Frank, always enjoy reading your newsletters. Correct me if I’m wrong. I think the spring effect in irons was tried back in the 1960’s when Wilson introduced an iron called the ” Wilson Reflex ” It didn’t catch on…
Rich, Indiana.
Rich,
Let me give you a little background regarding the spring-like-effect rule and how a “trampoline” can now be incorporated in iron clubs so you can hit your 7-iron as far as your 6- iron.
In our Q&A a few weeks ago we addressed the trampoline effect in irons and had a number of very interesting comments posted.
The first equipment rule in 1909 did not permit springs in the club head. In 1956 this was changed to “the face must not unduly influence the movement of the ball”. In 1983 — as a result of the submission of the Wilson Reflex iron in 1980 — which didn’t work like a spring although it was advertized as a spring — and the recognition that new designs and materials may be used to create a spring-like effect, we changed the rule back to no spring-like effect.
Now the rules say a little bit of spring like effect is OK but separate spring designs which unduly influence the ‘little bit of spring-like-effect permitted’, or ‘unduly influence the movement of the ball’ are not permitted. To further confuse you see the actual wording: Appendix II 4-c in the Rules of Golf.
Rich, this convoluted, indistinct wording of the new rule — which permits a little bit of spring-like-effect in irons – will give you more distance whether you need it or not. We are suckers for distance and as the spring-like effect does not apply to putters you may find the next marketing inspired innovation is a putter which will hit the ball farther than any other putters.
Let us know if you really believe the marketing claims of golf club manufacturers? If not, why?
Frank
franklygolf 
I agree with Alan. I also remember when you didn’t need a gap wedge in your bag because what was a 6 iron back then is now called a 7 iron, just so the manufacturers could claim more distance for their 7 iron. Do I believe the manufacturer’s claims? No.
But they’re tricking us into spending more and more money to enjoy a GAME. Spend $150+ each for new hybrids because the 3, 4 and possibly even the 5 irons are too hard to hit; spend $90+ on a GW because there’s too big of a void between the PW and SW.
No wonder so many other countries can’t get into golf, but prefer soccer. It’s sad on two levels:
1. they’re already priced out.
2. even if they could get a set, it’d be some hand-me-down freebie. They’d then be looked down on for not being a “real” golfer (or, as Mike Stachura from Gold Digest calls people playing with >2 year old gear , “pretending to golf”).
Most of us have a 180 yard swing and a 250 yard ego. We’ll believe anything that supports our self image. It also explains politics in the US.
i believe the claims butonly for those with swing speeds to take advantage of said claims . for the average golfer these claims will not be realized because we do not swing the club fast enough.
I agree completely, Alan. It’s easy to advertise “17 more yards!” when you have guys like Dustin Johnson in your stable of golfers.
There are two guys in my regular rotation of foursomes that went out and bought RBZ drivers before the season (one even bought the 3w). My father-in-law lamented at the time that he should get one (he’s a TMaG guy…). I said, “Why? That Burner 2.0 you have is just as technologically-advanced as their shiny new drivers”. He didn’t believe me until the first drives of the season, when he outdrove them both by at least 15y.
It never ceases to amaze me how many sheeple there are in golf. If we believed all the hype, pomp and circumstance the ads throw at us in every other walk of life, we’d be springing for the new “it” car, toaster, or ear swab every six months.