1/4" Progression in club length for irons ?

[OnePutt]

Awhile back I read something about building a set of irons with 1/4" difference in club lenghs between the irons instead of 1/2". Just wondering if any of you club buildiers have any experience with this and what your opinion of this idea is. If you use 1/4" instead of 1/2" you end up with a 3 iron the length of a normal 6 iron. Should make for better ball striking with the longer irons if nothing else. While the shorter club length for a 3 iron might cost you some distance, I'm thinking you might make up for that with more solid ball contact.
Any one have any opinions on this method of building a set of irons?
I know the lie angles may have to be corrected a few degrees, and the head weight of each of the irons will have to be increased to get the swing weight back to normal. Each of those items can be corrected with no big problem. If you have any experience with this, I'd appreciated your reply. Thanks in advance.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

Awhile back I read something about building a set of irons with 1/4" difference in club lenghs between the irons instead of 1/2". Just wondering if any of you club buildiers have any experience with this and what your opinion of this idea is. If you use 1/4" instead of 1/2" you end up with a 3 iron the length of a normal 6 iron. Should make for better ball striking with the longer irons if nothing else. While the shorter club length for a 3 iron might cost you some distance, I'm thinking you might make up for that with more solid ball contact.
Any one have any opinions on this method of building a set of irons?
I know the lie angles may have to be corrected a few degrees, and the head weight of each of the irons will have to be increased to get the swing weight back to normal. Each of those items can be corrected with no big problem. If you have any experience with this, I'd appreciated your reply. Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I don't understand how you'd end up with a 3-iron cut to the length of a 6-iron.

Men's "Modern Standard" lengths for irons is basically 1/2-inch longer than the old "Traditional Standard" and the Modern Standard came into use somewhere around 1980 or so. When iron lengths are measured, they all begin with the 1-iron. Even though 1-irons aren't produced anymore (at least not as a standard club), its length is still the starting point for shaft trimming and finished length trimming.

A Men's Modern Standard 1-iron is 39-1/2-inches (steel shaft) and normally, each club thereafter is trimmed 1/2-inch shorter up to and including the PW and then all additional wedges are usually cut to the same length (but some builders go 1/2-inch shorter for the first wedge beyond a PW and then trim the rest to that length).

So if you trimmed all of the irons only 1/4-inch between clubs instead of the usual 1/2-inch, your 3-iron length would be 39-inches even and keeping that progression, the PW would end up at 37-1/4-inches which would be 2-1/4-inches longer than a standard wedge.

The whole idea is similar to the "one length" iron concept in which all of the irons are cut to the same length. The theory in this holds that each club can be used with basically the same (one) swing so that all a player needs to concern himself with are the differences in loft and thus distance. The supposed added feature is to afford a bit more clubhead speed in the shorter irons so that they may be able to produce longer distances while still affording the spin features of a shorter and more lofted club. The idea being the distance of a longer club with the stopping power of a shorter club.
They don't say how one might approach such things as pitch shots inside 100 yards or ay touch shots usually associated with a wedge, nor is there any real agreement on just what length should be used in all clubs. The general "rule of thumb" is to make all clubs about a 5-iron length (37-1/2-inches), but since the whole idea is experimental, I don't see why the length couldn't be longer or shorter.

Varying club lengths in different ways is common in golf and everyone has their own preferences. I myself used to play a set in which I cut my 1, 2, 3 and 4-irons 1-inch over standard (Modern Standard) and then the rest of the set from the 5-iron on down to the wedges was a 1/2-inch over Modern Standard. I wanted a bit more clubhead speed out of the long irons as I often used them as driving irons (particularly the 1-iron) on tight holes or short par 4's. They worked fine for me, but my last two sets I have trimmed so that all of my clubs are 1/4-inch over standard and they work fine as well - although I don't use a one or two iron anymore.

If you're inclined to give the 1/4-inch thing a try, I'd be interested to know how it worked out for you, but as for me, I don't know that I could get used to an almost 38-inch long Sand Wedge (after all, the grip adds about another 1/4-inch).


-JP

[OnePutt]

Jp; you're thinking from the wrong end of the irons. The idea I'm talkin about starts with a standard length 36" 9 iron. Then increase club length 1/4" per club. This would give you: 36-1/4" 8 iron, 36-1/2" 7 iron, 36-3/4" 6 iron, 37" 5 iron, 37-1/4" 4 iron, and 37-1/2" 3 iron. A standard length 6 iron is 37-1/2", the same length as the 3 iron using the 1/2" progression. The whole idea of using 1/4" progression is the make the longer irons easier to hit, not make the wedges longer. I hope this makes more sense to you know. As you know, most amateur golfers can't hit a 3 or 4 iron very well. But if the 3 iron was the same length as a normal 6 iron, it should be just as easy to hit as their normal 6 iron, just longer due to the lower loft. Because each club is shorter than normal with this method, a standard set of iron shafts could be used with a little trimming. Since I first posted this, I have built a test club with an extra 3 iron head I had on hand. Added some weight to the head to make the head the same weight a a standard 6 iron head and assembled the club to 37-1/2". I will be heading out to the range to compare this 3 iron to my standard 3 iron and standard 6 iron. If this 3 iron works well, I'll looking into different methods of adding weight to the clubheads to get the swing weight back to normal, and work on building a complete set of 1/4" progression irons.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

Jp; you're thinking from the wrong end of the irons. The idea I'm talkin about starts with a standard length 36" 9 iron. Then increase club length 1/4" per club. This would give you: 36-1/4" 8 iron, 36-1/2" 7 iron, 36-3/4" 6 iron, 37" 5 iron, 37-1/4" 4 iron, and 37-1/2" 3 iron. A standard length 6 iron is 37-1/2", the same length as the 3 iron using the 1/2" progression. The whole idea of using 1/4" progression is the make the longer irons easier to hit, not make the wedges longer. I hope this makes more sense to you know. As you know, most amateur golfers can't hit a 3 or 4 iron very well. But if the 3 iron was the same length as a normal 6 iron, it should be just as easy to hit as their normal 6 iron, just longer due to the lower loft. Because each club is shorter than normal with this method, a standard set of iron shafts could be used with a little trimming. Since I first posted this, I have built a test club with an extra 3 iron head I had on hand. Added some weight to the head to make the head the same weight a a standard 6 iron head and assembled the club to 37-1/2". I will be heading out to the range to compare this 3 iron to my standard 3 iron and standard 6 iron. If this 3 iron works well, I'll looking into different methods of adding weight to the clubheads to get the swing weight back to normal, and work on building a complete set of 1/4" progression irons.

That's an interesting way to do it. I've never heard of going from the wedges on up, but the way you describe it, I can see how it would affect the 3-iron length as well as the swingweight. I suppose it makes sense from an "ease of use" point of view, it's just that I never built clubs from the wedges towards the long irons, it's always been the other way around.
As far as adding weight to the heads goes, I would just experiment with tape for now and if it turns out that not too much weight is needed, you might be able to get away with either all shaft tip weights or some shaft tip weights and some tape. Putting all that weight just down the shaft would (in my opinion) place an excessive amount of weight near the hosel instead of behind the ball where it would do more good.

A truly custom way to do this would be to first decide if the idea works overall. If it does, then add weight to the heads via welds and then grind and finish the welds smooth and then have the entire set of heads either chromed or satin finished (Golfworks or Golfsmith does this) and then you'd have a truly custom set of clubs that look as good as they play.

Let me know how this works out. It sounds like something that might be fun to play around with!


-JP

[JPsuff]

N/M

[OnePutt]

What I did with the test 3 iron was add a solid piece of lead inside the tip of the shaft for now. Since this 3 iron is the same length as a normal 6 iron, I weighed the 6 iron and 3 iron, and added the difference to the 3 iron. If this works, I'll figure out a way to add the weight on the head itself. The head I'm using as an X-16 copy, so there is a big cavity back that is hollow. I think I can add the weight inside the cavity if I want to and make it work well. Will decide after I get a chance to see how the first 3 iron performs before I worry about making a whole set with the added weight in the head itself. I'll let you know more after I try out the 3 iron.

[Fileygolfer]

Are you going to change all the LIE's too.
Irons are made to be the same Height so by changing the Lengths you have to change the Lies too?

[OnePutt]

I'll worry about the lie angles once I decide if I like the new club lengths. If I like the new 3 iron at the length of a 6 iron, I can always bend it to adjust the lie angle to fit me. One step at a time for now.

[OnePutt]

Well, I hit some balls with the short 3 iron, side by side with my normal 3 and 6 irons. I have to say I hit the shortened 3 iron about as well as I was hitting my 6 irons, which was pretty well. I was hitting both better than my normal 3 iron, so it seems to be a decent concept. Now I have to measure how far I hit the shortened 3 to see if it's close to my normal 3 or not.

[OnePutt]

I have some range results for those interested in this idea about a set of irons, Went out to the range with my playing partner and hit a bunch of balls. Hit a standard length 6 iron to get warmed up, and then hit the shorter 3 iron. Next came a normal length 3 iron. The results were that we both hit the short 3 iron between 5 and 7 yards shorter than a normal length 3 iron. The good news is it was easier and more consistant ball striking with the shorter 3 iron, so we both felt more comfortable using it. Then my friend hit his 4 iron to get a comparison, and he hit the 4 about 10 yards less then he was hitting the short 3. This would put the short 3 right in between a normal 3 and a normal 4 iron for distance. This is pretty much exactly what I had predicted would happen, based on choking down 1-1/2 inches on an iron. The next step is to build some more clubs using the same 1/4 inch progression and see if I get the same results. Since the 3 iron is going to have the most change in length, 1-1/2 ihches shorter than normal, all the other irons should be effected even less. For example, the short 7 iron will be only be 1/2 inch short and the same length as a normal 8 iron. I doubt a half inch will have enough effect on distance to be noticable, if will just be slightly easier to hit well. The short 5 iron will be the same length as a normal 7 iron, and should be as easy to hit. After yesterdays testing, I can see why this idea is being used by some club makers and why it would be popular with the golfers that try it.