Thanks Macs! I was unaware he still played tour golf. How did Bradley do in the Australian Open last week?
I was joking, Go Low…a little wordplay and goofiness whilst being self-depreciating. I’m not sure where you are from, if English is your first language, or if there is any cultural divide…however, forums can be difficult places for humor. (hence the emoticons).
Cheers,
Captain Chaos
Thanks CC for the explanation! No, I really had no clue whether you were joking around or if there was something sinister that occured. Not knowing the regular posters’ personalities to well the emoticons didn’t confirm things one way or the other for me.
No problem. One suggestion, if I may: Read a bit more deeply into the different threads in this forum. Since so many of your questions are not easily answered - I believe your understanding would be much more up to speed with a bit more research. I am in no way taking the easy route - it’s just that in this one thread, Go Low, so many of your assertions are 180* off of what ABS promotes that it’s clear (to me, anyway) that you should take in a bit more info. Doing so will put you on the same playing field as everyone else and would answer many of the questions you’ve already put forth.
Not knowing I was joking is probably the litmus test that you haven’t read all that much yet.
Welcome and have fun.
Captain Chaos
I’m happy but Mrs Arnie is pretty disenchanted with ABS… 
On a serious note I guess a lot depends what your end goal is. At the risk of paraphrasing other threads, or Lag himself, if your goal is to make money on a major tour its unlikely that you are going to be standing up there on 7,200 yard plus course’s with lightening greens with persimmon and blades. But if you believe that playing those clubs will provide you with better feedback that will help you develop your swing along the way surely that’s a good thing? But most of us aren’t in the position anyway and the courses we play aren’t remotely like the courses on the PGA Tour. Certainly my home course is 6,300 yards from the tips par 70. There is no earthly reason not to play persimmon and blades there and expect to score fine and more importantly have the pleasure of playing the course with a greater variety of approach clubs, with the hazards in a place that still makes some sense.
On the flat lie angles I’m sure Lag would concede that he won on the Canadian tour as a hitter with lie angles that weren’t 5*-6* down but given he has had a chance to work on these concepts now in way he never did on tour he genuinely believes that its an advantage to have a flatter swing as a hitter and flattening out your swing makes more sense with flatter gear. But he is not dictating anything. Bradley is playing 4* down at the moment I believe and is pleased with his ball striking. I play 6* down and believe that it has benefited me though I can’t prove it to you empirically. I see that you have a quote from Ben Hogan at the foot of your posts. One thing that Lag and Sevam1 (Mike Maves) agree on is that you can’t get at Hogan’s swing without understanding Hogan’s gear, which was as I understand it from an exchange with Tom Wishon who had held Hogans clubs in Gene Sheeley’s office were very flat, very stiff and extremely heavy.
Cheers, Arnie
Go Low,
I agree with what the Captain just said there. I recommend you take a bit of back seat and set about reading each and every one of the posts here and report back to us in a month or so. Some gold nuggets hidden in some funny old places, even for you I guess.
Just a thought. 
Cheers NRG
As a student, I have never felt any pressure from Lag to use the old gear–he simply makes his preferences known and explains why. I was using older, heavier irons before discovering Lag because I loved the feel, strike and look of them, Lag simply made me understand that I’m not some freak and gave understanding as to why I find what I find.
I never flattened my clubs until I found I needed to.
I never found persimmon clubs ‘sexy’ looking so never used them. But after two years of sticking to ABS principles and developing a keen awareness of what is best for my swing, I found myself drawn to buy one a few weeks ago, like my swing journey was now ready for it. And I now find them sexy looking.
So I’ve never thought Lag is urging students to play the old stuff, but when you start to erode the commercial influences and illusions in golf away and leave the truth, you just want to do it.
Steady Steb, its a rocky road… 
Thanks for that CC! You may be right about not picking up on your humor. However, I will admit that I skipped over most posts that didn’t specifically pertain to ABS, which I felt were lighthearted exchanges between cyber friends. I was looking for the “meat”.
I have pretty much covered every thread in the forum that is available to me and think I have a pretty good idea of the ABS training process and Lag’s swing philosophy. I think it’s excellent…and one would have to look far-and-wide to find someone that describes and things better than Lag does. He has a wonderful way with words. But, even more important - I find Lag’s swing methodology to be excellent. My own golf swing happens to be very close to what I believe Lag teaches his students, which is one reason why I find ABS interesting. If my belief is accurate, then I hope everyone will be as happy with their swing as I am with mine. I’m not sure where (in your view) my assertions are 180* off of what ABS prmotes.
Wow that’s great! Though I can confidently say, even without seeing it, that I am not as happy with my swing as you are with yours Perhaps you could pop a link to vid clip up if you are so minded up so we can learn from it or put in in the Vault section?
Cheers, Arnie
Thanks Arnie! I suspect Mrs. Arnie may be equally disenchanted with you as she is with ABS!
I understand what you’ve said and I totally respect your decision to play the old gear, but…don’t you think you are playing at a disadvantage in terms of scoring your best, regardless of the length of course or the venue in which you play? It’s rare to find someone that doesn’t want to score the very best (lowest) they can, but instead playing more difficult equipment to use…unless of course that person’s hobby of playing old equipment is more enjoyable than what they score. I like the idea of the hobby within the hobby - of playing old gear when playing the game you love. But, don’t you agree that playing with old equipment is extremely, extremely rare? From the days of gutta percha golf balls golfers have (I’m guessing here!) been looking for anything and everything within the rules of golf to score better. I guess when Gene Sarazen invented the second wedge, or the sand wedge, he damaged the game as it was played up until that time. The same with golf balls going from gutta percha to balata to exotic materials. And the same with some golfers carrying three of 4 wedges, or hybrids, not to mention cavity-back irons and 460cc metal drivers. Have these advancements in equipment improved scoring? Sure it has! Pros, who are no different from amateurs in this regard, are looking for every advantage possible to score their very best. If they didn’t think this latest and greatest equipment was the best to score the best - they wouldn’t use it. Would they? I wouldn’t take my classic '67 Corvette L88 to Laguna Seca race track when my goal is to compete against other drivers driving the most modern of cars, nor would I take it to break my best lap times of my 2011 Z06. However, I may take the old classic for a few laps just for the fun of it. (Car analogy is a fictional example)
Another thing I really do not understand is the 5*-6* flat lie angle. If a super flat lie angle is such a good thing, don’t you think the tour pros would know about it and play with lies that flat? If they needed to change their swings to be super flat (either at the top, or at delivery from P3) to improve their scores, don’t you think they would do it? I’m more than a little dumbfounded by the extraordinarily flat lie angles I keep reading about.
I think everyone has different motivations for playing golf and even choosing the gear that they use. I am sure you are right that the good proportion of the golfing population is focused on their score / handicap / index or whatever. But there are plenty that aren’t exclusively focused on it though. For me personally the joy that golf can give is far wider than simply the score I can shoot or the index number associated with my name. I like to shoot a great score, win a club tourney or match as much as the next person but if these are to be relative rarities how much better is it to have other aspects of the game to take pleasure from? Playing with old equipment is rare, but I can’t see what’s wrong with that. I’m not playing for my living (fortunately) so I don’t need to shave a half a shot off here and there with 4 wedges, hybrids and a 460 degree driver. My course, like a lot of historic courses, is rendered almost a pitch and putt for the good player by the modern gear, 4 drivable par 4’s, a succession of wedges etc etc. I have enjoyed it much more since making the change. The course feels the right size again and my scores certainly haven’t gone up. So I wouldn’t want you to take from this that I completely concede the point that scoring will necessarily always be better with modern gear on the type of historic courses that many of us play. But as my motivations in making the switch to vintage gear largely lie elsewhere I’ll let Lag or others expand on that in more detail as it relates to scoring.
On the lie angle point. I think you are starting from a position that today’s tour pro’s and teachers by definition know more about the golf swing than their predecessors. Therefore if they are not doing something it can’t be valid. But there are plenty of examples throughout golfing history of flat lie angles being utilised. And remember the progression towards upright gear over the last 20-30 years. What is flat now was not quite so flat in other generations.
Cheers, Arnie
All of these are fair questions! On the matter of equipment…certainly playing with old equipment is rare. To take your racecar analogy: Many in the ABS community believe that the game of golf, when played with persimmon and balata on traditional courses, was more like a road course with many turns. A car that is can handle the turns and change speed quickly and reliably will win the race (like a Mini Cooper or something). Golf now is like a drag racing strip. Straight course, brute force technological horsepower and raw speed will win the race (assuming your dragster actually makes it off the line). Now could the dragster beat the Mini Cooper on the road course? No. Would the Mini Cooper beat the Dragster on the strip? No. If your goal is to reach maximum MPH regardless of form and/or skill, then you do the drag racing. If you get more satisfaction from mastering the subtleties of driving your Mini through the road course then the ABS philosophy will appeal to you.
On the subject of lie angles: Lag will give you a more specific answer but many players have indeed played off those type of lie angles. Many of the greatest strikers of all time have played off 5-8 degrees flat so they obviously did make the change you mention. Hogan: famously VERY flat; Trevino: flat (as confirmed by Robbo in conversation on the driving range) and many more. But when the equipment industry started designing to help the over the top, upright swings of the general public it led to a subsequent generation of golfers that picked those clubs up as youths and learned to play them. It’s no secret that “standard” lie angles from OEM manufacturers have gotten more upright over the years. If most PGA players of the 60s and 70s were playing what was standard at the time, then by todays standards they would all have been using flat lie angles (on the average, of course).
GoLow
We had a long and fruitful discussion about the advantages of Flat Lies when the famous golf theorist Jeffman was here, last winter. From page 3-6 of that thread is all the details of why flat means straight (will take some effort and time to get your swing to match the lies usually six months to a year).
GoLow,
A lot of good and reasonable questions here, and I thank you for posting your thoughts and enjoying this open public forum.
It’s good to discuss these things, and talk about them.
I want students here to play gear that is going to both train their body correctly and to also play gear that will get them to perform their best, and play their best golf. Old or new, I couldn’t care less. The ball really doesn’t care about how old the piece of metal is. I have some sets that are combos of 1950’s heads with steel X100 shafts that were made last year, and cord grips that were made 6 months ago. This is really not exclusively some nostalgia trip, however, I do actually prefer the look and feel of some of the classic grinds. My tastes change also, and having played a lot of Hogan gear over my career, I have been gravitating to MacGregor stuff as time goes on because it’s simply heavier. I would not agree with the statement that lie angles I promote have never been considered standard.
This Wilson Persimmon is stock from the 1940’s unaltered right off the shelf in a pro shop from that era… 48 degrees.
This is exactly where I have found that I get the best results from a driver. I didn’t have to look into history for confirmation, I looked at the golf ball going down the middle of the fairway. This particular club I bought off Ebay last year having no idea that it was this flat. But it gave me some confirmation that there was a different train of thought going on 70 years ago. I also have a set of early 60’s Hogan Speed-slot persimmons that are set up at about 52 degrees stock, which would be 12 degrees flatter than most of the stuff coming off the shelves today. Lightweight oversized irons have been experimented with also in the past. I have two sets of 1930’s jumbo irons that are really light in both dead and swing weights… and I don’t like them one bit, other than the really cool perforated leather grips that feel wonderful, and have held the test of time. I would put those grips on tomorrow and go play a tournament.
Heavy gear appeared to come into vogue in the late 40’s early 50’s with the MacGregor M65 to M85 series. Compact heads and weight right behind the sweetspot. Johnny Miller claims his greatest run of knocking pins down came in the early to mid 70’s when he was playing a set of Tommy Armour Silver Scots from the early 50’s. Miller was considered at this time to be one of the greatest iron players ever. He still talks about it, and many others who played against him confirm. I have a set of those and they are heavy. The age of the gear is not important, but the physics I believe is.
I think you are making an assumption that new is always better. That things always must be improving, and that scientists are fool proof in their assumptions. If we look at the basic formula f=ma (force) or p=mv (p being momentum) I think the scientists are making a big mistake regarding golf equipment. You have to take into account feel… because golf is a game of feel, and there is no doubt that you can feel a heavier club than a lighter one. A good player uses feel to control the golf ball and the physics of a heavy collision at impact are going to transfer more energy into the golf ball from the mass of the club, than if the clubhead is lightweight. There have been studies on this, and some surprising results have shown that lower swing speeds with more mass in the head can propel the ball farther than expected compared to the lightweight velocity collision. You also have to understand acceleration, and how that plays a role. Acceleration puts extra feel into the players hands also… and over acceleration is going to take feel away from the player. Light weight gear is much more susceptible to over acceleration issues which then cause the player to lose shaft flex and feel.
The problem with the scientist is that they typically are not good golfers. Homer Kelley, even Dave Pelz simply can’t fully relate to how the club needs to feel in the golf swing, and how players use this feel to manipulate the golf ball around a golf course in a very feelish or even artistic way. If we look at the golf ball itself, it’s all about trying to get it to not only go longer but fly straighter, meaning lower spin rates… and while this seem attractive to a hacker, or the scientist who is likely also a hacker, it is not attractive to a great player or shaper of the golf ball. I resent having to play plastic golf balls that I can’t curve. I used to be able to hit incredibly curving shots into greens or around doglegs or even out of the trees.
There was an old saying… “What got you in, will get you out”
So it depends upon how you look at technology. I say it’s worse now. I have a golf ball I can’t shape as well, so the ball has gone backwards to me. I would love for technology to introduce a golf ball that was made of balata that I can curve around to lower my score.
It’s not just golf… I have a nice collection of vinyl records, a turntable, and a 1964 HH Scott tube amp driving two sets of speakers. I had a guy come over here for a listen that shook his head in disbelief, and told me that he had a $100,000 digital system that didn’t come close to the natural sound I was getting. Has the technology really got better? I think most audiophiles will admit (some regretfully) that tube technology from the 1960’s or even before is superior to modern digital systems. Though digital systems are convenient, they are not necessarily better just because it is 2010.
I look at things for what they are… meaning… it might be better… or it might not? We have gone through 4 blenders in our kitchen in 4 years. I finally bought a 1950’s blender that actually weighs more than the 4 of the modern ones put together.
I opened it up, and it has this huge magnetic coil inside, and is more powerful than any of the new stuff. There is one toggle switch, and it does it’s job. No relays telling to shut off or 40 options of speed controls… but I am sure I could retro fit it if needed. I seriously doubt I will ever have to buy another one in my lifetime. In this case, older is better.
However, I like email better than the postal service. So I am in no way against technology across the board… only suspicious… and mainly due to the manufactures intentions. Built to last? or build to break?
The older golf clubs simply have better physics built into them right along with tube amps and kitchen blenders.
So be it.
I disagree. What has improved scoring is better greens and wider golf courses with thinner rough and less trees.
When I was on tour, we played par 72’s. You didn’t get 4 two putt birdies a round, essentially the majority of modern tour courses are par 68’s. The modern tour players are not better golfers. Their swings are geared mostly for distance and putting on the perfect greens. It only appears they are better because of the scores… but I would bet my bottom dollar that if you took the top 10 players of the last two decades, and put persimmons in their hands and blade irons without milled faces or square grooves… took away their yardage scopes and books, and put them on a golf course like The Olympic Club with 1960’s green conditions and said go play 4 rounds of golf… they would not score as well as Nicklaus, Hogan, Player, Nelson, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Seve, G Norman, Snead. It would be an absolute lopsided blowout.
My point is that technology is not making better golfers… and given apples to apples not better scoring either.
How can one explain that the course record of 61 at one of the the most heavily played courses in the US, Rancho Park in LA still stands to this day from 1968 by a member Bobby Howe? How can this possibly be if modern gear is so superior?
There are many many course records that are still holding up from 50 years ago. I shot 65 at Mare Island last year and have heard of no one getting near that with modern gear. The course I grew up on Palos Verdes CC has a course record from the 1970’s still standing. (Jim Ryczeki 61) How can this be? With all kinds of modern players, and good ones growing up there such as Ted Oh using modern gear never sniffing it?
So it really comes down to the golf course. Is it at 7500 modern course with nearly zero reward for accuracy off the tee?
Then I would say… go jumbo titanium, and forget about the golf swing. Swing as hard as you can, and then stack and tilt your wedge and short iron approaches, maybe even a hybrid into a par 5. Putt the lights out and call it golf.
Well, I would argue that they don’t know. You learn what is handed to you… and the coaches these days are almost kids themselves, so the don’t know either. If you look at most modern tour players, these 64 degree drivers have the toe sticking up in the air… why? It makes no sense. They are just following someone else’s lead that doesn’t know. I just don’t see the ball striking on tour being very impressive.
This would sum up my point here.
Yes, I read that thread days ago, but went through it again. Not sure if Jeff Mann and Lag ever agreed on much related to flat lies. One thing they did agree on is that having a flatter swing, or flatter delivery using the elbow plane or hand plane, there is less chance the golfer will come OTT. Also, that a flatter swing or delivery naturally promotes a more aggressive pivot from P3 delivery. I agree. I think this is important for handicap golfers to recognize because two of the main problems that most handicap golfers have is coming OTT and a weak pivot at best…promoting an outside-in casting weak arm swing and flipping. Swinging flat from P3 to P4 with active hands and an aggressive pivot can be (as you guys say) light bulb moment.
Thanks for the reply, explanations, and your opinions Lag. The only thing I can’t get my head around is playing with the old irons that have high hosels, sharp leading edges and the sweetspot near the heel. Over the years I’ve played my share of 60s, 70s blade irons and persimmon woods so they are not something I’m unaware of by any means. I never could get used to offset irons, and still play non-cavity blades. But, I have to admit I much prefer a metal driver and my 19* hybrid.
On Tuesday at The PGA here in Australia I was hitting balls with Geoff Ogilvy and chatting away on the range about all types of stuff…He took my clubs out for a look and exclaimed “wow…how flat are the lie angle on these”
I explained why I thought flat clubs were better for what I wanted to do with my swing…he uses 2 upright lie…so they looked weird to him…(it is actually funny to see people’s looks when they grab my clubs out and I am comfortable in the knowledge that no one will ever steal my clubs!!!)
I knew he is one player who is switched on and could adapt to using flatter equipment, unlike many pros who wouldn’t know what to do and would call their swing guru immediately for an s.o.s call…and Geoff did back up my instincts,explaining exactly what he thought he would have to with his hands and plane to make the adjustment to hit my clubs-or flat clubs- solidly
Knowing full well he was in form since he won The Aussie Open last week, I dragged out my 1948 MacGregor Hogan persimmon driver and asked him to give it a hit…his eyes lit up like a little kid and he said out loud how great it would be if players were made to use persimmons again so we could identify the ball strikers instead of having everyone slap it 300 yards even with off centred hits
Needless to say,he hit about 6 drives with my persimmon and flushed all of them, carrying a couple of them into the fence at the end of the range probably about 270 yards away.
We had a few onlookers as we were trading persimmon smacks on the range and the Titleist rep came running over immediately…giving us all the facts and figures…that a persimmon driver has the same smash factor as a frying pan driver but because of the heavier weight players swing speeds decrease and they can’t hit the ball anywhere near as far…blah, blah
So I said to him…“That’s because golfers accelerate too soon from the transition and run out of speed through impact …What if a player knew the correct moment to speed up his swing through impact and beyond and not just dump speed into impact and fold to the finish…I would guarantee they would hit the ball just as far no matter what club they used”…
He looked at me with a blank stare …Ogilvy smiled…because he had just instinctively done what I mentioned should be done…and that was that
It is ALL the equipment people talk about…light clubs and swing speed to try and sell their equipment and in the process they are also selling the golfer short also by teaching them fallacies about club speed, impact speed and swing speed and club mass that are gaining distance but are rotting swings in the process
Go Low
Let me briefly explain. We have too theoretical clubs here; A: with Zero lie angle and B: with 90 degree lie angle. Its not so much about OTT. Rather its about the effect of face angle variation (and we know from Ball Flight Laws that face angle is more important than Club path). Try to rotate the handle with your fingers ALA face on both these clubs. Rotating club A does not affect direction it only affects ball height while rotating club B affects direction in a 180 degree arc.
Now these are extremes but a 6 degree flat 3 iron with a standard lie of 60’ means a 10% forgivness on face angle blemishes. Which means you V will be much narrower. Of course there are the benefits of engaging the pivot and OTT less likely but the face angle forgiveness is the main advantage in hitting straighter (although varying flights).
Now you might ask why not go further down but you know its not easy for the body to keep lowering and at some degree of flateness it will simply refuse to move because the spine is at risk. But 6-8 degree is achievable for most serious golfers if they are willing to put the effort for 6-12 months. I have tried 12 degree flat but at that point it becomes quite silly.
