Revisiting a Classic
Longtime readers may remember that five years ago we tested whether or not distance irons were really longer than traditional irons (check it out HERE). This has been one of our most often-referenced Golf Myths Unplugged, so we decided to try it again to see if iron technology has changed in the last half decade.
The Myths
Myth #1 – Distance irons are inherently longer than traditional irons
Myth #2 – Distance irons are more forgiving than traditional irons
Myth #3 – Distance irons are more accurate than traditional irons
How We Tested
For this test, we brought together five golfers with handicaps ranging from scratch to nine. Each player chose an iron shaft that fit their swing and used it to hit four different iron heads. We used two distance irons – the TaylorMade P790 and Callaway Epic Forged – and two blades – the Callaway Apex MB and TaylorMade P730. All the irons had their loft adjusted to 27 degrees. Each player hit seven shots with each head, and all shots were recorded on Trackman.
All testing was done at, and with the help of, Club Champion.
The Results
In a surprising reversal of what we found five years ago, our testing showed that distance irons are longer than blades, even with equal lofts.
For the group average, the blade 6-iron carried 180.9 yards; the distance 6-iron carried 186.3 yards.
Individually, each tester had their longest average carry with one of the distance irons. Also, when we combined the distance irons and blade irons, the distance irons were longer.
Finally, when we looked at the longest shot each individual hit, the distance irons won again. In comparing the best shot of each tester, the longest distance iron shot was, on average, 8 yards longer than the best blade shot.
The biggest driver of this distance gap was ball speed. Each tester posted their highest average ball speed with a distance iron, gaining at least 1 MPH and as much as 4.5 MPH over the best blade.
While it would seem that a large, high tech iron would be more forgiving than an old school blade, we do not have data to show this definitively.
The first metric we looked at was the distance gap between a player’s best and worst shot. On average, the distance irons were only slighter better, and there was tremendous variance within the group. One tester had only 10 yards between his best and worst blade shots and nearly 20 yards between his best and worst distance iron shots. Other players showed the opposite pattern.
We also looked at the consistency of spin rates and launch angles. Again, the averages tilted very slightly toward distance irons, but individual tester’s results were all over the map.
Looking at smash factor further muddied the water. On average, the group had the same smash factor with the distance irons as with the blades.
Accuracy is something we didn’t discuss in the previous version of this test, and I was eager to see the results. Contrary to popular belief, blades proved to be more accurate than distance irons.
When we grouped together the two distance irons and the two blades, the blades were more accurate for four of our five testers. Among those four, two saw substantial accuracy gains: over 2 yards closer to center per shot. The one tester who was more accurate with distance irons was only better by 0.3 yards per shot.
Looking at the irons individually, we saw a similar pattern. Four of our testers were most accurate with one of the blades. Additionally, four of our five testers were least accurate with one of the distance irons.
Additional Findings
One clear, though unsurprising, finding was that the distance irons produced much less spin. The two blade irons averaged 5,246 RPM. The two distance irons averaged 4,755 RPM, a difference of nearly 500 RPM or roughly 10%. This was true not only for the group, but for each individual as well.
The story of launch angle was much more muddled. There was no clear connection between launch angle and iron type. Some players launched the blades higher, others launched them lower.
When we looked at peak height, there was a small trend toward the distance irons creating higher shots. Three of the five testers had higher peaks with the distance irons. For four of the testers, the difference between irons was small – 1 or 2 feet. The one outlier created higher shots with the blades by a substantial amount – 8 feet higher on average.
One observation that we made while watching the testers is that sole width is an underappreciated factor in iron selection. Each of our testers had a clear preference for a particular sole width. When given a club that was dramatically different than their gamer, they struggled with turf interaction despite all being above average players.
The Takeaway
While rapid product cycles have made it easy to become jaded about whether or not golf clubs are actually getting better, this test shows that, when it comes to distance, irons are improving. The modern distance iron creates a ton of ball speed while lowering spin.
However, this does not mean that every golfer needs a modern distance iron. Each golfer should – with the help of a quality club fitter – determine what they need to get the most out of their golf swing to accomplish their goals on the course.
Matt Saternus
Latest posts by Matt Saternus (see all)
- FootJoy HydroTour & HydroLite X Rain Jacket Review - September 29, 2023
- Bridgestone e9 Long Drive Golf Ball Review - September 28, 2023
- Oraimo Trcker 100 E-Bike Review - September 27, 2023
Dear Matt, very interesting reading. Thank you!
I just hope that readers less used doing critical reading would not come to a wrong conclusion that blade irons perform similarly to distance irons, just distance irons are a bit longer. Lets stress and not forget that you were comparing 6 irons in hands of single digits (!!!). There I believe the accuracy and forgiveness might seem similar, especially given small samples. Should you compare 4 irons, or bogey golfers, and in particular 4 irons in hands of bogey golfers, I dare to say the difference in accuracy and forgiveness would be much less favourable for blades. Thus my main take away is that 6 irons in hands of single digits perform similarly, just distance irons are half club longer.
But more interestingly. Do you have any explanation why the testers had higher swing speed with distance irons? Was it confidence thing? Or weight of head thing? It surely could not be aerodinamics, and shafts were the same… I do not understand it. I would guess distance irons get longer distance through higher smash factor from more springy face, not from higher swing speed…. ???
He didn’t say that the distance irons produced higher swing speed. He did say they produced higher ball speed, a different matter entirely. That could be due to the springy faces of the distance irons. Blades don’t have that. They are one piece of metal.
He did say that the smash facto was the same. The additional ball speed would have to come from faster club head. We’re the shafts controlled?
Ok, did the golf manufacturers pay for this article!?!?!? Just kidding!!! I actually have always hit blades longer the distance irons for the exception of the Callaway X2 Hots. The X2Hots have a blade look, feel and swing, but incredible distance advantage over the previous Titleist clubs I have been playing for the last 15 years. I did play with Ping I25 for a couple of years, good clubs nice distance, but not workable clubs, I had to make EXTREME swing changes jus to make them work and shape. Not so with the X2Hots. Like most technologies, the golf industry has exotic materials and designs that will only be released late in the future, like cars…..its about selling little improvements at a time to keep you wanting!!!!!!!!
I don’t understand the obsession with hitting irons longer. If you aren’t hitting your driver and wedges the same amount longer as your new wonder clubs, all you are doing is ruining your gapping.
I completely agree about the need to chase distance with irons, especially in the case of better players. Gapping is the only thing that should truly matter when it comes to iron distances.
Interesting note about width of sole making s difference.; was there the same conclusion in regards to the length of the head?
Also, presumesble testing was done off mats not grass? Mats tend to make the Ball spin more and produce greater launch. ?
Gary,
None of our testers commented on the blade length, but that could have been a factor.
Testing was done off mats.
-Matt
Interesting. I thought the G410s andM6s or similar were going to be put against blades but no, player’s distance irons as some websites call them. Bugger all difference if you ask me. All that tech amounts to little useful.
I assume the player’s distance irons are not all that much more forgiving either so I’d rather have a solid piece of metal than the hollow head nonsense that is so popular these days (though that works just fine for woods of course).
As a single digit golfer, I appreciate you sometimes using better golfers to make club comparisons. The higher handicap results don’t help me compare clubs. Having some tests done each way covers everybody. Thanks.
As a bogey golfer, who is getting a bit older (56 years old, 17.8 handicap) I immediately get annoyed when I see or read reviews or tests being being done by or with single digit players… The findings mean nothing to me.
Great article Matt,
For some reason the equipment myth comparison articles are always my favorite.
Was the accuracy measured from a center line or a specific target?
How did this test relate to other blade myth testing you have conducted? And in you opinion, how would a modern players cavity back iron compare to either a blade of distance iron?
Kip,
Accuracy was measured relative to the centerline only since we wanted the players to make full swings (maximum distance without swinging out of their shoes) with unfamiliar irons. It wouldn’t be very fair to hand someone a new iron and ask them to hit specific distances.
I think modern players cavity back irons have made huge strides in terms of forgiveness. As far as distance technology like we’re talking about in this article, I don’t think they have much over blades.
Best,
Matt
I appreciate the article as informative for players of all levels. Clearly most players, single digit or higher will benefit
using game improvement distant irons. The ball will make the difference.
You don’t mention anything about the weights of the heads, only the lofts, which were adjusted to 27*. I wouldn’t be surprised if the distance irons were lighter, on average, which would encourage a higher swing speed. (?)
Mark,
The differences in swing weight among the four heads were no more than 1 point.
Best,
Matt
Yes, I would expect swing weights to have been close, but I’m asking about the actual weight of the club heads. As lofts for irons have been decreasing for a given club#, so too have head weights changed in many instances, with longer shafts, as well. You mentioned that all club lofts had been adjusted to the same 27*, to account for those differences, which was a good idea. Swing weight is important for consistency, but club and head weights, and shaft length, too, are more important for distance. It would be interesting to see those numbers, as there’s really no “technology” in irons that I’m aware of to explain it otherwise. Great read, though! ;)
Mark,
The shaft used was the same for each golfer, the only thing changed was the head, so if swing weight was the same, the head weight was the same.
-Matt
Hi Matt,
Has there any research been done what would be the best choice for a golfer to further lower his handicap;
use blades (which are said to give more feedback and therefore help learning to improve the quality of strike) or distance irons (which could help to reduce the length of approach shots /help to reach greens more easily)?
Some golfers say that you learn most from blades and should not use irons that cover up flaws in your swing, others say not using new tech would be selling yourself short?
Mark,
That’s one of those eternal debates which we can’t answer without some really good longitudinal studies. I don’t think the choice of equipment matters that much to a golfer’s improvement. If someone is determined to get better, and they work at it intelligently, they will get better. The vast majority of golfers don’t commit the time to really improve, so they should just play what makes them happy.
Best,
Matt
Comment/Question. When determining the accuracy between players distance irons and blades, is it fair to compare the same irons ie 6 iron to 6 iron? Given distance irons are about 8 yards longer (assuming this is consistent with all irons) would it not be fair to compare the irons that hit the same distance (ie club down for the players distance iron) and see if accuracy is comparable? Not sure it is apples to apples since 8 yards would require most players to change their club selection.
Steve,
Good question. Since we made all the lofts equal, we judged the accuracy in an apples-to-apples manner. We could have looked at degrees offline, but with a group-wide distance difference of only 5 yards (about 3%), it wouldn’t have changed our conclusion dramatically.
Best,
Matt
I thought I would post my question here because it relates to spin and loft, albeit not specifically to the topic mentioned here. I recently got fitted at TrueSpec Chicago (Mike) and had a great experience. We discovered that I am a very high launch, very high spin iron player (my gamer 6 iron carries 185 with a spin of 6,700rpm). My fade tends to balloon and my draw becomes a hook too often, all as a result of my natural tendency. As a result, we found the best performing iron/shaft combination for me was the Srixon Z765 head with a Project X 7.0 shaft. The result was an average carry distance of 200 and spin of 5,800rpm. So big improvements. My question now, though, is this – Are some of those improvements attributed to the loft difference? My gamer 6i is 31 degrees, whereas the Srixon 6i is 28 degrees (more like my gamer 5i). If I ordered the clubs bent 1 or 2 degrees weak, would that help keep my gaps consistent or is the head technology itself lending more distance via less spin?
Jim,
That’s a great question. If you’re comparing your gamer 6I at 31 degrees to a 6I that’s 28 degrees, that’s a bit of apples to oranges. Certainly the loft disparity is part (perhaps a large part) of the spin reduction and distance increase.
As to whether you should order the clubs bent weak, I can’t give you a definitive answer. Personally, I would want to hit something before I ordered it, so I might go back to True Spec and ask to try the Srixon bent to those weaker lofts.
Today’s heads do tend to be lower spin, but, again, part of that is the result of stronger lofts.
Best,
Matt
Thanks for the reply, Matt. I was thinking the same thing. My concern was mainly about gapping… If I start hitting 6 irons 200 yards, then my PW will be going 150 and it will be challenging to find the right club for that 115 (current 52 wedge) to 150 (46 PW) range without adding another club like a 49 degree wedge. I suppose that’s possible as I rarely hit the 60. In general, should I be looking for the right spin numbers from my clubs, or ideal distances? In other words, if the only way I can hit 6 irons with “ideal” spins of 5k – 6k is to see 200 yard carries through stronger lofts, is that preferred to getting back to my original yardage and seeing high spin again? Anyway, thanks for the insight. Tough dilemma.
Jim,
You’re asking some wonderful (but TOUGH) questions. Here’s what I would do in your shoes: you obviously have plenty of swing speed, so hitting it longer isn’t the main concern. I would do my best to find an iron that’s lower spin but with traditional lofts so that you don’t end up with weird gaps or a bag of wedges.
If that’s not an option (or you can’t find anything that fits the bill), the question goes back to you: is the high spin hurting your iron game so much that it’s worth re-configuring your wedges or would you rather stick with higher spin to keep your current distances? I would try to get some data on the consistency (or lack thereof) of my distances on the course and how much unwanted curvature I’m seeing.
I hope that helps.
Best,
Matt
Thanks for the insight, Matt. Great points. I think I’ll see what bending those irons weak results in or find irons that can reduce spin at traditional lofts. The issue then becomes if they do enough spin reduction (get me to 5,600 or only down to 6,300+). I loved the Z785 ball flight as it was much more controllable even though it was going further. To answer your question, yes, my high spin and launch is making iron play tough. I play off 6.8 and my iron play is by far the worst part of my game. Playing a fade results in ballooning in any wind and playing draws are too hard to control. The Z785 allowed for smaller curves and much more controllable ball flight. I loved them. We also tried Forged TEC and P790’s, both of which were even further and even stronger lofts that I didn’t like the feel of as much as the Srixons. The question now becomes whether the improvements we found disappear if the clubs are bent weak. If they do, I would keep the lofts strong and replace the 60 with a 49 and go the “bag of wedges” route.
Matt, Thanks for your input last weekend. Just wanted to close the loop on my “bag of wedges” discussion. I circled back with Mike at TrueSpec and he recommend I NOT have the Srixons bent weak throughout the bag. First, he said that most of the spin reduction comes from the head design/technology itself and not from the lofts, although some may be attributed to that so I could expect to lose some of the spin reduction we achieved. Second, he said bending each iron weak would change the effective bounce of each club (raising it) and could change my turf interaction (which I loved as currently set up) and make my strikes less consistent that I was seeing on that day in the studio. Lastly, he said that I was probably already seeing an issue with gapping from my 47 degree PW (135 carry) and my 52 degree GW (115 carry) and that those 120-125 yard shots were probably already causing some fits, so he may have recommended a 49 or 50 degree wedge anyway, so better to keep the stock lofts of the Srixons and get one more wedge to fill out that area. So that’s what I’m going to do I think. I rarely (if ever) hit the 60 so I’m OK with dropping that in favor of finding a 48 degree RTX4 and bending it 1 degree weak. Then I end up with PW46 – 145, GW49 – 130, GW52 – 115, SW56 – 100 and partial shots after that. I’m strong in the short game and rarely drop shots because I use a 56 instead of a 60, but I often lost strokes from missing greens or not getting close from 120. Thanks for the input!
Jim,
Thanks for letting me know how that turned out. This is a wonderful testimonial for getting fit! I hope the new irons treat you well.
Best,
Matt
Not sure if you monitor these older threads but I just found this article. This tests resonates well with me. I have the PXG 0211 DC irons and am switching to the 0311P irons because of some distance issues that these distance irons create for me. The 0211 irons are super easy to hit but I’ve got a lot of bunching at the longer end of the bag. Not only are the 0211 irons stronger lofted, they also have longer shafts by 1/2″ throughout the bag compared to the 0311P. I’m still working out the new yardages but the 0311P model (5 – GW) seems to be a bit better distributed in distance from 105 to 180 as measured on the golf course. The 0211 (GW – 5) spanned 115 to 200 with my swing and that overlaps too much with my 22 hybrid and 7 wood. I’m wondering if it’s better to stick with the longer distances and maybe drop the 5 iron from the bag or go with the better coverage from 105 to 180 from the lower lofted irons.