3Jacl
thanks for clarifying that. I had the same confusion about Lag’s post but let Aiguille ask the questions.
3Jack…on this topic in particular, I am really just interested in facts not conjecture. Our clubs are our instruments so its important to be very precise. After all, our avowed intention is to be advanced ball strikers. I guess I am someone that likes to see the evidence for opinions that are presented.
Lag was referring to blades in his post and he goes on to highlight the importance from an ABS perspective.
Then I disagree with Lag on the vintage blades vs. modern blades. I was specifically told this from 3 different OEM employees as it was one of their ‘selling points’ to get me interested in new gear. At the very best, I would say the vintage irons sweetspot location is no lower than the modern, but what I was told and what I feel with my irons is the sweetspot being up a little higher. I will ask some more authorities on this and see what I can come up with.
3JACK
Here’s what Tom Wishon just wrote back to me:
3JACK
It is true that old blades did typically end up with the center of gravity closer to the heel side of the face while more modern designs will have the CG more in the center of the face scoreline area. This is chiefly because back in the 60s and before that, few of the club companies really knew much about the center of gravity of a clubhead and did not know all that much about how to control its position.
By the 80s, more companies were becoming aware of the importance and control of the CG, so irons designed in this era are not typically going to show the CG being that much off center toward the heel. Some models in this era, yes, but not as many as you would see in the 60s and before that.
As to the vertical height of the CG, the only way you would see an early blade design with a lower CG than today’s blades is if the old blade was designed with a shorter blade height and/or a more narrow sole. Yes, you did see a few more blades of the 60s and before that did have both a little shorter blade height, so in these specific cases, the CG could be a little lower. However, because there were more old blade designs with a little more narrow sole than you see today, that would have negated somewhat the lower CG that comes along with a shorter blade height.
So at the end of the day, from my yrs of experience in design and club analysis, I would say that old blades definitely had more tendency for the CG to be on the heel side of the center of the face, but the vertical CG positions would not tend to be lower than blades of today.
TOM
Welp, if anyone would knows for sure it would be Tom…
Older blades- more muscleback and mass behind the middle back with the mass riding upwards and smaller narrower heads and narrow soles keeping that mass in place
Newer blades- more muscleback lower and mass spread out towards the sides with wider heads and wider soles
All this IMO points to the fact that if there is a wider sole and more mass on the lower half of the club … the more that weight would want to GET UNDER the ball at impact which means they have to push the ‘sweetspot’ higher up the club otherwise you wouldn’t ever find it
The older clubs had mass low and behind and riding upwards and not outwards so much and had thin narrow soles- concentrating all the weight higher in the club than today’s attempts at club making. Higher weight in my opinion would make the club not want to ride under the ball so much so the sweetspot would be positioned lower.
Not a rocket scientist but I am a golfer and that’s my take on it- give me the older versions anyday as they were designed by true players with good golfers in mind and not designed by choppers with bad golfers in mind
Actually, I thing - “Tiger wouldn’t take Lee buck” is more to the point. Now if Trevino was blonde, had that girl next door look, and worked at the Waffle House…Tiger would be all over that! 
I have nothing against Wishon, but if I did follow his school of thought on fitting and equipment design [edit- from what little I know of it], I’m pretty sure I’d find little in the broader swaths of ABS theory to interest me. I could be wrong…I am no pro…but the notion, at least to my walnut-sized brain, of fitting clubs to more deeply engrain a bad swing seems diametrically opposed to the ideas set forth herein by Lag/Tm/Etc.
The point of my post was that the sweetspot of vintage blades were generally a little more upward on the face and more towards the heel. I actually love vintage blades. Wishon agreed with me and as far as how clubs are designed, he would know as well as anybody. Now, as far as fitting golfers to help their game, particularly in the long run with their swing, I would most likely disagree with Wishon on that. But the latter is more opinion and the former is more fact.
3JACK
This was my point really… I have some vintage sets like this…
I don’t own any modern blades, but the Australian Blade on the right is 30 years newer… and likely looks more like some of the stuff out today…
I don’t see any clubmakers going with the Tommy Armour look of the early 50’s or the set of 56 Dynas.
Certainly these would have lower sweetspots on them… and much lower than some of the silly stuff that has been pushed onto people irresponsibly.
I enjoy the challenge of playing a variety of sets, different each round, and forcing myself to quickly adjust to a new look and feel. It really keeps the game fresh and exciting…
I think it is an interesting process few golfers do, or can afford to do… or have the option of doing. I have really learned a lot about my gear, what I like, don’t like, and it has helped me evolve towards gear that really is top shelf for me…
I find that my best ball striking rounds seem to keep coming from the same sets…
The M85s’ the Armour Silver Scots, the 59 Dynas and the Bounce Soles… but the 65 I shot at Mare was with a whole set of MT Split Soles, even though the shafts are way too loose… I think I just putted well that day…
Just reposting this to clear up any confusion… I am talking mostly about blades, but I did mention the drivers too…
I wonder how true that statement is really.
I mean we know that for a while Hogan designed clubs for his company, he wasn’t however doing this right up until it was sold - I wonder how many clubs he genuinely designed. He was very involved in testing though, that was clearly his gift, his own sets we also know were nothing like what he was mass producing.
Then we have to look at who actually designed clubs for Wilson, Maxfi, Macgregor etc during the 50s, 60s and 70s. Do we know they were true players? Until we know who designed these clubs it is a sweeping statement to say they were true players. We have quite a few minds on here with high IQs and engineering ‘smarts’ but at their own admission, none of them are ‘true players’ although they will get there if they do their modules.
I have to say that I firmly believe that all ABS students should practice with vintage blades, however, honestly I would say that they would be better off with a custom built set of modern blades for competition. Nobody will convince me that the clubs designed using CAD are better than those produced with techniques available in the 50s. Aesthetically they may be very pretty but the modern club IMO will outperform the vintage one.
I wil clarify a couple of things here as well.
By ‘custom built’ I mean as flat as you want, not as upright as the fitter wants.
I also mean with whatever shaft and swingweight you want. I am not talking about ‘off the shelf’ sticks.
Styles,
I understand what you mean by custom built, but I’m more curious as to what you mean by “outperform”?
Do you mean you’ll hit it more “solid”? With better trajectory? More consistently? With more control? Or simply longer?
I’m guessing that for most of the golfing population, outperform means they just hit em longer… which as we know is really meaningless unless you’re comparing clubs that are equal in loft and shaft length.
I personally haven’t used an iron more current than an 84 Hogan PC since last March and despite all the ribbing I get from my golfing friends, I haven’t missed a beat. I’ve been working the modules in that same stretch of time so I’m probably not a good “control sample” as an experiment, but I have a good friend who may be. He had a very successful 2009, winning and placing high in some big state-wide events. He drives it straight as a die (though not super long) and has a tour level short game. If he has an achilles heel I contend it’s his iron play which I would describe as “average” (he’s played the modern Mizuno’s for years…most currently the 52’s). I bought him a decent set of Hogan PC’s for Christmas and had them set up to his specs (and strengthened the lofts just a tad). He’s agreed to start the season playing them and see how they perform. He doesn’t tinker with his swing much, so it’s likely that any difference in his iron play can probably be attributed to the irons.
My hunch is that he’ll get more feedback than he gets now and it will subconsciously direct him to a more precise “place” with his swing. I think the head weight/shape will provide a little flatter trajectory. And I don’t think moving from a PX 6.0 shaft to an Apex 4 will be a bad thing either. This guy is a feel player and I think he’s going to get more feel with the PC’s. We’re both anxious to see how this works.
robbo
Lag,
After having a chance to hit your M85’s in Vegas I had to chuckle reading the comments about the older blades not having lower profiles and how the head shape woudn’t lower the CG. Those heads were massive but looked like you could go right under a ball with them!
I would say more solid, better trajectory, more consistently and as a by product longer. The main reason for this is I feel that modern manufacturing techniques are superior to those used in the 50s, 60s & 70s.
This does sound like an excellent test case however…have you tweaked his existing set in the same way you have tweaked the set he will be trying? In other words, when you say you’ve tweaked them to his specs, are they the specs in his mizzies? The second part of your test should be for him to try another set, this time modern but different from the set he currently uses - who knows, maybe he just got a bad set of sticks.
No tweaks really other than getting the PC lofts to be the same as his Mizuno’s and ensuring lie angles match his normal iron setup, so in reality it should be a very close one-for-one comparison (right down to the ribbed Tour Velvet grips). I’m a bit reluctant to de-loft the old gear much due to the affect on the bounce, so that is one factor that may not be quite the same. He’s played 2 or 3 different sets of Mizunos during the time he’s been playing really well (over the last 2 to 3 years), so I feel comfortable the odds of him having a “crap” set each time are slim.
No doubt this will be a subjective “test”, but I’m anxious to see if there’s any change. He’s already a little skeptical, so simply getting past that (if we do) may have signifigance.
I currently have some MacGregor 985’s (not the Tommy Armour, but the Tourney Custom), 1963 Hogan IPT’s and some 1983 Hogan Apex PC’s. I also have some current Mizuno MP-62’s and hit the MP-67’s for about a month last year as well as the Cobra MB blades.
I think the 985’s are a decent practice club, but they won’t perform as well as a modern blade because they don’t feel nearly as well when I hit it flush than I do with the modern blade design. Irons are about accuracy, but if I can get the trajectory windows I desire, hit them just as accurate and longer, I will take the irons that I can hit longer because in the end I think that helps with my overall accuracy.
That’s why I won’t consider ‘gaming’ the 985’s. I simply can use a modern blade and it will perform better.
Now the Hogan’s are far different. They feel much better than the Cobra’s and a hair better than the Mizuno’s. I hit the IPT’s about 10-20 yards shorter, but the shafts are old (not even the Apex shafts) and are ½” less than standard and the lofts are very weak. 5-iron has about a 30* loft and the PW has a 51* loft.
One thing I noticed is that the heads for the 2-7 irons look almost identical to Mizuno’s new MP-68 line of blades. The 8, 9 and PW of the IPT’s are very round whereas the MP-68’s 8, 9 and PW stay in line with the design of the irons. Then there’s the sharp leading edge of the IPT’s which I really like.
I am seriously considering making the IPT’s into tournament gamers because I believe that they can perform right up with the current blades. I would just need to get a standard length shaft, more standard lofts (28* 5-iron, 48* PW) and newer shafts (you can find shafts that are good and heavy). However, I may go and game the Apex PC’s instead.
A big key in this is cost. I can buy a new set of blades, 4-PW and be out $800. Or if I want to go to a Miura blade, probably looking at $1,100. Or I could get a ‘Tour Custom’ Scratch Golf set for about $2,500.
Of I could get some vintage blades off of ebay and then get them re-chromed, re-grooved, re-shafted, all the works for about $500 total.
I am hoping that when I get to about Module 5 my swing will start developing about near where I want it and I would feel comfortable with rebuilding my bag. I will probably send one vintage club to get rebuilt and see what it looks like and see how it performs against some modern blades. If it doesn’t meet my expectations, I’ll keep the vintage irons for practice and look to purchase some modern blades for my serious gaming and then get them bent and heavy. But I really don’t think that will happen.
3JACK
Addington Arnie kindly posted this on another thread…it contains the manufacturer’s description of build design and sweet spot location in a classic blade.