In iron fittings, there’s a familiar pattern: golfers arrive chasing distance with many believing hitting their 7-iron 10 yards farther is the ultimate sign of improvement. This expectation has shaped how fitters approach sessions, often prioritizing carry distance, ball speed, and peak height on launch monitor screens, looking for opportunities to optimize the numbers here and now with little attention to long-term performance.
But when the primary goal is lowering scores, distance alone doesn’t tell the whole story.
The evolution of strokes gained analysis (Broadie, 2014) has given us a new perspective on what leads to better scoring, particularly in the iron game. Rather than focusing on distance, strokes-gained shifts attention toward dispersion, consistency, and proximity to the hole, which, in addition to distance, are important variables for scoring.
This shift requires more than new metrics and demands a rethink of traditional fitting practices, calling on club fitters to develop deeper technical knowledge, stronger player relationships, and a performance-centered approach. A strokes-gained approach compels fitters to consider the entire scoring potential of the player, not just momentary gains in a controlled setting. This means focusing not just on producing great numbers indoors, but on how that performance transfers to the course. The payoff for this evolved process is equipment selections that provide more consistent proximity to the hole, improved scoring opportunities, and long-term player satisfaction.
Unfortunately, for many golfers', and fitters, distance has become synonymous with improvement. Manufacturers have leaned into this trend, producing irons with stronger lofts, lower spin rates, and designs that promote maximum distance. The result? A player who once hit their 7-iron 150 yards can now hit a modern 7-iron 165 or 170 yards with ease, and while increased distance can be helpful, there are diminishing returns when it comes to iron play. The fundamental purpose of an iron is not solely to maximize distance but to deliver predictable, accurate shots that consistently position the player closer to the hole. In the context of strokes-gained, the emphasis shifts from raw distance to proximity and consistency, two factors that directly influence scoring outcomes.
This is reinforced by the work of Mark Broadie, the creator of the strokes-gained metric and author of Every Shot Counts. Broadie’s extensive analysis of PGA Tour and amateur data highlights that approach shot proximity is a far greater determinant of scoring differences than driving distance. His research shows that over two-thirds of the scoring gap between a scratch golfer and a player shooting 90 is attributable to approach play and short-game performance (Broadie, 2014), underscoring the importance of optimizing irons for control and precision, rather than focusing narrowly on distance gains.
While distance gains may capture attention and appear impressive on a launch monitor, they often introduce trade-offs that can negatively impact performance when translated to the golf course. Understanding these trade-offs is critical for fitters who aim to help players lower scores rather than simply achieve better looking numbers in a controlled environment. The following points highlight key issues that can arise when distance is prioritised at the expense of other performance factors:
Stronger lofted irons often reduce spin rates and flatten landing angles, significantly impacting a player's ability to hold greens, especially on firmer, faster surfaces. While these changes may yield longer carry distances, they can undermine approach performance when the ball fails to stop near its landing point. Launch monitor studies (TrackMan, 2021) indicate that mid-irons with a landing angle below 45 degrees substantially reduce a player's ability to hold greens, with this effect becoming more pronounced under fast or firm conditions.
This challenge extends beyond just the middle irons. As players transition from longer irons to hybrids or fairway woods in order to maintain adequate launch and spin which becomes increasingly difficult if these clubs are not evaluated during the fitting session. Without a thoughtful approach to set composition, players may encounter long-game gaps where lower-launching clubs fail to provide the control needed for longer approach shots. This is particularly relevant in modern iron sets with strong loft progressions, where the jump from a 4-iron to a hybrid can present both distance and trajectory inconsistencies.
Fitters who prioritise distance without fully accounting for launch, spin, and playable trajectories throughout the set risk fitting players into equipment that performs well in controlled conditions but fails to deliver on-course. This reinforces the need for fitters to balance distance with stopping power and consider the full set composition when recommending iron and hybrid combinations.
A more nuanced issue, is that distance gains seen in fittings often fail to translate to meaningful on-course improvements. A player who hits their 7-iron farther in a fitting bay may simply choose an 8-iron on the course to hit the same target distance. Fitters may neglect to consider how the new 8-iron mirrors the player's old 7-iron in terms of both distance and accuracy, ultimately offering no real improvement.
These deceptive gains are frequently glossed over when fittings rely on single-club testing under ideal conditions. While modern iron designs may feature technology to enhance forgiveness, launch, or spin, these incremental benefits can only be maximised by fitters with a deep understanding of player tendencies and strokes-gained principles. Evaluating performance solely through isolated data fails to capture the complexity of real-world play, highlighting the importance of fittings that reflect how players score on the course, not just how they perform on a launch monitor.
When players gain distance in the mid and short irons, they often experience inconsistent yardage gaps that complicate the overall set composition. This can lead to compressed distances between the longest irons, hybrids, and fairway woods, making it difficult for players to reliably cover longer yardages without redundancy. At the same time, the transition between the pitching wedge and higher lofted wedges often becomes problematic, leaving sizable gaps that affect scoring opportunities inside 100 yards. These gapping issues not only introduce performance challenges but can also result in significant financial implications. Players may find that their newly optimized irons force them to purchase additional clubs, such as specialty wedges or different hybrids to bridge gaps that didn’t exist with their previous setup. This added expense can be a barrier, particularly for players who initially intended only to upgrade their irons but now face the prospect of investing in a full bag overhaul to maintain consistent yardage coverage.
Compounding this issue is the fact that many iron fittings are conducted using only a single club, typically the 7-iron. While this approach allows for efficient testing of launch conditions, spin rates, and ball flight characteristics, it provides a limited view of the player’s full set performance. Without testing longer irons, hybrids, or wedges within the fitting session, there is a significant risk of creating unintended yardage gaps or redundancies in the player's bag. These discrepancies often go unnoticed until the player is back on the course, where gapping issues become apparent through inconsistent distance coverage and compromised shot selection.
This limitation in scope not only undermines the potential effectiveness of the fitting but can also have tangible consequences for performance and scoring. According to Arccos data (2022), players with inconsistent distance gaps can lose as much as 2 strokes per round due to poor club selection and missed greens. This highlights the critical importance of conducting comprehensive fittings that evaluate the full set rather than focusing exclusively on one club. Addressing set composition holistically ensures more consistent yardage coverage across all clubs, leading to improved proximity to the hole and better scoring outcomes in line with strokes gained principles.
Ultimately, increasing iron distance might look impressive in a fitting bay, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to lower scores on the course. A strokes-gained approach prioritizes consistency over momentary distance gains. Players benefit more from predictable proximity and tighter dispersion, which lead to improved scoring opportunities and fewer costly mistakes. Strokes gained rewards precision, not just power and Broadie’s data (2014) shows that a reduction of 10 feet in average approach shot proximity equates to nearly 0.5 strokes gained per round at the professional level.
Fitters who embrace this understanding can help players break free from the mindset that "longer is better" and focus instead on scoring outcomes that have a direct impact on their game. This player-focused approach often involves more comprehensive testing throughout the set to ensure consistent performance, optimal yardage gaps, and improved strokes gained outcomes. More importantly, it reflects a shift away from club-by-club assessments under controlled conditions, and toward a complete, performance-driven methodology that reflects how the game is actually played.
In future articles, we will explore practical steps fitters can take to implement strokes-gained principles in their iron fittings. We will address the specific challenges highlighted in this article, such as managing gapping throughout the entire set, balancing distance with stopping power, and conducting more holistic fittings within the constraints of traditional session timeframes. By adopting these best practices, fitters can deliver a more complete and performance-driven experience that helps golfers achieve better on-course results.
Broadie, M. (2014). Every Shot Counts. Penguin Random House.
Arccos Golf (2022). Arccos Strokes Gained Analytics. Retrieved from https://www.arccosgolf.com/pages/strokes-gained-analytics
TrackMan (2021). The Importance of Landing Angle. Retrieved from https://blog.trackmangolf.com/landing-angle/
ShotLink Data (2023). PGA Tour ShotLink Statistics.