IronSmith - I like you have always hated ping irons.
First time I tried to hit one I looked down at it at address and just knew it wasn’t the club for me. 
Something just never looked right. That was me, I can’t speak for anyone else.
Exactly. How are you suppose to have any confidence to hit the ball straight when nothing on the ping iron says it will go straight. Oversized club with face offset with huge topline and giant “thumb” at the end. All that ever said to my eye was, get ready to hook this baby God knows where. I guess if you’re the hack slicer the club was meant for, it might turn yer banana ball into a fade at best. Game improvement clubs my ass. Might as well swing a metal crutch. Oh wait, they are metal crutches. 
I get around the Internet visiting several golf sites. It amazes me that so many folks enjoy vintage blades. I’m a new convert myself. It also amazes me as to the number people who think todays junk is the cats meow. What are these people thinking, are they that so out of touch and obtuse?
To be fair there are some irons made today that are/would/could be good. Wilson’s new blade the FG-62, Wishons 555M and a few others come to mind, but, so many people think that the GI Irons are great and the vintage blade is too hard or not as technologically advanced as they think it should be. Its old, my new iron was designed by a computer, by an engineer, there is no way an older blade, that was designed by a real golfing great can be better than my GI shovel cavity thing. Whats up with that?
Lets equate todays GI Irons to a new fangled bowling ball, a ball, that no matter how bad you roll it, it will always find the pocket. Now you inflate your ego and self worth as a bowler thinking you can go out and play the PBA and make a living, you somehow work up to a 245 avg or some such non-sense. Then, you travel some where and forget that new fangled ball, you now have to roll a borrowed ball or a lane ball. Well, I’m sure you’ll quickly find out that you ain’t the bowler you thought yourself to be. Your delivery is sill the same crap delivery as it was before you picked up that new fangled ball.
Same as in golf. If you use a stick to cover up your weaknesses, you never really improve and when handed a classic instrument, well, heck, you might as well shuffle off the course and curse the day you chose a GI or new fangled shovel over that old, tried and true design that only wanted to help you be a better ball striker. You miss out on so much. You miss the joy and satisfaction of a well struck shot that flies true to your aim line and and is shaped just the way you intended, either left or right into that tight pin placement that sets you up for the birdie/round of your life.
Instead too many think that golf is too hard and they have to work too hard at it. Kind of like life is too hard and they don’t wish to work hard at life either. While that may be fine for some, its so good to know that that ain’t what drives us. What drives us is the journey, the work to be better, the pure joy of that pure shot that no one playing the junkolla of today will experience.
As Hogan stated; He loved the practice, he loved the work. To me he is saying all that and more gave his life meaning, that anything good in life requires patience and hard work and in the end you will be rewarded for all your efforts whether in golf or life.
What some folks are willing to give up. All the joy of hitting that vintage blade, making that ball dance the way you always intended, to be the ball striker you always wanted to be, to experience all that life has to offer, the ups and the downs, the hard and the easy. So many would rather give that up just for a few extra yards and an inflated ego that doesn’t mean squat when it comes down to it.
Thank God for those of you who enjoy pure golf, golf as it is meant to be played!
JesseV
Are you my ghost writer? 
Ditto!!! to JesseV Thanks Pavel
I heard something on the Wimbledon coverage the other night…The commentator was Todd Woodbridge on the Aussie feed…so not everyone may have heard it
BTW…Todd used to love playing golf more than tennis when I lived in Orlando lol
He made the statement that Roger Federer uses a smaller racquet…90 square inches as compared to the 95 square inch model they sell in the stores of the same frame… because he liked the smaller head to be more precise and have better feel…he may hit more mishits when he is off but it zones him in ad he hits a lot more good shots than most
Sound familiar?
As TM brought up the comment on Fed’s racket, I thought I’d add a few more. BTW I have strung rackets as a hobby for almost 35 years, have done some professional stringing (and racket tinkering) for pros at Wimbledon and have also coached tennis in my spare time over the years.
The small racket head insight is one that holds for several top (generally male) players over the years: eg Sampras, Lendl, Becker, Edberg. These players bucked the equipment trend towards larger headed rackets that they saw happening during their careers, and stayed with smaller headed frames. There are many other players who did this too. There are also players who adapted to larger headed rackets, such as Agassi, and had very successful careers. These days you see a complete mix of racket head sizes in the stores, although the male tour pros generally use rackets with head sizes varying between 90 sq in and 100 sq in.There is no doubt that a smaller head size encourages precision in the swing. There is also a problem with oversize rackets when a ball is hit well off centre: the torquing effect can be conducive to arm injury (try returning a 140mph serve towards the edge of the string bed on a larger headed racket!) as well reducing control. This leads on to the major issue as far as male pros are concerned: weight of the racket.
The equipment trend has not only seen racket heads get larger, it has also seen tennis rackets get significantly lighter (and in some cases longer). The main concern of the male tour pro as regards a racket frame is weight! I can tell you now that almost no male tour pro uses stock retail frames as is. Either they (mainly) use retail frames that are subsequently weighted or else they use non-retail frames that are built heavier (but often have weight subsequently added too). With the latter frames, there is a “paint job” debate that you can find elsewhere on the internet about manufacturers allegedly mimicking the cosmetics of their retail frames so as to boost the marketing image and sales of their current retail models. I am not going to go into that debate, hence the word allegedly, but personally I know exactly the position as I have worked with pros. Wooden rackets weighed about 14oz, the early carbon fibre rackets 13-14oz, modern carbon fibre rackets 8-12.5oz.
Weight is the main issue for male pros. More weight helps reduce arm injury and helps lengthen careers. More weight helps to reduce the shock to the arm of hitting a ball that is coming to you at over 100mph. it also helps reduce the twisting effect of off centre hits. More weight helps to promote better swing mechanics which in turn is important for avoiding injury as well as for promoting mechanics capable of being effective at pro level. Having the weight not too far from the point of an off centre hit is helpful too for efficiency of the strike - hence smaller, heavier racket heads helpful. Volleying is enhanced by using the more stable racket head afforded by a weightier head. Many pros use tight (high tension) string beds, which naturally transmit more shock of the hit down the frame than loose string beds, and benefit from weightier rackets to help absorb impact better. … It’s all basically common sense.
Sampras used to have his small-headed carbon fibre racket weighted up to over 14oz. Becker was similar. The average racket weight of male tour pros today is 13-14oz.
Putting my coaching hat on, you can probably see some things alluded to above that reflect on coaching. If you have a keen junior player in front of you, I can guarantee that the sooner you put a heavier racket in their hands, the better it will be for their development. They will not be able to get away with sloppy mechanics that lighter frames allow. They will be forced to groove efficient mechanics and precision of their strike in order to effectively wield the heavier racket. They will also see far fewer arm injuries as they progress into playing high level junior tourneys and playing against hard hitting opponents. They will be forced to prepare better for shots both in terms of footwork and early swing preparation of the racket to cope with the heavier frame…
Definitely some parallels with golf equipment here in terms of the direction that the manufacturers have taken - lighter, longer, bigger - and also in terms of the dearth of equipment produced off the rack these days suitable for supporting play at higher levels (and encouraging progression to higher levels). Also some parallels with player development in golf and the part that equipment can play to support this.
good insight Nolixul
why do you think these guys Sampras, federer Edberg etc wanted that smaller head with some more weight?.. because they grew through the changeover of the change in head size and weight (Becker & Edberg probably did for sure…but Sampras Fed probably a bit after the main alterations)…or because they felt it, knew it and understood it?
Actually another question and you may know the answer to this from your last post… Jim Courier…
I knew Jim from when I lived in Orlando…he was a world beater…won some Grand Slam events…was probably the fittest guy out there…but then went off the boil
Do you know if he changed his racquet type/specs/weight etc and that may have hurt his feel for the game?
ps I should also have said, re junior player development, that it also helps to keep them with smaller headed frames or to wean them on such frames!
TM
Without doubt I would say the latter, although I can only speak with authority about Becker of those you mention. Most of the players I knew were open to experimentation with different weights, frame sizes etc. They settled on what worked in the pro ranks. Nowadays, coaches and racket technicians help players navigate quickly to what works best for the player and in the pro ranks - and it is a very well understood “science”, particularly as regards racket weight.
Courier was a very tough matchplayer. He was physically tough and fit - exceptionally so. Setting aside the physical aspects, his strokes were technically somewhat less accomplished than his peers, and limited in repertoire, although good enough to compete. However he understood the arsenal of shots that he had at his disposal and how to best put them into play in a match or against particular opponents. He was mentally very tough and clever on court. His game as well was a very physically demanding one.
I suspect Courier lost a tiny bit of his mental and physical edge, and at the top level, it doesn’t take much of such changes to seriously adversely affect your results, especially if those were your main weapons. Having said that, Courier did indeed change his equipment. Wilson moved him over to a “stars and stripes” frame that he and David Wheaton were the poster boys for. It was some time after Courier had fallen from No 1, but I think his pace of fall accelerated. I think he lost some belief in himself. He wasn’t comfortable with the frames. Late in his career, Courier actually changed back to the frames he had used during the early part of his career and whilst he was No 1. He than had one or two notable successes late on in his career, but the mental and physical edge was not quite recoverable. The belief and confidence couldn’t be fully regained.
ACCURACY!!!
It’s just like w/ the golf gear, why hit it 400 yds if you don’t know where it’s going? The best players understand that hitting the ball exactly where you aim is the key, not hitting as hard as possible. The sport is called tennis, not ‘who hits the ball the fastest’.
It seems that with lighter gear, power and accuracy are inversely proportionate. The bigger cut you take, the less reliability. But somehow with heavier gear and a proper motion, more effort increases accuracy. I’m not exactly an expert on this, I could totally be wrong, only speaking from experience. When I moved from an oversize trampoline to a heavy 93 sq in paddle I realized that I needed to provide ALL the power, no help from the tech. But somehow, with the extra effort came better strikes, more control, and more enjoyment playing the game. And like Lag says, there’s a big difference between a sweet spot and a sweet area. Smaller sweet spot=sweeter sweetness and more feedback.
Theres also other factors like string tension which has a huge effect. Honestly I think these days the string technology may be changing the game more than racket weight/materials.
Some great insights there from Nolixul. When I played tennis I saw all of this but did not appreciate the significance until I came here to ABS. However, even I noticed that the semi-pros and tennis coaches themselves back then all used heavier and less forgiving racquets. Anyone who used to pick up my Head Radical Tour (yellow and black version) would comment on how heavy it used to feel, and yet that racquet was already half-way towards the titanium lightweights of today, but nevertheless it was a very good racquet - reasonably heavy and not oversized being a mid-plus. If I were to go back and play tennis again I’d go for a smaller headed racquet and heavier. In fact I always used to like the Wilson racquet that Sampras used when I borrowed it - what was it called? The Pro Staff? That was a solid small-framed racquet that felt great in my hands. Later I succumbed to the marketing ploys and upgraded my Head Radical Tour to the Head Radical Tour Flexpoint - it was supposed to cup the ball for more accuracy on off-centre hits. It only took me the first practice session to realize I’d been swindled! The tennis industry is just as dishonest as the Golf industry, IMO. The only advantage I saw in lighter racquets was in hitting volleys where quick reactions were necessary, but in the end, it was just a question of strength to manoeuvre a heavier racquet which could never be developed with lighter racquets.
I recently picked up a set of 1960 Wilson DynaPower irons. I’ve only hit the 9 iron so far, had to have it regripped. On good shots I like how the head feels but something still doesn’t feel quite right. Any ideas? maybe the shaft is tired? It feels kind of clunky.
What do y’all think?
With the DynaPowers, from what i have experience, I get a good feel if i compress the ball well thats been hit in the center (like any good club should). If I “pick” the ball clean or hit any other part besides the center, i get that clunky feeling. Those irons you pretty much have to hit them in the sweet spot or they will feel clunky.
Excellent for feedback, but frustrating when your having a bad day with em… 
But those bad days should motivate you to work it out so you can feel the purity of a proper strike. A cavity back won’t give you the clunky feel as much and you’ll leave thinking you are swinging better than you actually are.
As you improve… you’ll have more and more days of good solid blade strikes and less off centered hits… and at some point you can get to where you don’t have any off centered strikes… and your irons just either go where you want them… or your misses are just working the ball too much or not enough… but coming off from quality strikes.
I can’t imagine needing cavity back irons. I don’t want a band aid… and I didn’t become a quality striker by plugging my head into the sand living under some false pretense or illusion.
A lot of the guys on tour are still playing blades for this reason.
Why they feel they need the giant sized drivers is beyond me. Even buying into the velocity hype, I would think a smaller head would create less wind drag.
Was Hogan wrong with his “Speedslot” persimmon design? I think not.
I have a set of 1971 Wilson DynaPowered Fluid Feel Button Backs that I have been hitting regularly. They feel great, even when you don’t strike the ball pure. Of course on a real bad mishit you’re gonna feel that, no doubt about it. 
Its striking the difference in the feel of the irons. to me the 1971 Wilsons feel a bit lighter than the 1960 Wilsons, the 1960 DynaPower irons seem heavy to me, and seem flatter as well. I have not had weights or lie angels measured, just my impression. I’m not saying the 1960 irons are too heavy, just that you can feel the difference. To me, I do like the heavier club, it may be time for the Button Backs to meet some lead tape. 
The 60’s Dynas may have heavier shafts in them. Do they have the green shaft band on them? If so, then there is your answer.
Great shafts, the green band Rocket Shafts. Leather grips also add overall weight to the club.
I know that many of the Wilson irons have a red or black band on them. The 1960 dyna’s don’t have a green band as far as I can tell. What they do have is a Wilson Staff Shaft band, gold and greenish in color, maybe due to age, and they are regular shafts.
All the faces and chroming is good except on the PW. I actually love the look of the heads, still that clunky feeling bugs me. Its not what I am used to after hitting my '69 Hogans, the '71 Button Backs, or a '69 Bullet Back. The DynaPowered irons definitely have a different feel on not so pure hits then I am used to. Maybe someday i will send them off to get refinished and reshafted then play them some more.
I was thinking of getting a set of 1964 Hogan PT III irons. Now I’m a bit nervous they may have that clunky feeling as well.
Yes, I have the classic iron bug.
What are the pros and cons of the 1979 Hogan Apex II Irons, Black Medallion with Apex 4 shafts?
Are they good for ABS? Other then lie do they require much modification?
Too Light? Just heavy enough?
Looking for expert advice before I pull the trigger on buying a set.
Good looking heads. I don’t like apex 4 shafts that much, but they aren’t horrible. Kinda like lighter weight S300s.