I agree with you 3jack. Even if that were not true I woud prefer to hit a 175 yard five iron consistently, than a 175 “7” iron all over the map. I did myself proud yesterday. I had 180 yards to a back pin. Until recently I would have hit a full tilt 7iron. that invariably would stop dead 20 ft short. In stead I hit a lower 5 iron that flew about 160 yards and released to about 3ft dead on track! 
My playing partner could not get over the fact that I took that “much” club. I just winked and said “Apparently not!” I am not good enough to go at everthing all the time. I know this mentality has a lot to do with the all consuming efforts to maximize driver distance. Same 9 holes I took my persimmon driver out. It was cold and I made some marginal swings, which lead to a couple of 225 yard heel-sliders. Not pretty but zero fairways missed! My pulse was not elevated one time. I did not yell “sit soft” one time either! If your technique is dodgy you have to get as close to the hole as possible. In an ironic twist trying to move it out there 300+ as a routine leads (or can) to dodgy technique.
I think my point is you can hit a vintage blade as far as a modern blade.
This is important because many golfers get vintage blades because they do the job and are cheap.
But the reason why I believe we lose distance on a lot of vintage blades is that the shafts are old and I believe old shafts tend to lose their ‘pop’, even if it’s just a plain steel DG shaft. I also think that many vintage blades have very weak lofts.
If you wanted to get 8 irons re-shafted with just some TT DG X100’s, you’re probably looking at $200 - $300 to have that done.
If you want a ‘re-build’ from the Iron Factory (shaft, grip, re-chrome, re-groove, re-pain, new ferrul, and lettering) you’d be looking at about $430 total.
If you can hit them just as well or better than modern irons, you’re looking at about a $500 - $700 savings.
3JACK
Just to clarify, you can hit a vintage 7 iron as far as a modern 7 iron providing they are the same loft.
As we are aware, OEMs have been decreasing lofts while keeping a ‘7’ stamped on the sole for the last ten years or more - this allows people to feel like they are hitting their new clubs farther than their old ones.
Yes you can buy vintage blades for buttons on ebay if you look hard enough but the regripping, reshafting and changing of lie and loft will not be done for free.
I think you can, but you have to fool around with the lofts a bit. My Apex PC’s actually have about 2-3* weaker loft than my MP-62’s. But, the COG is a bit higher on those Apex PC’s.
I actually think those Apex PC’s have about the same COG as my '63 Hogan IPT’s and my '67 Hogan Percussions, but the 60’s Hogan’s have a weaker loft. I certainly hit the 60’s Hogan’s higher. There’s no question about that.
From my experience, it’s really the shaft that matters most and then getting the loft right.
3JACK
Yes I got your point but went on to say that the distance factor is not a big deal to begin with. It is just a number stamped on the club. 
Just found an interview with Norman from 1992 where he pretty much backs up what I said recently about his poor shots down the stretch at some of these events. It’s a great article in it’s entirety
Hey guys,
i´m playing MP-67´s and i´m wondering, are these clubs perimeter weighted? I´m also planning of getting a set of MP-33´s, and from what i understand they are not perimeter weighted, correct?
Thx.
MP-67’s are NOT perimeter weighted.
They are a modern blade. So shorter hosel takes the sweetspot more towards the center of the club whereas the vintage blades have the sweetspot more towards the heel because of the longer hosels. Also, the sweetspot will be lower on the face with the MP-67’s.
Not a bad club, but Mizuno has made better. Their MP-68’s are really nice.
3JACK
Thx 3Jack, yes i read from several accounts that the 68´s seem to be a fine product, but the 33´s also seem to rank very high in the all time favorites (and they are much cheaper to get (like 150€ a set if you get lucky)).
MP-33 is a popular product, but IIRC it is more like a ‘pocket cavity’ than a muscleback blade.
3JACK
Does having the sweetspot nearer to the line of the shaft (as in underslung hosel see mygolfspy.com/1999-hogan-apex-blades/ ) make a real difference…is this just what happens when you bend clubs flat?
I think it makes a HUGE difference and is one of the untapped pieces of his genius. Cleveland tried to do something with it with their VAS irons and woods in the 90’s- Pavin used them(I’m pretty sure he did anyway but probably a tour softened design) which says something, but they were hideously ugly and didn’t catch on. It’s just a hunch but this could be one of the things that could be the next ‘no shit that was so obvious why didn’t I think if that’ developments in golf club design. Which is why nobody should talk about it anymore in case the big scary companies get hold of it 
Not sure if these guys have been mentioned before as I haven’t read the whole post!
www.traditionalgolf.com
They make a great looking range of blades but $1200 rather than a a few hundred on a mint set of vintage blades??
Think the old Dynas will stay in the bag!
Like this?
google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h … 80&bih=552
With the high hosel it makes it easy to get the sweetspot near the shaft angle…
i618.photobucket.com/albums/tt26 … ghosel.png
and I remember some wedge marketed with similar design to avoid shanks…
Shankless irons have been around… Jerry Barber made a set back in the 70’s… maybe before.
Here’s an article about Padraig Harrington comparing his clubs to 50 year-old clubs: golf.com/golf/equipment/arti … 40,00.html
Good article but nothing new here really. Lofts and lengths of modern irons are geared to more distance. A modern 9i is actually a vintage 8i in loft equivalent. But they were also a bit heavier back then as well having a less forgiving face. Both of which intuitively causes one to swing slower as you can see in Padrigs slightly slower swing speed on Trackman. This all equals less distance throughout the set of classic irons.
A major disadvantage for any player and club manufacturers have anyone trying to compete professionally needing their latest “innovations” (which also come with resulting dead feel and higher dispersion). Just like what he says in that article about needing this distance. Then everyone sees these pro’s using this stuff and now the masses want it too.
Being a beginner I can completely relate to this conflict. I am a big fan of Lag’s advocacy of classic equipment for reasons he states, which is why I am here. The OEM’s and much of the mass golfers also just regurgitate what marketing materials say. They make blades sound like some scary club meant for low cappers only. So it is very easy to want some shiny shovel CB’s.
I have recently started to practice more with a friends old 1968 Spalding Professional’s and really enjoy the time with them. They are harsh on mishits and certainly shorter in distance but I feel comfortable with them, which amazes me being a high capper. But when I drive home after practice I seriously question if I could ever game them and WHY would I?
Why would a weekend player want to make it harder for themselves? Even though I really like the nostalgia and feel of USA forged workmanship and enjoy playing them, I keep thinking I could instead find some modern club I also really like that will also give me more distance and more forgiveness. I think the modern “player irons” are a very convincing in-between choice of pure MB blades or shovel GI’s. Pro’s have no problem working Pings and Callaways and shooting under par on tough courses, and they are both as forgiving as they come. The new #1 player in world has played Pings his whole life and games the advanced player friendly i10’s.
But the other side of me just says this is marketing speak again. They play them because it is what was given to them and to compete nowadays they don’t argue and instead adjust. Hell, if some OEM was to offer me a contract for free anything since I was a junior I’d play whatever ugly shovel they sent my way! Some die-hard pro’s stick with what they LIKE (Tiger comes to mind playing supposedly his same spec as in college but with Nike logo. And Kaymer insists on muscle-backs, but again a modern one).
For us mortals who are free to choose, I think one needs to look at themselves and their goals in golf and then make a logical choice. I have one friend who basically said he just wants to be competent enough to not be embarrassed in business golf outings. For him Callaway shovels are perfect. For someone who wants to improve and have a swing for life, you must take the harder road and play some blades; If you have the money, then some nice new Mizuno’s or something would be good. If you are looking to go low-cost OR feel sentimental about your equipment, nothing like some 1970 USA forged carbon in your hand.
So your brain can use precision feedback to help you improve your game over time. You might even stay on the range a bit longer trying to perfect them which is exactly what you need to improve your swing. It’s your golf swing you need to improve,
and a properly set up bag of blades will teach you quicker and better than any lightweight cavity backs ever could.
I will not hit the ball closer to the hole with modern lightweight irons. Farther? yes, straighter? no.
Irons are for accuracy only. The lower trajectory shot takes a shorter path to the target than a high one… regardless of the number on the club from the same distance.
I was talking to a cat about this subject . . . . his premise was that the big factor was the old ball . . . . it got more weight than the irons as far as how the game has changed . . .
Do y’all hit the current balls with the old skool irons? Or do you play the old balls too? What at do y’all think about new ball and old skooly irons combo?
Forgiveness- Feel- Iron Byron- Byron Nelson
