Opinion & Analysis
What I learned from my single-length irons experiment
Among the stories for this year’s Masters, the serious club folks show a serious interest in Bryson DeChambeau, specifically his single-length clubs. This evokes memories for me, as I experimented with a single-length set many years ago.
First a little history. Back in the mid ’80s, a golf pro by the name of Jimmy Shack from Royal Oak Country Club in Titusville, Florida, came up with a concept for a single-length set. He managed to get the Tommy Armour Company interested, and they came out with the EQL irons in 1989. They were a single-length set using the 6-iron length as standard. Despite a strong marketing push, they were relatively short lived and eventually disappeared into the great club box in the sky.
Fast forward to the mid ’90s when I was designing sets for Adams Golf and the idea of single length re-appeared, at least for my personal clubs. I read that Bryson is 6 feet 1 inches tall, and I strongly suspect his height was a factor in his single-length set. Before arthritis and age took their toll, I was 6 foot 3 inches tall, and was facing a personal club-fitting problem. It’s funny, but I clearly remembered my mindset at the time.
“Where was it written that a set of irons had to be based on a 37.5-inch 5 iron? Why couldn’t the 5 iron be 40 inches or 34 inches? Why did the increments have to be 0.5 inches?” I figured it all started with a Scotsman, who was probably 5-foot 9-inches or so, shaping a set of clubs that fit him. As decades passed, it became “standard.”
As I saw it, the objective with a set of irons/wedges was to have a club that went a maximum distance, working back to a club that went the shortest distance. The key factor was an equal gap from one club to another. Given this rather broad premise, I turned to the club-fitting system I had designed to see what evolved.
One of the keys in our club-fitting system was establishing a comfortable position at address. We measured knuckles to the ground standing erect (more consistent than fingertips because of hand size). We combined this with what we called maximum drop — how much the hands lowered gripping the club — the idea being a solid address position before we got into flex, lie, etc.
One thing I learned is all of us are not ideally suited to a proper address position in conjunction with clubs we could play. For example, I am long from the waist up, which means to get a comfortable address position I needed clubs 3 inches over standard length, and they were simply too long. For a guy 6 foot 8 inches to 6 foot 10 inches, no problem, but for me, problem. I used to tell people that not everyone has a body that can handle the required length, so in some cases you have to bend over at address a little extra. Given that I couldn’t automatically fit myself, I started with the maximum distance and gapping and worked backward. It wasn’t about the clubs; it was about ball flight.
I remembered the equal-length story and started to experiment. I liked the length of short irons when I made them all like 6 irons, but 5 iron and down were too short. One thing that I’m taking as a given here is the readers understand the need for different head weights and lie angles. Add 3 inches to a standard PW and it becomes significantly “head heavy.” The playing lie changes, too, and all of those things have to be recognized. As I experimented, my emphasis was also on trying to make a set with constant inertia. I wanted the clubs to all swing the same so I would be more consistent controlling ball flight, even when hitting different kinds of shots.
After much work, I ended up with a “tri” single-length set, which I labeled The Oxymoron’s. My longer irons (4-6) were all one length, my 7-8 irons slightly shorter and the higher-lofted clubs were a little more than 2 inches over standard. I felt comfortable at address, so any gapping issues were attacked with loft. Every club had unusual head weights, and they were all were back-weighted — again, my approach to obtaining constant swing inertia. I didn’t have a 3 iron, because another experiment resulted in a rather odd-looking long iron patterned after the Troon clubs of the 1800s.
How did the irons work out? They were pretty good; I think I would have really liked them with a bit more fine tuning. I’ll never know. We got pretty busy, and I essentially stopped playing for the better part of 10 years, so my inertial irons idea disappeared. We did introduce irons as a company, but they were industry standard specs. We didn’t influence the market; it influenced us. Besides, my clubs were for me and I’m not standard.
I’m not convinced there isn’t a way to improve a set of irons, so at 77 I’m still messing around. Do I think there is a place in the industry for single length sets? I’d say in the general market, no. Possibly in some custom fitting applications where the size of the player is outside normal standards.
In the business, there are things that are nice and play well, but aren’t technically different. And there are ideas that when fully tested identify a technical improvement to making clubs. It’s the latter that keeps us experimenting.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
SteveK
Oct 7, 2017 at 2:27 am
I just can’t seem to hit my irons pure and I blame it on the different shaft lengths. It’s so obvious that a single shaft length is the logical way to go. Why in God’s name do golf clubs need to be various lengths? Doesn’t that mean I must have 13 different swing planes?!!
Mat
Jul 1, 2017 at 7:12 pm
It’s funny. Everyone bags either SLI or 1/2″ steps. The truth is that if you built a set at 1/4″ steps, you’d really get the best of both… SLI would fly more “normally” and land better, and the physical change would assist almost the same as true SLI. Imagine only 1″ between a 5-9 iron instead of 2″…
Craig Waggaman
Feb 15, 2017 at 5:33 pm
I have been fascinated by the possibilities of single length irons ever since I started dabbling in club making many years ago. So i did something I have never done- pre-ordered a set of Cobra F7 One single length irons. I received them about a week ago and will be writing about my experiences on my golf blog:
linkswanderer.com
Feel free to take a look and ask questions or comment.
Scientific Golfer
Jan 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm
Ironic and pathetic …. the average golfer (95% of all golfers) keep seeking a golf solution that doesn’t involve physical conditioning, sport-specific training and then performance training. They just seek an equipment solution that avoids time commitment to the sport… and then delude themselves into buying a game with the ‘best’ equipment no matter the cost.
What we are witnessing now is the squeezing of the last $$$$ from a declining delusional golf population and will desperately spend to rescue their fantasies. Look at the OEM advertising… it’s so obvious.
Most recreational golfers and other sports don’t devote enough time to practice and refuse to admit they themselves are the fault of their incompetence. “If I could just adjust the clubs to my personal swing!” …. so the OEMs are producing multi-adjustable clubs for failures who have more money than brains!!! Sorry for the rant, and discouraging comments from others who have been hit with this reality.
Andre
Nov 17, 2016 at 7:27 am
Very interesting article Mister Adams,
You mentionned backweighting and constant moment of inertia. Just curious as to how you went about that and if you reached your target MOI. Did you try to obtain a certain swingweight across the set or else?
Thank you
Andre
Nov 17, 2016 at 7:20 am
Very interesting article Mister Adams.
Ryan morris
Oct 24, 2016 at 5:19 am
I purchased a set of slc last week. Had the best round of my life and i play about 2 to 3 rds per week. I felt the real magic came in hitting the 3-5 iron (its was almost boringly easy). On the range and course, im showing zero distance loss. Its amazing the misconceptions out there, even the pro at the course said, im sure you wont…..well i bet if…..etc etc
Regardless, they work. Getting people to try them will be the challenge. I did notice a little control issue with my pw, at first, but i think the range has sorted this out the last few days.
OB
Sep 7, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Incredible, fantastic, wonderful, almost too good to be true …. which it is not!
Ted
Oct 6, 2016 at 2:36 am
I own a set of EQLs: 2-7 are 7i length; 8-PW are 8i length. Easy as pie to hit; distances are predictable. 2 iron is dead straight unless I mess up the swing. Warm ups? Only need to hit 2 irons to warm up. Only drawback (for you chumsp who want a reason to reject the concept) is that the PW @ 8i length could be more accurate at shorter yardages, i.e., below it’s standard PW shot @ 8i length. Fix: choke down, put the ball back in the stance, and knockdowns are dead on. I also own PING BECUs, Cal BB Golds, and set of custom Alpha blades worth more than all these sets combined. Have owned just about every set/concept out there. Am now making a longer set of single length irons with some Matrix graphite X shafts because the concept works. Will go with 4i & 5i lengths to make the transition from these to the driver & woods more consistent through the round, and because I love to choke down & hit knockdowns. To each his own. If God wanted golf to be consistent, we probably would all be left-handers… (no offense, Phil)…
Brian
Jun 12, 2016 at 11:59 am
wishon Sterlings have resolved all of these issues and now we have the best option for single length on the market. Hundreds of sets have been sold and every client I have built for is thrilled with the results. Look up a competent club fitter from Tom Wishon’s site and you can try them.
Justin
May 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Before we start: I know… I’m always late for the party. Not just “fashionably late”- freaking late.
Anyway, I see Single-Length irons as being on par with ideas like True Length. It’s not a fad, but it’s not going to threaten the status quo, either. Someone, somewhere, will benefit from these so-called quirky ideas. If it helps someone enjoy their time on the course more, I’m all for it.
Jack Wullkotte
May 6, 2016 at 4:08 pm
I’m not an engineer, mathematician, scientist, or scholar of any kind, just a klutzy old clubmaker, but, I can assure you that the market for a set of irons, all the same length is going to be minimal at best. Naturally, there’s always someone out there who will buy anything that’s new, because they have more money than brains. Way back in the 1950’s, while working for the MacGregor Golf Co., we made a set of irons for someone in which all the irons were the same length. He returned within a few months and requested that we make them all standard length. I believe the length was 37″ and I think the swing weight was D-6. In order to make the 3 iron 38 1/2 inches, we would have had to grind about 3/4 of an ounce of weight off of the head, 1/2 an ounce off the 4 iron and a quarter ounce off the 5 iron. The 6 iron head would have remained the same. We would have then had to add 1/4 ounce of weight to the 7 iron, 1/2 ounce to the 8 iron, 3/4 ounce to the 9 iron and 1 ounce to the pitching wedge in order to get a standard D-6 swingweight throughout the set. Our plant manager, Bob Lysaght told the guy to go suck and egg or buy a new set. True story.
Jonathan Birch
Apr 29, 2016 at 11:10 pm
I’ve been playing the single-length irons from 1 Iron Golf for about 12 years and would never go back to traditional length clubs again. Once you get used to using the same swing and ball position with every iron magic happens. I’m not impressed with the other companies who have sprung up over the past couple of years offering single-length irons since it is painfully obvious that they are just climbing onto the band wagon and really have little, if any, experience in this area.
300 Yard Pro
May 31, 2016 at 1:47 am
1 Iron are the biggest junk clubs. That’s their problem.
Christopher Fotos
Jun 11, 2016 at 8:57 pm
I, too, have been playing 1 Iron Golf clubs for something like a decade now. High quality — I’ve never had to replace the irons or woods during that time. I’ve gotta say I marvel a bit about the recent appearance of stories about single-length clubs without mentioning the continued success of 1 Iron Golf, which arrived at this destination quite some time ago.
I don’t have it handy, but company founder David Lake has a booklet about the history of clubmaking as it relates to length. My recollection is imperfect but IIRC back in the wood-shaft days many clubs were single length. There are also anecdotes thrown out there occasionally about pros using custom-fit single length irons without talking about it. I remember one such tale claiming a set of clubs used by Nicklaus back in the days, now on display in Columbus, show many of the irons are single-length (they’re sitting in a bag).
duke
Apr 27, 2016 at 6:31 pm
looking for set of old tommy armour EQLl irons! same length. Im 6’6″bad worn out back so before spending a fortune on custom made, thinkin this might be starting point.
Justin
May 27, 2016 at 6:58 pm
What do you consider a fortune? Value Golf has their Pinhawk SL set that starts out at $234. Throw in a GW, SW and LW and it bumps it up to $351. In that configuration, it comes with the Apollo Standard Stepless irons (personally, I really like these) and the Karma Black Velvet (similar to Golf Pride Tour Velvet) grips. You can have the shafts and/or grips swapped out, for an upcharge.
As of right now they’re out of stock, though a couple of sites are saying they’ll be available in June.
KevS.
Apr 18, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Barney, you say playing lie angles must adjust through the set of a single-length irons…and yet on the TV broadcast for the RBC at Harbor Town, Nick Faldo said he’s discussed the set with DeChambeau several times and his set features a consistent lie angle for all irons regardless of loft. I believe Faldo mentioned all irons are 77 degrees (13 degrees upright), but don’t quote me on the specific numbers because I did not make a note of it. Frankly, I don’t understand how he plays tough trouble shots at times, and Gary McCord was also mentioning the specifics of sand bunker shots with a sand wedge the length of a 6-iron.
Deano
Apr 13, 2016 at 4:53 pm
To all the Shank, Flop, and OB critics – what gives? This was a good article from a legend club maker. What’s Pebble Beach – LOL?
Shallowface
Apr 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm
The Armour EQL was available from 1989-1994. I have all of those catalogs. I wouldn’t call that short lived.
Not saying they sold very well as it’s been a long time since I saw a full set, especially when compared with the 845s which I find on a regular basis everywhere from Ebay to thrift stores.
Ron
Apr 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm
Barney and others….
I tried the single length experiment a few years ago by taking a set of heads with an undercut
sole and adding weight in the cavity for the 5 and 6 irons, and played with the 8,9,W a little too
heavy. I have a loft and lie machine, so adjusting the lie angles to match was no problem. The
set played OK, but I didn’t like the wedge being so long, so I didn’t give it a good enough chance before going back to my trusty Ping i5’s.
When I bought my next new set (Callaway Xr’s last spring), I adjusted the length of them to
have only a 1/4 inch differential from one club to another. This means that the difference between
the 6 iron and the wedge is only 1 inch. This way, I feel I have the best of both worlds with the set
being “almost single length”, yet maintaining weight increments. It works for me, and I guess in the final analysis, I guess that’s all that matters!
MRC
Apr 9, 2016 at 10:06 pm
Enjoyed your article Mr.Adams.
Appreciate the nuggets and most of all, the fact that you’ve been there and done that!!
Keep up the great writing.
oldredtop
Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 am
To those who would like some technical background on single length clubs, may I suggest a trip to GolfWRX contributor Tom Wishon’s website. http://wishongolf.com/designs/sets/sterling-irons-single-length-set/
His company has just released a single length iron set and and there is a great deal of technical information there along with the philosophy behind his approach to single length. Are they for everyone? Certainly not. But for me, if Tom is willing to put his name on a set of single length irons, the concept is solid and worth a little study.
oldredtop
Apr 9, 2016 at 9:39 am
disclaimer: I am not financially affiliated with Wishon Golf Technology in any form or fashion. Just a happy customer. 🙂 (771CSI irons)
Bif
Apr 10, 2016 at 2:05 am
That’s affiliation enough!
Barney Adams
Apr 8, 2016 at 11:32 pm
Re Moe’s clubs. I made a set of irons he played with for several years. They were not single length. They were however very head heavy offset somewhat by oversize and heavier grips.
Bif
Apr 10, 2016 at 2:04 am
It’s what happens when you have small hands like yours Smizzle and can’t handle man-sized grips
Ike16
Apr 8, 2016 at 5:32 pm
Have played twice with my SL irons. All heads weighed 270 grams, shafts are Steel Fibre i70 tipped light R and all weighted the same at 37 inches, FLO tested, and finished with Winn W-5 grips. Every club is within 17 MOI points. Each has exactly the same lie. The feel of the swing with each is identical. Have to sometimes look twice at the number on the toe to make sure which one is used. The biggest challenge to date is getting used to wedges that are on the ground farther from my toes. That’s look, not feel. Next is forcing myself to play each in a coordinated (same) position. No more forward or back due to loft or length. These are cast heads and I have played forged for ages, but as a builder the challenge was too great to ignore. So far the playing distances are building trust and the plan is to keep these in the bag for the foreseeable future.
toad37
Nov 7, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Would love an update… how are they working for you?
Joshuaplaysgolf
Apr 8, 2016 at 4:10 pm
My buddy is playing with single-length irons. Actually just finally got his pinhawk heads in today. It’s been really interesting talking with him about the challenges he is running into and the process of getting things dialed in, as he made his old irons all single-length just to see if he liked it. What I’ve noticed more than anything, is he hits his mid-short irons MILES into the air. We live in Denver, so t’s relatively windy, and when even a slight (5-10mph) breeze picks up, he has to pay extra attention to conditions. This will probably get ironed out when he gets the new lofts dialed in, just my observation so far…but interesting concept. Especially for those of us with nagging backs.
Loser
May 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm
You cant just chop down a regular set and make them the same length.
kn
Apr 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm
Hi Barney,
I enjoy reading your articles. I think DeChambeau has a hard row to hoe, especially if he wants to make golf his profession. He’ll have to win in a way nobody else has done it, and in today’s environment of cutting-edge golf equipment. He’ll always be playing with the wind in his face, so to speak. Until he wins, and it’s probably going to have to be a lot, he’ll just be considered a quirky egghead on the peripheral. That may be a tad brutal, but it’s also reality. If we all played with single-length clubs, maybe the story would be different.
Mike
Apr 8, 2016 at 7:26 pm
I couldn’t disagree with this more.
Grim
Apr 8, 2016 at 8:47 pm
Even if he won a couple, it still wouldn’t be enough, he would have win 40 or 50 events
Buddy
Apr 8, 2016 at 10:57 pm
Until he wins? U.S. Am doesn’t count?
Buddy's an eejit
Apr 9, 2016 at 12:48 am
Have you looked at who’ve won the US Am in the past? Tells you everything about your question
Guy
Apr 9, 2016 at 9:30 pm
Sure there’s some past winners who didn’t do much on tour. But the stat meant was “until he wins” which he has. As someone who can’t even win a club championship, I feel some respect should be payed to winning the U.S. Am.
Cyd2293
Apr 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
+1
Seve
Apr 16, 2016 at 11:01 am
I totally agree. I would love a US Am on my resume!
Scott
Apr 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Yeah like that Tiger guy and that Jack guy and that Arnold guy. Those guys did nothing.
300 Yard Pro
May 20, 2016 at 12:34 pm
He won the top two Am events the same year. Only people to do that were some losers called Jack and Tiger. I wonder what happened to those losers?
Loser
May 18, 2016 at 11:07 pm
He contended at the Masters, pounding tons of the best in the world and backed it up with a T4 at Harbor.
Alex
Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 pm
Great read Barney. My question is, while I have been fitted for clubs before I feel that at 5’6″ (on a good day) I should try to have my irons cut down more than the standard 0.5″ for us little guys. So, if I were to go closer to 1-1.5″ off would I need to add weight to the club heads? Would this really be beneficial? Because, I love my putter at 32″ and I’m fairly upright putter.
Thanks
Barney Adams
Apr 8, 2016 at 8:08 pm
Best I could suggest is have one club shortened and bring out the lead tape. let your shots answer.