofted (and also higher CG) designs produced significantly more spin. While not uncommon with average golfers, I believe most fitters would agree that ~5500 RPM produced by the GI/SGI irons is less than ideal for a 7-iron.
  • Somewhat surprisingly, the 0311 XF produced the highest peak (apex). So while it produced the lowest initial launch angle, it also produced the highest average ball flight – almost certainly due to the increased carry distance.
  • The Angle of Descent is similar for all four irons tested, but the higher spinning irons would produce less roll and offer greater green stopping power.
  • Differences in ball speed, launch, and spin rates created significant differences in carry yards. The PXG 0311XF was nearly 20 yards longer on average than the Yonex N1-MB, and 6.5 yards longer than the Callaway Apex CF16.
  • Standard Deviations in both Ball Speed and Carry Yards (the lower the value, the more consistent the data) can provide insight into what is generally referred to as forgiveness. The data suggests the forgiveness breakdown is what you’d expect. The larger (GI designs) are more forgiving than the blades. Conversely, though not tested, we would expect that better golfers would find it easier to shape shots and control trajectories (better workability) with the more compact designs.

Takeaway

It goes without saying that loft has an influence on distance, but perhaps not to the degree, or at least not in the way golfers tend to think. While it’s true that the lower lofted clubs in this test produced more ball speed and ultimately more distance, the relationship between static loft and launch angle was disproportionate to the actual difference in lofts between clubs. In my case, A 5° difference in loft produced only a 1.37° difference in launch angle, and the lowest lofted club produced the highest peak ball flight.

This would seem to validate some of what the OEMs tell us about game-improvement irons, specifically CG locations and the resulting influence on launch (they launch higher). That said, despite mostly similar trajectories, the stronger lofted clubs produced significantly less spin than the blades. While that’s great for distance, it’s not the best recipe for holding greens. I still believe many golfers, particularly slower swing speed players, would benefit from weaker lofted irons.

The key thing to remember is that specifications almost never tell the complete story, and there’s absolutely no such thing as an inherently good or a bad loft.

If I had hit these four irons with the intent to buy, I’d almost certainly eliminate the Yonex N1-MB (I LOVE them, but reality says they’re not forgiving enough for daily use), and the PXG 0311XF (I might fall in love with the distance, but the low spin would be a concern based on how I prefer to play the game). That said, I might consider weakening the lofts by a degree or two.

From the remaining choices; if I’m focused on distance, I go Apex, but if I’m looking for control (at the expense of some forgiveness), I’d take the iBlades. Not to belabor the point, but the idea here is that you shouldn’t get hung up on specifications. It should go without saying that individual results will vary based on a number of swing variables, but the goal should always be to find the iron that produces the best results within the dynamic realities of your golf game. The on-paper stuff…it doesn’t matter much at all.

Iron Loft-6

Which Would You Choose?

If your numbers were proportional and similar to mine, which iron would you choose?

For You

For You

Irons
Apr 24, 2024
PXG Irons: Model By Model
Putters
Apr 23, 2024
PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
News
Apr 23, 2024
Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Thom Bendtsen

      7 years ago

      I know you get enough of people telling you what to do, but I think the next obvious step is to test these 4 irons again, except with all clubs having the same loft. Would the pxg 7 iron be identical to the 6 iron in the other sets? I think the numbers would be similar for carry and spin except the pxg might be more accurate. So rather than hitting the same number iron and seeing which is longer, hit the same set, different club, to the same target and see which is more accurate. That would be the real test, I think.

      Reply

      George Hanson

      7 years ago

      PING.

      Reply

      Duncan Castles

      7 years ago

      Interesting article, but have a look at the Trackman PGA and LPGA Tour Averages for launch angle and max height per iron linked to here: http://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/
      Launch angle does not alter between irons as much as you might expect and max height is essentially the same across the entire set (and I believe that’s what clubfitters look to achieve for max height).

      Reply

      Frank Cruz

      7 years ago

      This article is silly. Not only the lofts are so different, the shafts have an even BIGGER difference. Testing a 95 gram shaft that will produce less control but much more ball speed and launch angle to DG S300 with a known low launch, to KBS S+ tells me that the IPX HEAD must really launch SUPER High to be the same as Callaway (noodle shaft) with such firmer shaft and lower loft. If IPX flies higher with a much more controllable shaft, what’s not to like? If you want more spin just get a softer tip shaft KBS LITE and get even more distance (and height). Time to apply for a second mortgage….

      Reply

      mackdaddy

      7 years ago

      It is very important to know the type of game you want to play. I love to fly my ball almost all the way to my target and have it stop after a single bounce. I like to know I can be aggressive with spin if I need to and draw the ball back but mainly I want to stop the ball where I expect. Limiting the variables to left or right of target. I like the soft fell and distance control of my KZG irons. If you play a lot of links like golf lower lofts and less spin may work for you. Playing fast firm greens at quality tracks give me loft, feel, spin and distance control. Play the right tees and adding yards in your iron set are unimportant.

      Reply

      Mark

      7 years ago

      Obviously the majority of readers didn’t get your intention with this test. It’s obviously not an apples to apples test and points to the differences (and sometimes similarities) that can be found with a sampling of the “same” club from different OEMs for a spectrum of targeted golfers.

      If it was my choice, and as you said they were the best feeling iron by far, I would pick the Yonex N1-MB and have them delofted 1° to get the same distance as the Pings.

      Reply

      JW

      7 years ago

      Based on my play and swing profile I would also go for the ping i-blade, if i had to choose from this list.

      I’am missing the effect of the shafts in the tests… they have a large impact on how an iron performs…

      Alltough my swing speeds are just above average i found that using a stiffer shaft in my irons gives me a better feel and sence of aim. On my last buy of irons i did a lot of testing and research on shafts because I found, for me, they have a large impact on the feel, results and quality of strike. Currently use KBS-Tour R+ stiffness. The shaft gives me a stiffer feel, but due its stiffness it lauches a bit lower for me. Thats where the mid launch of the shaft helps for me. Combined with Titleist AP2 heads, which are allmost true lofted, gives me enough spin to hold greens.

      Is there a way to tests shafts an the effect they have on the results?

      For instance what is the effect for a slower swing speed player to use a stiffer shaft, but a shaft which has high(er) launch characteristics… (like a Stiff KBS Tour 90, e.g. a lighter shaft) instead of a Regular C-taper, heavyer shaft.

      Reply

      Deadeye

      7 years ago

      I feel like Vinne Barbarino “I’m so confused”! I think I understand the article but how do I use this info to find a replacement for my Ping G20s? I’m a senior and need more height, distance and forgiveness. I’m already hitting a 4 and 5 hybrid so what direction do I go for new irons? Would I be wrong to want to go back to old lofts say 30 or 31 deg on a 6 iron with a modern graphite shaft? I guess it’s time to go see my club fitter.

      Reply

      Jan G

      7 years ago

      Interresting comparing different designs.
      What would be interresting is also comparing the four sets of clubs comparing the club you would use for 150 yard carry and the 170 yard carry in the different sets and then compare deviation, spin and the other parameters not focusing on the number or loft but compare from aspects of what club to use for a 150 or 170 yards carry shot!
      /Jan G, Sweden

      Reply

      Dirk G

      7 years ago

      Good article, helpful if you know how to use it. Jan G makes a good point. Reminds me of a time that I was hitting my new Mizunos great but was complaining about having to play one more club on each shot. The tour senior that I was playing with grabbed my club and with a sharpie changed the 7 to 8 and said, “now, you feel better?”.

      The point is, that if you owned the PXG’s and wanted to hit the ball 150, you would probably hit the 8 which would spin more. If you wanted even more spin, you would try the XP 95’s or maybe the c-taper lights. Maybe even a graphite shaft. At the lower end of the bag, 3 & 4 irons, you would probably find a hybrid that goes the distance that you want in that gap.

      Reply

      MAJMike the duffer

      7 years ago

      PXG goes the way of so many manufacturers trying to say they are the greatest by jacking up there lofts on their irons. This results in the longer irons being harder to hit. Why can’t these manufacturersites set them at set standard loft and if the player wants a different loft then have them adjusted. Having standard lofts then allows the buyer to get a real comparison between different companies irons. I bet the PXG would not be 20 yds. longer than the Yonex if it was set at the same loft. PXG’s hype about being the best is actually a smoke screen using jacked up specs. to achieve better performance. Next they will be putting out 7 irons with 25* loft!

      Reply

      DonW

      7 years ago

      It’s all about marketing.

      If brand a brand X 7 iron goes farther than a brand Y 7 iron a fair percentage of buyers will pick brand X.

      Reply

      Mark

      7 years ago

      With such a large disparity in loft’s, you can’t really do a club-by-club comparison. 30* vs 35* and 20 yards difference, not a ‘fair’ comparison. Pity…I was really looking forward to this article – but while it’s interesting data, it’s not really useful … for me.

      Reply

      Don

      7 years ago

      I think they should have compared the performance of the clubs with the same loft, not the number on the club.

      Reply

      Dan

      7 years ago

      I would go with the Apex CF 16. That said I would take current 7 iron and hit both to see if I need an upgrade yet. If I decided to buy new then I would get fitted so, they fit me. Thanks for the great article and the new MGS is GREAT!

      Reply

      Craig Ryans

      7 years ago

      I have played the CF16 for two seasons so far. I am always looking for my next iron set. Have not hit anything to date that takes the CF16 out of my bag. Just added a EPIC driver. All I can say should far is WOW. Proof will be on the course in FL in 4 weeks

      Reply

      Elias

      7 years ago

      I would want to know what the numbers would say if instead of choosing four 7 irons to see how they differ you choose a distance you want to hit and find the club you would use from different sets.

      What kind of stopping power would you get from a PXG’s 0311XF 9 iron vs. the Yonex’s N1-MB 7 iron it they are comparable for distance?

      Would the forgiveness increase even more with the asumed shorter shaft of the 9 iron?

      Is ball speed ever relevant when you’ve got the rest of the numbers?

      All of this should mean gaping issues at the top of the bag right, is this true for all golfers (skill, swing speed etc.)?

      Reply

      Thomas Murphy

      7 years ago

      Interesting run, it would be interesting to see with different swing speeds how this plays out. As to the lower spin you a) adapt to it b) most people hit their irons short anyway so they could use the roll c) it would be interesting to validate in green grass testing d) the PXG is essentially a 5 iron spin but coming in a little steeper than most people’s 5s…unless you are thinning your irons or hitting rock hard greens has it been hard to stop the ball? I would be more interested (haven’t thought about this much so noodling as I write) in how the amount of backspin aides or hurts me with wind. I think it would hold the line better with side winds but wonder does it balloon more in a headwind and here is what I dislike is most “high launch” improvement irons is because launch is generated by the CG you can’t flight it down very easy. It is just like it can be a pain to hit a draw with a GI club. But then again, a GI club is designed for “just hit the middle of the stupid green” and be happy about it, you may actually improve your handicap ;-)
      PS. the new site looks awesome, nice work

      Reply

      thomas murphy

      7 years ago

      PPS: I am the guy would would be wanting to play the Yonex but a mixed bag of N1-CB and N1-MB….if they were LH — and really my game calls more for i200

      Reply

      Strip

      7 years ago

      I have been leaning toward the CF16 and appreciate the info.

      Reply

      Flo B

      7 years ago

      Can you test different clubs but not with same number on the sole, rather with the same loft? It would be more comparable. Here the SGI 7 are a 6 for blades. So we could really compare forgiveness, trajectory, spin, for the same carry distance more or less.
      Also,

      Reply

      Graham Riley

      7 years ago

      I’d take the iBlades because of the control and the fact I like a narrow top line of a blade.

      Reply

      Carson Joens

      7 years ago

      These results show some pretty incredible numbers for PXG. However why did you test the XF??? The o311 or even the 0311t would be much more comparable to the other three heads, and I believe the numbers would be close to the same. If you’re willing to spend money on clubs, do it. Get PXG. Tests are out of this world all across the board. If you need more spin, that’s why you get fit for the right shaft.

      Reply

      Frank J Giasone Jr

      7 years ago

      PXG all the way!!!

      Reply

      DTown3011

      7 years ago

      While not an apples to apples test, that wasn’t the idea and I think people are missing the point – that clubs that have a FIVE (5) degree difference in loft are all virtually launching at a similar launch angles (less than 1.5* of each other). It confirms what OEMs have been telling us about more distance-oriented irons: they’ve made them launch significantly higher and by lowering the lofts (and therefore gaining distance) they still launch the same as what a traditional 7-iron would. If my 30* 7-iron launches the same as my 35* 7-iron but goes 20 yards further assuming I can handle the spin rate why wouldn’t I take that? Bottom line, if the same game improvement iron was 35* it would launch SIGNIFICANTLY higher with much more spin – and that wouldn’t make much sense at all. Loft jacking? Sure, but there is a science around it as well.

      Reply

      ryebread

      7 years ago

      That’s my take away as well. There’s actually some truth to the marketing story from the OEMs. The static loft of the club is different, but the dynamic loft gets to be about the same. The peak height is about the same, but the spin is greatly reduced and the ball speed goes up.

      To me this was most obvious first when testing hybrids. Those specs end up looking much more similar, but there is a huge range in spin between a 22/23 degree hybrid from one OEM (low, back weighted) versus another (low front). The low/front ones are longer, but don’t hold a green as well. Some on another site called me a liar (couldn’t see 2-3 MPH ball speed differences out of such similar specs), but it was evident in the numbers and I hit a LOT of balls over a LOT of days.

      I think it really comes down to what one is looking for out of the club and that slot and then how one compensates. I’m fine with a low spin iron (and I currently play what is a pretty low spinning iron with some seriously jacked lofts), but I need to remember to play front distances.

      As for what is “better” some need to also keep in mind the playing conditions. I may be in a minority, but I personally believe lower spinning is better when playing in wind. It’s not just peak height (note they’re all about the same), but for whatever reason I think a higher spin shot is exaggerated by the wind more (ballooning and distance loss or side spin). I guess my point is what is “better” may vary based on what conditions one plays in.

      As always, great read by Tony and team!

      Reply

      Duncan Castles

      7 years ago

      Have a look at the Trackman PGA and LPGA Tour Averages for launch angle and max height per iron linked to here: http://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/
      Launch angle does not alter between irons as much as you might expect and max height is essentially the same across the entire set (and I believe that’s what clubfitters look to achieve for max height). In other words, there is not as much truth in the dynamic loft versus static loft story some OEMs want to sell you as you might want to believe.
      A 31 degree ‘7’ iron is going to behave pretty much like a 31 degree ‘6’ iron regardless of CG. If the 31 degree ‘7’ iron is built with a higher MOI through perimeter weighting etc it will be more forgiving than the 31 degree ‘6’ iron, but that’s got nothing to do with the loft.

      Tony

      7 years ago

      So how is the PXG 7 iron supposed to stop on a green with that low spin? It goes a long way then would roll even more over the back of the green

      Reply

      Eddie

      7 years ago

      I play CF16 (also low spin) and they stop just fine. Not once have I wished for more spin.

      Reply

      Bill Mccright

      7 years ago

      Good read….one has to go with what feels most comfortable inyo hands –then groove your yardages w/ a range finder.

      Reply

      Tracey Copeland

      7 years ago

      Seems like Club mfgrs. Need to just start stamping lofts on them instead of an arbitrary number. Cart Partner: “what did you hit there”? ME: my 30degree

      Reply

      Berniez40

      7 years ago

      The Ben Hogan Clubs actually do use the loft number. I ‘ve played several rounds with people who swear by them because that is actually the way they were fitted for them as well.

      Reply

      Josh

      7 years ago

      Ben Hogan just went bankrupt because they tried to do just that (and stock/manufacture every single loft). Yikes.

      Reply

      Undershooter30

      7 years ago

      To be fair, that wasn’t exactly the reason why Ben Hogan went bankrupt. If it did play a part in it, it was 1% of their problem.

      Also they started offering traditional stamping as well before their “restructuring” started.

      David Anderson

      7 years ago

      Love my pings!

      Reply

      Kevin

      7 years ago

      There wasting there own time, seriously what’s the point it comparing irons with 5 degrees n Loft difference , please tell me. Also I didn’t realize I was gonna be graded on spelling and punctuation , jack ass. U must be a democrat .

      Reply

      Andrew

      7 years ago

      Calling names, Kevin? Check yourself.

      Reply

      Nic

      7 years ago

      If by “democrat” you mean “Educated” and “Not an A**Hole” then Yes..

      Reply

      smorency

      7 years ago

      Well Kevin, I guess you are wasting your time too, first when reading it and then, not learning anything from it.
      If we sat down with a drink and I would have asked you:
      Kevin my friend, what do you think would happen if we take two 7 irons ( or call them what you want) that are 5* of loft apart. Which one will go and fly the highest?
      Give me an honest answer.
      AND KBS Ctaper S+ is not a famous high trajectory shaft, is it?
      Keep up the good work MGS

      Tim

      7 years ago

      The part of the club (face) where it meets the ball has been unchanged for a long time besides minor groove changes. It’s not rocket science, the angle determines distance folks. All that stuff on the back is dressing said a wise old man.

      Reply

      Josh

      7 years ago

      There is no mention of shafts and their effect on launch, spin, ball flight, etc. The shaft characteristics of weight, kick point, torque, and flex can have just as much (possibly more) effect on ball flight than the static loft of the clubhead.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      From the article:

      “Stock shafts for each of irons are inline with what you’d probably expect. The CF16’s shaft is lighter and has a softer profile, while the blades feature heavier lower launching shafts. The anomaly in the bunch is the C-Taper in the 0311XF. There’s no such thing as stock in the PXG lineup. My sample was built to my specs – and that almost always means low launch/low spin.”

      Granted, we didn’t dig too deeply into it – again, not the point of this particular test. Any influence from the shaft is going to be realized in the numbers.

      Certainly, I found it interesting that even with the C-Taper (low launch, low spin, minimal deflection), the PXG’s were still in the ballpark of the others. I would expect that with the XP 95, for example, we’d see higher launch and higher spin.

      Reply

      Cole

      7 years ago

      The shaft is not going to effect launch and spin as much if not more then the club head. Although shaft weight, flex, and profile are important to fine tune spin and launch, as well as feel, the club head is doing most of the work. If you can show me launch monitor data of the same clubhead with different shafts in the same flex with spin rates that differ by more than 1000 rpm’s I would love to see it. Tony could put any shaft he wanted in that PXG and he’s not going to get a spin rate in the mid 6000’s.

      Reply

      Ryan Tracy

      7 years ago

      Why weren’t the clubs all bent to the same degree? They are all forged so it shouldn’t have been an issue.

      Reply

      Jon Brittan

      7 years ago

      Because that wasn’t the point. Would be interesting to see results if they were all the same loft, but the aim here was to show that the number stamped on a club bears little relevance to anything these days.

      All too often people can be sold on a new set of irons because they hit this 7 iron longer than that one, but that number stamp is mostly irrelevant. Who cares what the number says target than the performance of the club in terms of accuracy and spin?

      For example, I use an older set of Titleist clubs. These days the Taylormade M2 7 iron is stronger lofted than my 5 iron.
      If I hit the TM against mine then of course I’ll hit it further, but now I have to play a 9 iron instead of a 7 for the same effective distance and spin while I have a gaping hole at the bottom of my bag to my wedges.
      I don’t care what number my iron has on it, simply that it flies the range I expect it to.

      Finally, modern sets are moving in the wrong direction for gapping.
      To facilitate stronger lofts while not completely breaking the playability at the long end and the gap at the bottom they’ve compressed lofts, but at the wrong end.
      For playing performance rather than show off figures you’re better off with smaller loft gaps in the short clubs where you can really be tight in your grouping and longer gaps at the top where your range is less consistent to stop things like a miss-hit 3 iron being shorter than a half decent 4 iron.

      Reply

      Ryan Tracy

      7 years ago

      But most of the people here in the forum understand that lofts don’t necessarily match the given number on the club.

      You should also be hitting that 7 iron higher than your old 5 iron because of the CG placement. Now whether the overall club is shorter in length than your old 5 is TBD. In theory though, a 7 iron is easier to hit than a 5 iron.

      I’m 100% on board with you about the gaps at the bottom of the bag. If you have a 43-44 degree pitching wedge and a 56 degree sand wedge, that’s potentially 30 yards difference (2.5 yards per degree).

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      Based on the volume of comments we receive, It’s clear to us that most people don’t understand the relevance of CG placement or that stamped loft is largely meaningless when you factor in the dynamic forces of the golf swing.

      Reply

      Ben Goergen

      7 years ago

      So what I notice is that the PXG though 5 degrees stronger is longer per degree of loft than any of them, as well as has the lowest variance in ball speed and carry distance I would assume translates to “more forgiving”. That is all while being a 5 degrees less loft which should translate to less forgiving, harder to hit consistently. Or did I missread that?

      Reply

      Jon Brittan

      7 years ago

      Loft is only a relatively minor factor in terms of what defines forgiveness.

      You consider lower lofted irons to be less forgiving than higher lofted because they are traditionally also longer clubs.

      A 5 iron isn’t harder to hit than a 7 iron so much because of the loft than because of the longer shaft and smaller head.
      A longer shaft requires a smaller head to facilitate the same swing weight.
      This is also why game improver irons are more forgiving, bigger heads with more face flex…

      The PXG is a bigger head with a more flexible face on the same length shaft, the loft becomes minor in comparison to the mass you can put behind and under the ball.

      Reply

      Ben Goergen

      7 years ago

      Thank you Jon Brittan, I think I got that part, next question then, mind you im not a pxg sales rep but I do consider myself a numbers guy. Given total distance covered, does a smaller deviation of distance not mean it was a more “forgiving” club since distance control is half of the directions involved in shot dispersion? Aka nice to know that 7 iron should fly between 158 and 163 on any reasonably well struck shot? Vs one that flies between 140 and 149. Im not trying to sell pxg or yonex but given the data isn’t apples to apples so to speak with the loft jacking going on a guy has to try to factor that into his use of this data.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      As Jon Brittan said, length is certainly why lower lofted clubs are regarded as being harder to hit. The other factors are rooted in the physics of impact and ball flight. Assuming the same angle of attack and all other things being equal, a club that produces less dynamic loft will curve more. That’s rooted in Trackman’s spin loft math and the fact that as spin loft increase, it becomes harder to tilt the axis (curve the ball). On a broader scale it’s the reason why wedges curve less than 5-irons. So basically we can take that to mean that it’s harder to hit lower lofted clubs straight. Of course, the thing to keep in mind is that Spin Loft is derived from Dynamic Loft (not static loft), so if we define easy to hit as being easy to hit the ball in the air and straight, clubs that produce similar dynamic loft (again, all other things being equal) will offer similar ease of hitting.

      From our numbers we can assume that the PXG’s produced more dynamic loft than the other clubs and therefore, based on the physics anyway, would be expected to fly straighter, while the lower CG would allow for easy-up as it’s sometimes called. – TC

      Reply

      cChop

      7 years ago

      I’m not following with the presumption that GI irons launch lower than their bladed cousins. Of course they have less loft, but doesn’t the lower CG account for their higher launch?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      It’s all about what side of the fence you’re on.

      Angry Internet Golfer: Loft-jacking! All the golf companies are doing is relabeling a 6-iron as a 7-iron to get more distance.
      OEM Guy: If we didn’t strengthen the lofts, our modern (low/back CG) designs would launch too high.

      Our data suggests there’s a bit of truth in both, but more so for the OEM side. We found that despite substantial differences in loft (more than a club’s worth at the extremes) launch angle differences are fairly minimal – certainly tighter than most would expect, even allowing for the impact of CG location.

      On the other hand, we also find that what we presume is increased dynamic loft from the GI designs doesn’t come with a significant increase in spin (also tied to CG), so while launch angles may be similar, the spin rates are dramatically different.

      I suspect – and again this is one of those ideas we hope comes out of this thing – as Santiago noted, we’d have to drop down to something akin to a 5.5 iron in the Yonex to get the spin numbers close…and at that point, obviously the launch angle differences would widen.

      Reply

      Alex H

      7 years ago

      So if the lofts have to be strengthened to keep from launching to high, at what point are they too strong? If you have to have a 45 degree gap wedge to keep it from launching too high, wont you be hitting it way too far? So much so that you will have a significant gap to your traditional 54 sand wedge? So at some point (and some manufacturers have) you will have to move the CG more forward again on your gap wedge, pitching wedge, etc. This is why I would like to see more blended sets that are more game improvement in the longer irons and player irons in the shorter clubs. I can see the point OEMs are making, but have they gone too far?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      We have some more testing to do on the subject, but I think for many golfers, the OEMs have already gone too far.

      That said, keep in mind that these sets are designed to gap with the wedges in mind. You see big distance (and larger gaps) in the long irons, but as you move the short irons and into the PW/GW from the set things start to normalize again. It may sound like a bad idea, but we’ve seen that actual gaps in long irons for many golfers are too narrow as it is, so if you can space them out while creating additional distance, it’s not a bad thing for a decent percentage.

      The issue comes when the lofts are so strong that even with GI designs and the extra dynamic loft they provide, slower swing speed golfers and seniors have trouble getting long and even mid irons in the air. At that point, it’s a problem.

      David W

      7 years ago

      Asked and answered several times, “Is this thing accurate?”
      Hell yes. And no, you don’t actually hit your driver 250.

      Love it! Made me think of several people I know. I have to really catch one to get it out to 250/260 and I’ll out drive some guys with an average drive and then claim they average about 275 to 280.

      Reply

      ryebread

      7 years ago

      I own a GC2 and one of the best things about it is to know what distance one REALLY hits the ball. I think most people don’t really know and often are left guessing. They also don’t know what they actually carry (clear an obstacle) versus where the ball might end up.

      I also own a GPS and mark every drive I hit. I think that people drastically over-estimate their driver distance. On flat ground at sea level, I only average around 220 in the summer and 210ish in the winter (wetter). A great drive for me is 240-250 on flat ground. I’m paired with a lot of randoms and fall right in the middle distance wise. I’d bet if you asked them though, almost everyone would say they hit it further than I do.

      Reply

      Dave S

      7 years ago

      Not sure I get the point of this article. So you tested four 7-irons with four different lofts and head-shapes? And the results were exactly as anyone would have predicted w/o doing the test? So why write about it? Don’t get me wrong, I love additional content, but pieces like this adds no value.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      I’m not sure I agree that nearly everything is predictable.

      Would you have predicted that a 5° difference in loft would yield only a 1.37° differences in launch angle?
      I would have expected a more significant difference.

      Would you have predicted that the 1.37° launch angle difference would come with a 1700 RPM difference in spin?
      The commonly-used math suggests it should be +/-450RPM. This is surprising and suggests that while launch angle is perhaps more closely associated with dynamic loft, spin may be more closely correlated with static loft – and of course, CG location plays a role. It’s certainly an interesting observation that could be worth looking at in more detail.

      Would you have predicted that a 4° difference in loft (Yonex to Apex) would produce negligible differences in peak height and descent angle?
      Wouldn’t this fly in the face of the argument that loft-jacking significantly lowers ball flight while supporting OEM arguments that GI designs inherently launch higher?

      So yeah…some stuff is predictable and obvious, but I’d also argue that when you take a closer look at the data, there’s plenty here that defies expectations.

      Reply

      Kenny B

      7 years ago

      I am one of the slower swing speed players, and I have always wanted to increase the peak height of my irons so given the data shown, I would have to go with the PXG. However, based on looks I much prefer the Ping. Two weeks ago I was fitted at Ping HQ for the i200. Proportionally, my ball speed to carry yards is the same as yours, and my launch angle is the same as your Ping iBlade but your spin is +1000 over mine. As a result, your decent angle is 10* greater. I would love to have that peak height and decent angle, but alas, old age is a bitch.

      Reply

      Santiago

      7 years ago

      Spin is not an issue with the XF. Distance wise you should compare spin to the irons hitting the same distance. Call it a 5.5 yonex iron, spin would be about the same. If you put a 6 on the xf sole, spin would be just right.

      Reply

      David W

      7 years ago

      I agree. Just because it has a 7 on it doesn’t mean I’m going to pull it from 155. I’m going to pull whatever club I need from 155 and want to know the difference in spin between the irons in each set that give me that distance. That being said, this wasn’t the point of the article. It was actually a look at the difference from a player blade to a super GI iron and how they are completely different pieces of equipment and ultimately produce different results but somehow are similar in areas. I think it was a really good look at the technology.

      Reply

      Dennis Duncan

      7 years ago

      This is something that “ALL” buyers should be aware of…. be careful of “fake” distances,,,check all lies & lofts prior to hitting and understand these differences in each club are the primary reason your distances vary. Choose one that you hit straight more often than not.

      Reply

      Preston Bonner

      7 years ago

      Great great great article!

      Reply

      Preston

      7 years ago

      I’d game the pings. I’m a scratch golfer and the profile fits me. Seems to. Even the best at balancing distance, forgiveness, and performance into the green. Plus, the look clean.

      Reply

      Scott Romines

      7 years ago

      think the results on this were pretty predictable….manufacturers have been talking about more distance from their irons for years, but really they are just jacking the lofts…..I’d like to see the comparison between these at the same loft, maybe the 7i yonex vs the 8i PXG would be more accurate.

      Reply

      Preston Bonner

      7 years ago

      20 yards! More like pxg 9 iron… which is probably around 39 degrees, if I had to guess.

      Reply

      Tracey Copeland

      7 years ago

      XF’s.

      Reply

      Terry McDowell

      7 years ago

      I game the Titleist AP1 and while they are forgiving and the lofts are 3 degrees strong they definitely have enough spin to stop and even backup a bit especially with my 9, PW, and GW. However I have a high SS so someone with a much lower SS probably wouldn’t want to use “game improvement” irons but rather something with more spin.

      Reply

      Chris C.

      7 years ago

      Damn you! Damn you to hell! I game the Apex CF16 and have been looking to improve upon them. I do not appreciate Parsons’ shtick but your test results may force me to swallow my bile and tryout the PXG.

      Reply

      Tom54

      7 years ago

      FWIW I got to hit the PXG at Fairway Golf USA last year. They’re pretty cool. Then I hit the Apex with the same shaft and I hit the ball 10 yds further according to Trackman. Granted, this was not a full fitting by any means.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Irons
    Apr 24, 2024
    PXG Irons: Model By Model
    Putters
    Apr 23, 2024
    PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
    News
    Apr 23, 2024
    Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.