Macgregor CF4000 MT timeline.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='HoldenCornfield' timestamp='1394667699' post='8858887']
My Hogan PC7's aren't rated but the Bounce Sole +1 that came out a year later and is nearly identical in design has a rating of -6.


[/quote]

But then you have a look at the rating for the 1973 Apex and you can see why it is so revered by so many.

Great redesign. Great iron. Great (for its day) rating!

I'd bet that was no accident!

MPF at its core is C Dimension (how far the COG is from the hosel) minus the COG measurement.

For most, getting the COG as far from the hosel as possible is a benefit. The better the striker you are, the less this matters.

Low COG benefits everyone. You'd think it might be possible to get it too low, but those '73 Apex are .676. Didn't stop tour pros and better players from loving them to this day.

MOI? Despite the advertising of today, it doesn't mean all that much in irons. That's why so many of us here have found we don't lose all that much playing old blades when it comes to heel to toe mishits. It's my experience that higher MOI in irons may lead to a slightly less harsh feel on mishits, but the results are about the same. The funny thing is a lot of higher MOI irons don't feel (sound) all that good period.

[stixman]

Are you suggesting, Chris, that a higher CoG works better for the competent club golfer on a seaside parkland turf course where cold, dense air and a 20 mph breeze are the norms?

[okesa]

[size=5]Defo,a match made in heaven,lol![/size]

[NRJyzr]

Somewhat amusingly, my Ram TG-898 set scores at 350

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1394970011' post='8881619'] The Eye2 ranked as it did because it had a higher center of gravity than the previous models. It has a deeper face. I notice these things. My favorite iron of all time is the Browning 440. That's the reason for my pen name! The Eye2 sold as it did because it was the first Ping club to find wide acceptance among tour pros (mostly because of the grooves), not necessarily because it was a better golf club (although the difference in MPF points was nearly negligible). The slightly higher center of gravity actually suited them better than the earlier offerings. Having hit and played all of them, I personally never thought the Eye2 was as good as the earlier offerings. I didn't know exactly why until the MPF rankings came out. As they did in so many cases, they simply confirmed my experience. I have a set of the I3 O-Size which is in my primary modern bag. I play them because the high degree of bounce works in the wet fairway, heavy rough conditions I live with. I think the reason they sold well was because it was the first Ping iron to depart from the tumbled finish, pointy headed look. But everything they've come out with since has a lower center of gravity to some degree. And all of the offerings between the Eye2 and the I3 had COGs which were too high. People hit them. They didn't feel solid. The look was always an issue. And sales suffered. I think about center of gravity this way. If I have a really tight billiard table fairway lie (which is common where I play), and I have two clubs, one with a COG of .840 and one with a COG of .715, it's like the ball is teed up an eighth of an inch with that second club. I think that's significant. Isn't any iron (except the 440s!) easier to hit from a tee or when it's slightly perched in the rough? The final index is consistent from club to club based on how the measurements are weighted. MPF doesn't quantify feel, and some of the highest ranking clubs don't feel good to me at all. That's usually due to the sound produced by thin faces. But the results are there. MPF doesn't quantify sole design, which I am very sensitive to because of course conditions I deal with. There are some older clubs very highly ranked otherwise that IMO don't have great soles. And it only ranks clubheads. A given clubhead with two different shafts can play quite differently. Finally, Maltby himself says that if a person is comparing two different clubs, they may not notice much difference if there is less than 200 ranking points between them. I tend to think that depends on the two clubs being compared, but that's what he says. But this started about the FC4000. The old tour pros knew where the sweet spot (COG) was, and it often times was near the hosel. Most of us don't have the skill to try to hit it there without too many hosel rockets, so we try to hit it on the middle of the face. If we're successful, we've essentially hit it on the toe. If the COG is above the middle of the ball, there's some point in the set where the iron won't have enough loft to compensate for it. The same thing occurred when irons got oversized in the late 80s and 90s. The faces got deeper, the COG got higher, the long irons became unplayable and that's why we have hybrids (with shallow faces, gee, how about that?). You give a hybrid lover a long iron with a low COG, very little offset and a wood like shaft and he'll hit it just fine. I've shimmed wood shafts into long iron clubheads. It works. It's amusing that the MPF, which was conceived to take the debate out of the merits of one clubhead versus another, didn't help that one bit! [/quote]

You make some great points - and I agree with a lot of what you've said.

However, I'm bound to say that you must be in a pretty small minority if you prefer any earlier Ping iron to the Eye2s. If it weren't for the groove issue, I think you'd still see some of those on tour and they're certainly in a good few people's gamer bags. In contrast, I've seen the very occasional internet post praising the original Eye iron and next to nothing on the earlier KI to KIV irons. I agree that the influence of tour usage is pervasive, but I think there has to be more to the playability of the Eye2s to explain their longevity vis a vis their predecessors.

I have my doubts too about your explanation of what drove Ping sales. The looks were always a "love it/hate it" issue - but I doubt that any Ping iron ever looked as radical as the Eye2s did when they were first introduced. Maybe the Zings, but thereafter, people knew what to expect from Ping. Also, there's no reason, per your explanation, for the i3s to sell better where they had a CoG that was higher than the ISI and the Zing.

Basically though, my issue remains that the MPF relies on the idea that you can weight or trade-off the benefits of clubhead MoI, CoG height and distance from the hosel on the same scale. I just cannot agree that it tells us anything genuinely useful to learn that Maltby's Australian Blade design has a higher MPF value than the Ping i20. Or that Ping would purposefully go backwards in playability terms from their S58 players iron through the more modern S57 to S56, or zigzag randomly through successive models of their i-series. I know for a fact that Ping is aware of and understands the Maltby methodology - so that rather implies that as a company they believe there's more to playability than the combination of those 3 variables.

That in turn implies a basic difference of opinion on what drives clubhead design and playability. And whilst I have great respect for Maltby and some of his designs (especially his work on the late model multilayer Maxfli irons), I don't think he can lay claim to the same level of success as Ping's designers.

I think you make an interesting point about the limited value of clubhead MoI - and I would tend to agree. Then again, there were a number of attempts to make shallow faced irons that never really gained traction in the market the way your line of thought would seem to predict. And in any event, Maltby's own published measurements would seem to support the idea that the vast majority of irons have a vertical CoG that varies less than the spacing between 2 adjacent grooves, and I just have to doubt that that's a wide enough variation to support the distinctions in MPF ranking.

And if it were, then a very low CoG would predict, as a result of vertical gear effect, if anything a high-launching low spinning flight - which if it suits some players, certainly isn't going to suit everyone.

The ideas of a horizontally-centered and lower CoG were in the public domain from at least the 60s onwards, so I have to think it's a stretch to conclude that ignorance of the MPF criteria was such a significant factor in the demise of MacGregor.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1395014363' post='8885981']
You make some great points - and I agree with a lot of what you've said.

However, I'm bound to say that you must be in a pretty small minority if you prefer any earlier Ping iron to the Eye2s. If it weren't for the groove issue, I think you'd still see some of those on tour and they're certainly in a good few people's gamer bags. In contrast, I've seen the very occasional internet post praising the original Eye iron and next to nothing on the earlier KI to KIV irons. I agree that the influence of tour usage is pervasive, but I think there has to be more to the playability of the Eye2s to explain their longevity vis a vis their predecessors.

I have my doubts too about your explanation of what drove Ping sales. The looks were always a "love it/hate it" issue - but I doubt that any Ping iron ever looked as radical as the Eye2s did when they were first introduced. Maybe the Zings, but thereafter, people knew what to expect from Ping. Also, there's no reason, per your explanation, for the i3s to sell better where they had a CoG that was higher than the ISI and the Zing.

Basically though, my issue remains that the MPF relies on the idea that you can weight or trade-off the benefits of clubhead MoI, CoG height and distance from the hosel on the same scale. I just cannot agree that it tells us anything genuinely useful to learn that Maltby's Australian Blade design has a higher MPF value than the Ping i20. Or that Ping would purposefully go backwards in playability terms from their S58 players iron through the more modern S57 to S56, or zigzag randomly through successive models of their i-series. I know for a fact that Ping is aware of and understands the Maltby methodology - so that rather implies that as a company they believe there's more to playability than the combination of those 3 variables.

That in turn implies a basic difference of opinion on what drives clubhead design and playability. And whilst I have great respect for Maltby and some of his designs (especially his work on the late model multilayer Maxfli irons), I don't think he can lay claim to the same level of success as Ping's designers.

I think you make an interesting point about the limited value of clubhead MoI - and I would tend to agree. Then again, there were a number of attempts to make shallow faced irons that never really gained traction in the market the way your line of thought would seem to predict. And in any event, Maltby's own published measurements would seem to support the idea that the vast majority of irons have a vertical CoG that varies less than the spacing between 2 adjacent grooves, and I just have to doubt that that's a wide enough variation to support the distinctions in MPF ranking.

And if it were, then a very low CoG would predict, as a result of vertical gear effect, if anything a high-launching low spinning flight - which if it suits some players, certainly isn't going to suit everyone.

The ideas of a horizontally-centered and lower CoG were in the public domain from at least the 60s onwards, so I have to think it's a stretch to conclude that ignorance of the MPF criteria was such a significant factor in the demise of MacGregor.
[/quote]

All I can go on is my personal experience and what I have learned from industry experts I consider knowledgeable.

I like smaller clubheads and shallower faces on irons. That's why I preferred the Eye and particularly the KII (great sole design) over the deeper faced Eye2.

The fact is the majority prefer deeper faces and larger clubheads, even if they aren't as playable as something smaller. The oversized iron craze of the 90s flat out killed long irons, and that's why we have hybrids, nearly all of which have shallower faces than the long irons they replace.

But as has been proven in areas far greater than golf equipment, the majority doesn't always know what's best for them.

Ping lost sales after the heyday of the Eye2 because all of a sudden there were a number of clubs on the market that did what Pings did and often in a more attractive package. The Armour 845s, available for 14 years (staggering considering our modern era of 6 month product cycles) was a great example. Tumbled finish. MPF numbers similar to the Ping Eye. Nice compact clubhead. Genius.

It took a long time, but the I3 was the answer to that. And when I say I use them, it's only in the 7 iron through the PW. My 3-6 irons are products which have much lower COG. I also have a set of I3 "Blades" that I started messing with the end of last season that actually have a lower COG than the O-size (and less offset. Offset is the other thing that killed long irons IMHO).

Re: your comment on shallow faced irons not gaining any traction. The Browning 440 was available continuously from 1976 to 2000. That's a pretty good run. No it didn't sell at Eye2 levels, but what else did? And it must have been fairly successful, because there were dozens of shallow faced irons from any number of manufacturers in the late 70s and early 80s that came on the heels of the 440. They weren't all necessarily Browning 440 shallow (although some were), but shallower than the standard of the day which weren't all that deep to start with. A lot of them were around 36mm at the center of the 5 iron. MacGregor had them. Wilson had them. A number of smaller more obscure companies. A lot of component suppliers. The Eye was Ping's answer to it. I loved that time!

In Maltby's Playability Factor book, he compares the FC4000 to designs such as the Wilson Dynapower and 1953 Spalding Top Flite. You are right that companies were attempting to design clubs that had more playable COG in the 60s. Hogan certainly achieved that with the 1973 Apex. Wilson certainly did with a shortened drill through hosel and a muscle back that got thicker toward the toe. Why MacGregor didn't follow suit, in the face of increased competition and declining sales, is puzzling to say the least.

They had Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Miller, Crenshaw and others on staff during that time. But Miller played his best with a reworked set from the 40s on which he shortened the hosels, rounded the soles and lead taped the blades. Sounds like Miller understood MPF before there was such a thing.

The demise had to be due to the products. What else could it have been? It's sad. Like you, I love the ferrules, the stampings, how ornate they were. Even the store line MacGregor clubs were works of art. And they made a lot of great clubs in the 80s and 90s. But the damage was done.

And there's the last thing MPF can't quantify. If you love something enough, all the technobabble goes straight out the window. And conversely I don't care how much technology they put in a modern club. If it's barf inducing, and a lot of them are, I'll never get any decent results with them.

[okesa]

[size=5]Excellent posts guys,both well written and well reasoned,I would just add that one of the reasons for buying the MT's that I have is because (as far as I am aware) they were produced at a time when Toney Penna was still with MacGregor and am confident that an unplayable iron would not have been produced on his watch.[/size]
[size=5]He was very specific about the qualities required to produce an iron that played well;[/size]
[size=5]"For example,weight distribution on a long iron must be at the lowest possible point.The strongest part of the club must be from within six-eighths to seven eighths of an inch from the sole line,that part of the club which is in contact with the turf."[/size]
[size=5]Quote from 'My Wonderful World of Golf '.[/size]
[size=5]It would be interesting to know exactly which club Maltby tested to produce his results.[/size]

[super20dan]

i have allways been interested in the browning 440 desighn. i have used them in teaching beginning golfers a few times as they are so easy to hit. the club does all the work. of course i have a full set or irons 1-sw in my collection. the 1 iron is very usefull on its own. the sw is a departure from the low profile but conformes to what my idea of what a wedge should have - very little bounce. more people should try this interesting browning 440 desighn.

[birly-shirly]

I would hope to be the last person to dish out internet advice on what clubs people "should" be playing. If you find something that works out on the course, then of course, stick with it.

I do remember some modern (for the time) Lynx irons arriving in the bag of a member at the club where I learned to play as a kid. Shallow-faced things they were, and I could see at the time the design intent. Like lots of kids, I was caught up in the latest innovation and was sure that "in the future, all clubs will look like this." But I didn't see many more sets in play like that, compared to more traditional profile irons. Of course, the oversize fad came after that. I never hit any of those irons. By that time, I had a set of Titleist blades that I liked - and for a few years I didn't really have the budget to spend on changing them.

What I would say about low profile irons is this. If you benefit from a little help in getting the CoG of the clubhead to the middle of the golf ball, I can see how they help. But some people who already hit down, maybe quite steeply, may find themselves hitting the ball too high on the face on those low-weighted irons. Those people are going to lose both distance and backspin, compared to a more conventional iron design.

The ultimate expression of the shallow blade, low weight placement design is in putters, whether you're looking at an Ironmaster, a 8802 or an Anser style. In each case, the extended flange puts the weight low in order, via vertical gear effect, to minimise backspin and improve the roll.

Also, even conventional irons are more sensitive to mishits above and below the sweetspot than to misses in the heel-toe direction. The shallower you make an iron, and the more you concentrate the weight distribution in the sole, the more damaging you make the effects of any high/low miss, since by shrinking the height of the clubhead you are reducing the clubhead's MoI around a horizontal axis.

In other words, any particular player might benefit from the design - but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

You can make a similar argument about the other MPF variable - moving the CoG out from the hosel. It might significantly decrease some players' chances of hitting hosel rockets, but if you don't tend to shank the ball anyway, then moving the CoG away from the shaft then dictates more force required to rotate or square the clubface. It was a deliberate feature of Hogan irons and their underslung hosel to keep the clubhead CoG and the axis of rotation about the shaft closer together in order to improve playability. That was the intent, but like lots of things, it will appeal to or help some players and not others. But it's a factor that isn't accounted for at all in the MPF - it's simply assumed that the benefits lie in only one direction.

[HoldenCornfield]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1395147358' post='8896123']
I would hope to be the last person to dish out internet advice on what clubs people "should" be playing. If you find something that works out on the course, then of course, stick with it.

I do remember some modern (for the time) Lynx irons arriving in the bag of a member at the club where I learned to play as a kid. Shallow-faced things they were, and I could see at the time the design intent. Like lots of kids, I was caught up in the latest innovation and was sure that "in the future, all clubs will look like this." But I didn't see many more sets in play like that, compared to more traditional profile irons. Of course, the oversize fad came after that. I never hit any of those irons. By that time, I had a set of Titleist blades that I liked - and for a few years I didn't really have the budget to spend on changing them.

[b]What I would say about low profile irons is this. If you benefit from a little help in getting the CoG of the clubhead to the middle of the golf ball, I can see how they help. But some people who already hit down, maybe quite steeply, may find themselves hitting the ball too high on the face on those low-weighted irons. Those people are going to lose both distance and backspin, compared to a more conventional iron design.[/b]

The ultimate expression of the shallow blade, low weight placement design is in putters, whether you're looking at an Ironmaster, a 8802 or an Anser style. In each case, the extended flange puts the weight low in order, via vertical gear effect, to minimise backspin and improve the roll.

Also, even conventional irons are more sensitive to mishits above and below the sweetspot than to misses in the heel-toe direction. The shallower you make an iron, and the more you concentrate the weight distribution in the sole, the more damaging you make the effects of any high/low miss, since by shrinking the height of the clubhead you are reducing the clubhead's MoI around a horizontal axis.

In other words, any particular player might benefit from the design - but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

You can make a similar argument about the other MPF variable - moving the CoG out from the hosel. It might significantly decrease some players' chances of hitting hosel rockets, but if you don't tend to shank the ball anyway, then moving the CoG away from the shaft then dictates more force required to rotate or square the clubface. It was a deliberate feature of Hogan irons and their underslung hosel to keep the clubhead CoG and the axis of rotation about the shaft closer together in order to improve playability. That was the intent, but like lots of things, it will appeal to or help some players and not others. But it's a factor that isn't accounted for at all in the MPF - it's simply assumed that the benefits lie in only one direction.
[/quote]

Excellent points. It helps to illustrate both the good and the bad of the MFP; that is, it may be a great reference point for a certain type of swingers, and not so helpful for others. So some folks swear by it, others swear at it.

I first ran across Maltby's MFP about a year ago, before I got hooked on vintage clubs. In my quest to find the easiest hitting, most forgiving irons, I bought one of his Glider S clubs (7 iron iirc) to try out, which has a rating of 1023. It has a very odd look to it, which I didn't mind so much, but everything I hit with it ballooned straight up into the air. I imagine it would be great for sweepers but its not so good for this digger. Here's a picture:

[url="http://www.intergate.ca/~golftech/backup/MA0121v2.jpg"]http://www.intergate.ca/~golftech/backup/MA0121v2.jpg[/url]

And of course it did not have much feel to it, which I realize now is the obvious trade off for forgiveness.

Now after using the classic clubs exclusively for the last 6 months or so, I see that for me the feedback I get from old blades is more helpful for my improvement than the forgiveness of modern clubs.

My playing partner made what I thought was an odd comment last week as we were playing. I was just 2 over as I teed off on the 12th hole and ripped another persimmon shot down the middle. He says, "You know, you're going to be dangerous when you go back to modern clubs." The clear inference being that the vintage clubs were still holding me back somehow, when in fact I've cut 3 strokes from my average score (and 2 off my handicap) since playing them, and he's commented several times on how much better my swing is now.

But I guess that's how deeply effective the marketing campaigns have been by today's club manufacturers. Most automatically assume that without the latest and greatest technology you just can't hope to play real golf. But in fact, not everyone benefits from this technology.

Instead of switching to moderns I'm actually looking to go farther back in time. Still waiting for that set of 58-59 Sunbursts to fall into my lap...or maybe some Power Thrusts. In the meantime I've been eyeing some early 60's Macs and Wilsons.

Btw, I ended up shooting 80 that day with 38 putts. Oh, the humanity! I hit 12 greens with nary a birdie. Now, If I could just find a vintage putter to match the efficacy of my classic blades and lumber I'd be in business.

[super20dan]

may i sugest a spalding tpm putter. many styles to choose from. it all depends where you draw the time line vintage wise -what to choose. of course pings are not allowed.

[HoldenCornfield]

[quote name='super20dan' timestamp='1395187222' post='8900659']
may i sugest a spalding tpm putter. many styles to choose from. it all depends where you draw the time line vintage wise -what to choose. of course pings are not allowed.
[/quote]

I've got a flanged, offset model Bullseye on the way so we'll see how that goes.

[okesa]

[size=5]Took the words out of my mouth,was going to suggest Tad TM-2 or a TPM which have good feel and can be bought for not much money,I bought a flanged Bullseye a few weeks ago and my don't like! This was after watching Nick Price in '88 Open on dvd but it didn't work for me,I could not get the ball to the hole,left everything short.[/size]
[size=5]That was some good play Holden,although frustrating it's better to shoot 80 with 38 than 80 with 26 putts,at least you know that your game is in good shape and the old bread and butter will sort itself out.[/size]
[size=5]Had a good laugh today playing in our 'clutch' with a guy who's just bought a new C*b*a driver,shiny blue top and silver bits (bells and whistles?),FULLY adjustable (LOL),the laugh was the look on his face when he realised that having given it his best he was only 10 yards in front of my not very good drives and on at least three occasions was playing before me,there was some serious head-scratching going on![/size]
[size=5]I have graduated to Mac persimmon driver,an MT with alloy insert which is new to me and a similar model 4-wood which I bought from a lovely lady in Texas on ebay about seven or eight years ago,is that the same as yours?[/size]

[HoldenCornfield]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1395258172' post='8906007']
[size=5]Took the words out of my mouth,was going to suggest Tad TM-2 or a TPM which have good feel and can be bought for not much money,I bought a flanged Bullseye a few weeks ago and my don't like! This was after watching Nick Price in '88 Open on dvd but it didn't work for me,I could not get the ball to the hole,left everything short.[/size]
[size=5]That was some good play Holden,although frustrating it's better to shoot 80 with 38 than 80 with 26 putts,at least you know that your game is in good shape and the old bread and butter will sort itself out.[/size]
[size=5]Had a good laugh today playing in our 'clutch' with a guy who's just bought a new C*b*a driver,shiny blue top and silver bits (bells and whistles?),FULLY adjustable (LOL),the laugh was the look on his face when he realised that having given it his best he was only 10 yards in front of my not very good drives and on at least three occasions was playing before me,there was some serious head-scratching going on![/size]
[b][size=5]I have graduated to Mac persimmon driver,an MT with alloy insert which is new to me and a similar model 4-wood which I bought from a lovely lady in Texas on ebay about seven or eight years ago,is that the same as yours?[/size][/b]
[/quote]

If it's not the same it's probably very similar. I posted some pics of mine awhile back in another thread:

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/928922-macgregor-mtw2/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...macgregor-mtw2/[/url]

I'm still loving these. I have Driver-2w-3w-4w-5w now. The 2w I find to be fairly useless and don't carry it, but each of the others are excellent...though while I find the 3w dynamite off the tee it is a little challenging to get airborne off the turf so I usually use the 4w from the fairway unless I have a perfect lie. The 5w has become a favorite, too, after I shortened it to 41" (adding some powder down its gullet to keep the swingweight).

***

As far as putting, I doubt the Bullseye will change anything for me but at least it will be aesthetically pleasing. I've never been a great putter, and at this point I'm forced to concede that my problems on the greens -- as in life -- are 99% mental, ha!

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='HoldenCornfield' timestamp='1395272894' post='8907503']

As far as putting, I doubt the Bullseye will change anything for me but at least it will be aesthetically pleasing. I've never been a great putter, and at this point I'm forced to concede that my problems on the greens -- as in life -- are 99% mental, ha!
[/quote]

Don't be afraid to wrap a whole roll of lead tape on the head. By my amateur calcs, I raised the clubhead MoI of my bullseye up to the level of an original Ping Anser just by weighting up the head. That wasn't my original objective - I just wanted a short-shafted, heavy-headed putter to experiment with after reading Geoff Mangum on putting, and it worked out very well. 360g headweight and a 32" length was a good fit for me - the MoI calcs were just an ex post facto attempt to understand what had happened when I started putting well.

[I've actually been putting through the winter with a longer, lighter 8813 - but still have to decide what to play with when the greens shape up (hopefully) in summer.]

[okesa]

[size=5]Yes,my 4-wood is the same model and I feel that the driver is too,except that it's black now and probably refinished but nice clubs to play with and like you the possibility of returning to Ti is becoming extremely remote because even though I don't hit them perfectly I still enjoy them more,how perverse is that?[/size]
[size=5]I have to confess to a little cheating though which is that I'm playing an old set of Mizuno TP-9's,mainly because of the shafts which I feel are better than those in my vintage Mac irons.[/size]

[Shallowface]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1395147358' post='8896123']
Also, even conventional irons are more sensitive to mishits above and below the sweetspot than to misses in the heel-toe direction. The shallower you make an iron, and the more you concentrate the weight distribution in the sole, the more damaging you make the effects of any high/low miss, since by shrinking the height of the clubhead you are reducing the clubhead's MoI around a horizontal axis.

[b]I'll give you that one has to be careful with a shallow faced iron from a perched lie in the rough (which I personally never seem to get) or from a tee. But a low COG iron is money on thin shots. You can cheat a little to the thin side and not lose a thing. MOI just isn't a factor.[/b]

In other words, any particular player might benefit from the design - but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

You can make a similar argument about the other MPF variable - moving the CoG out from the hosel. It might significantly decrease some players' chances of hitting hosel rockets, but if you don't tend to shank the ball anyway, then moving the CoG away from the shaft then dictates more force required to rotate or square the clubface. It was a deliberate feature of Hogan irons and their underslung hosel to keep the clubhead CoG and the axis of rotation about the shaft closer together in order to improve playability. That was the intent, but like lots of things, it will appeal to or help some players and not others. But it's a factor that isn't accounted for at all in the MPF - it's simply assumed that the benefits lie in only one direction.

[b]While design features come and go, no one uses an underslung hosel today and hasn't since Hogan (and I don't think any of the Spalding/Callaway Hogans had that feature, but I don't know that for certain). There must be a reason.[/b]

[b]The thing about all of these measurements is that the differences between them seem so small as to be irrelevant. But let's say you have a lie where you are trying to strike an iron from a tight lie similar to a putting green, and then let's say you have a lie where the ball is sitting 1/8" higher. The difference is huge. [/b]

[b]And why is that "teed" ball easier to hit? Because more of the mass of the iron is beneath it. [/b]

[/quote]

[Shallowface]

[quote name='HoldenCornfield' timestamp='1395178890' post='8899743']
Excellent points. It helps to illustrate both the good and the bad of the MFP; that is, it may be a great reference point for a certain type of swingers, and not so helpful for others. So some folks swear by it, others swear at it.

I first ran across Maltby's MFP about a year ago, before I got hooked on vintage clubs. In my quest to find the easiest hitting, most forgiving irons, I bought one of his Glider S clubs (7 iron iirc) to try out, which has a rating of 1023. It has a very odd look to it, which I didn't mind so much, but everything I hit with it ballooned straight up into the air. I imagine it would be great for sweepers but its not so good for this digger. Here's a picture:

[url="http://www.intergate.ca/~golftech/backup/MA0121v2.jpg"]http://www.intergate...up/MA0121v2.jpg[/url]

And of course it did not have much feel to it, which I realize now is the obvious trade off for forgiveness.

Now after using the classic clubs exclusively for the last 6 months or so, I see that for me the feedback I get from old blades is more helpful for my improvement than the forgiveness of modern clubs.

My playing partner made what I thought was an odd comment last week as we were playing. I was just 2 over as I teed off on the 12th hole and ripped another persimmon shot down the middle. He says, "You know, you're going to be dangerous when you go back to modern clubs." The clear inference being that the vintage clubs were still holding me back somehow, when in fact I've cut 3 strokes from my average score (and 2 off my handicap) since playing them, and he's commented several times on how much better my swing is now.

But I guess that's how deeply effective the marketing campaigns have been by today's club manufacturers. Most automatically assume that without the latest and greatest technology you just can't hope to play real golf. But in fact, not everyone benefits from this technology.

Instead of switching to moderns I'm actually looking to go farther back in time. Still waiting for that set of 58-59 Sunbursts to fall into my lap...or maybe some Power Thrusts. In the meantime I've been eyeing some early 60's Macs and Wilsons.

Btw, I ended up shooting 80 that day with 38 putts. Oh, the humanity! I hit 12 greens with nary a birdie. Now, If I could just find a vintage putter to match the efficacy of my classic blades and lumber I'd be in business.
[/quote]

Years ago I assembled one of Maltby's Glider X Driving Irons (which I think was around 18 degrees). I used a Dynalite regular. It has a COG of .450, which I believe is the lowest one measured to date.

All I could do was top the ball with it. Now, in forty years I have never had a problem topping the ball. Not from day one. I might chunk one or pop one up, but tops, never. And yet that's all I could do with it. Off the deck. Off a tee. Didn't matter.

I took it to the range and hit it side by side against other clubs. No tops with anything else.

Only thing I could figure was that low weight distribution was kicking that shaft so hard at the bottom that the clubhead was flipping up at the ball. I finally reshafted it with a DG X100. Problem solved.

So it might be possible to go too far with low COG. Subsequent models of the Glider had slightly higher COG, and I think they've all been discontinued. I really didn't like that big old spatula on the bottom of that blade.

One other thing. I'm a major digger too, but my shots have a driving trajectory. Not sure why yours balloon. I'd like to be able to balloon one just to see what it's like, but the only way I can do it is to release earlier and sweep it. The lies I generally have are so tight it's caused me to become someone who beats down on everything and kind of squeezes it out of there.

[xgolfx]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1395329113' post='8910963']
[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1395043131' post='8888037']
[size=5]Excellent posts guys,both well written and well reasoned,I would just add that one of the reasons for buying the MT's that I have is because (as far as I am aware) they were produced at a time when Toney Penna was still with MacGregor and am confident that an unplayable iron would not have been produced on his watch.[/size]
[size=5]He was very specific about the qualities required to produce an iron that played well;[/size]
[size=5]"For example,weight distribution on a long iron must be at the lowest possible point.The strongest part of the club must be from within six-eighths to seven eighths of an inch from the sole line,that part of the club which is in contact with the turf."[/size]
[size=5]Quote from 'My Wonderful World of Golf '.[/size]
[size=5]It would be interesting to know exactly which club Maltby tested to produce his results.[/size]
[/quote]

I have to wonder what Mr. Penna would think about our little classic club revival.

I remember reading an interview with him back in the 70s when classics were dominating the tour. He didn't have much use for it. He spoke about guys changing the balance of the clubs by replacing heavy leather grips with lighter ones made of rubber, and he referred to reshafted 50s persimmons as "a new club with an old head on it."

Toney Penna was an innovator. He even sold an iron model by that name. I may be wrong, but I'd bet if he were still around today, he would have embraced modern materials and technology.

Truth is, he probably would have been the inventor of most if not all of it!


You are correct about Toney embracing modern materials and technology. In his last days, he experimented with ceramic heads for woods. The club was molded in color, white and black. The weight was controlled by using brass and aluminum screws and plates. The neck was shaped like persimmon. When Eli came out with the first Big Bertha, Toney bought one . He said it was the future. His experiments in metal, some never produced and the ceramic heads, vetoed by Nathaniel Crosby as too expensive, are on the current site of thegolfauction

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1395331010' post='8911203']
[b]I'll give you that one has to be careful with a shallow faced iron from a perched lie in the rough (which I personally never seem to get) or from a tee. But a low COG iron is money on thin shots. You can cheat a little to the thin side and not lose a thing. MOI just isn't a factor.[/b]

[b]While design features come and go, no one uses an underslung hosel today and hasn't since Hogan (and I don't think any of the Spalding/Callaway Hogans had that feature, but I don't know that for certain). There must be a reason.[/b]

[b]The thing about all of these measurements is that the differences between them seem so small as to be irrelevant. But let's say you have a lie where you are trying to strike an iron from a tight lie similar to a putting green, and then let's say you have a lie where the ball is sitting 1/8" higher. The difference is huge. [/b]

[b]And why is that "teed" ball easier to hit? Because more of the mass of the iron is beneath it. [/b]

[/quote]

What I don't really understand in your argument is this.

I don't see any value in having clubhead mass below the ball for its own sake. The point is to have the clubhead's CoG [b]align [/b]with that of the ball (which of course require equal amounts of mass above and below the ball). Surely having the CoG below the ball is just as disadvantageous as having it too high - at least in terms of the loss in ball speed. So, it might make sense to me to use CoG height as a [b]fitting variable [/b]if you can see a pattern of consistently hitting the ball either high or low on the face, and laterally if you have a predominant miss towards the heel or the toe. But Maltby's assertion that lower is always better just makes no sense to me. It might make sense if you hit all or most of your shots from very tight lies - but again, I don't think you can overgeneralise. CoG in the right spot for hitting off a bare lie just has to be sub-optimal for playing from a more generous cushion of grass. A low CoG might be more of an advantage in the long irons, but you might want exactly the reverse in short irons. The low flying, spinning wedge shot is as much the product of a deliberate, slightly thin contact as anything else.

Another point though is this. You're advocating a lower CoG. OK - I accept that's going to give better results on shots struck low on the face - but only up to a point. As you move the CoG lower, you're also moving it closer to the leading edge. To my mind, that also means a reduced margin between a good shot and a cold top where the ball wraps itself around the leading edge. Perhaps that partly explains your experience with the Glider X.

Really though I suspect that the whole thing is overstated. If it wasn't, then most of us mortals playing old fashioned blades would feel as if we were always striking the ball a little thin and struggling to get decent height. That would be the real world feedback that the CoG is too high to be playable. Sure, you can put a hybrid in play and in all likelihood launch the ball higher (although that's as likely the result of the rearward position of the CoG and the shaft) But is that what you want? If you hit all your long irons to island greens, then maybe yes. If you play in windy conditions, maybe not. I want to improve my game, but I've given no real thought to trying to hit the ball higher for its own sake. [i] I think its the ballflight misses left and right, hooks and slices that do the real damage [/i]- and they are a function of clubface and swingpath alignment more than where you strike the ball relative to the clubhead CoG.

You say there are no current designs with an underslung hosel. But Taylor Made just launched a muscleback blade with a TN87/MP29/Hogan Precision style muscle pad, nibbled off in the toe area. That's just another way to crack the same nut - clearly taking weight out of the toe area and moving the clubhead CoG a little closer to the shaft. And for years, though I've lost track of whether they still do, Titleist deliberately designed a heel weight bias into their woods, from the absolutely classic 975 series onward.

Lastly, I think the reason that it's easier to hit a teed ball is more because the ground is less likely to interfere with the strike. There's less imperative on a precise downward strike - you can much more easily get at the ball with a shallower angle of attack and that, more than the lower CoG, is the likely cause of hitting a teed ball higher, and to some eyes, a better looking shot.

[Shallowface]

The deal with the Glider X was entirely about a particular shaft not working with that clubhead. It's not the first time in history that's happened to someone. The correct shaft worked just fine.
If I write any more, I'm just going to be repeating myself.
We're not going to change each other's mind, and that's fine.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1395342421' post='8912427']
You are correct about Toney embracing modern materials and technology. In his last days, he experimented with ceramic heads for woods. The club was molded in color, white and black. The weight was controlled by using brass and aluminum screws and plates. The neck was shaped like persimmon. When Eli came out with the first Big Bertha, Toney bought one . He said it was the future. His experiments in metal, some never produced and the ceramic heads, vetoed by Nathaniel Crosby as too expensive, are on the current site of thegolfauction

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

It's always an honor to get to correspond with you, Charley!

If you would, I'd appreciate it if you could tell us what went into the design of an iron clubhead back in the day. How was weight distribution determined? How much of a hindrance were the long hosels of that time which I understand were necessary for proper bonding to the shaft? I love that early 50s Winged MT that was, as a Toney Penna Company ad from the 70s said, "years ahead forerunner of today's low profile clubs."

Thanks in advance!

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1395365170' post='8914839'] The deal with the Glider X was entirely about a particular shaft not working with that clubhead. It's not the first time in history that's happened to someone. The correct shaft worked just fine. [/quote]

That's OK. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I assumed that when you originally fitted a Dynalite, that was comparable to the shafts you were hitting well in your other clubs. Reg Dynalite to DGX100 is a bit of a jump, no? I'm just offering a possible explanation as to why, assuming the shaft was otherwise a good match to your swing, it may not have worked with that head.

[xgolfx]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1395365852' post='8914909']
[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1395342421' post='8912427']
You are correct about Toney embracing modern materials and technology. In his last days, he experimented with ceramic heads for woods. The club was molded in color, white and black. The weight was controlled by using brass and aluminum screws and plates. The neck was shaped like persimmon. When Eli came out with the first Big Bertha, Toney bought one . He said it was the future. His experiments in metal, some never produced and the ceramic heads, vetoed by Nathaniel Crosby as too expensive, are on the current site of thegolfauction

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

It's always an honor to get to correspond with you, Charley!

If you would, I'd appreciate it if you could tell us what went into the design of an iron clubhead back in the day. How was weight distribution determined? How much of a hindrance were the long hosels of that time which I understand were necessary for proper bonding to the shaft? I love that early 50s Winged MT that was, as a Toney Penna Company ad from the 70s said, "years ahead forerunner of today's low profile clubs."

Thanks in advance!
[/quote]



My grandparents lived in Harrison, New York. My grandfather , Luigi , smoked the vile smelling Parodi cigars(till he died at 91) but only in the attic. After dinner, the men would retire to the attic to smoke. In the attic was a barrel of wooden shafted clubs, mostly from Scotland. Among the clubs was a mashie with the wing back. Toney took the club back to the plant and applied lead to the back of a five iron. He hit balls with it, but it was too heavy. The next experiment was with a thicker top line and lower profile. That was how the wing back was born

CHARLEY PENNA

[Shallowface]

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1395369916' post='8915457']


My grandparents lived in Harrison, New York. My grandfather , Luigi , smoked the vile smelling Parodi cigars(till he died at 91) but only in the attic. After dinner, the men would retire to the attic to smoke. In the attic was a barrel of wooden shafted clubs, mostly from Scotland. Among the clubs was a mashie with the wing back. Toney took the club back to the plant and applied lead to the back of a five iron. He hit balls with it, but it was too heavy. The next experiment was with a thicker top line and lower profile. That was how the wing back was born

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

What a great story! Thanks, Charley!

[rex235]

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1395369916' post='8915457']
[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1395365852' post='8914909']
[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1395342421' post='8912427']
You are correct about Toney embracing modern materials and technology. In his last days, he experimented with ceramic heads for woods. The club was molded in color, white and black. The weight was controlled by using brass and aluminum screws and plates. The neck was shaped like persimmon. When Eli came out with the first Big Bertha, Toney bought one . He said it was the future. His experiments in metal, some never produced and the ceramic heads, vetoed by Nathaniel Crosby as too expensive, are on the current site of thegolfauction

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

It's always an honor to get to correspond with you, Charley!

If you would, I'd appreciate it if you could tell us what went into the design of an iron clubhead back in the day. How was weight distribution determined? How much of a hindrance were the long hosels of that time which I understand were necessary for proper bonding to the shaft? I love that early 50s Winged MT that was, as a Toney Penna Company ad from the 70s said, "years ahead forerunner of today's low profile clubs."

Thanks in advance!
[/quote]



My grandparents lived in Harrison, New York. My grandfather , Luigi , smoked the vile smelling Parodi cigars(till he died at 91) but only in the attic. After dinner, the men would retire to the attic to smoke. In the attic was a barrel of wooden shafted clubs, mostly from Scotland. Among the clubs was a mashie with the wing back. Toney took the club back to the plant and applied lead to the back of a five iron. He hit balls with it, but it was too heavy. The next experiment was with a thicker top line and lower profile. That was how the wing back was born

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]

...two books....and getting easier....

[BIG STU]

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1394241513' post='8822905']
The flame ceramic coating was discovered by Toney Penna at the Illinois Institute of Technology. It was used to coat the inside of jet engines. The number comes from the temperature necessary for application. It was almost akin to sandpaper when new. Toney was amazed when the USGA approved its use. The problem was the substance would chip off when struck with the other clubs in the bag. I still use a Penna wedge with the black coating, but it is not the reason I can spin the ball.

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]It is amazing what you can learn on here now I know why those wedges are so hard to find. My vintage gamer set is a set of TC 4000 MT2s that were my dad's back in the 60s when he was on staff with Macgregor. I do remember when he switched clubs he always kept that wedge with his current set. We never knew about the ceramic coating we just referred to them as black faced Macgregors. thanks for the lesson Mr Penna

[BIG STU]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1394704528' post='8861335']
I've got two sets of 'Big M' Diamondbacks, the CF 4000 MT2 and the PT2 Recessed Weight with Colokrom finish.
Never mind what Maltby claims, I find they play fine, the CF 4000 with a slightly less challenging sole than the earlier PTs. They do not forgive pecking or hitting from the top, a nice clean descending blow thru. the ball and they go as well as anything. The big plus is the rock and roll 'sweet shop' finish, the only thing missing is Marilyn Monroe and Cadillac fins. And the shafts, what chrome, complete with copper underlay! you don't get that out of China!
[/quote]I have to agree with you on the CF 4000s MT2 I have one set that was my dad's and I do play with them. They have all the original shafts which I think are the Pro-Pel 2 . For ovious reasons I have never messed with them except to change grips. A few years back I bought another set at a charity sale for $10 3 thru 9 iron no wedge as usual. I took those and pulled the shafts and put in a set of Rifle 6.0s that were pullouts man you talk about something hitting good! I ended up selling those ones to a friend in Florida who was playing the minis at the time with the agreement that I would buy them back when he got tired of them. It has been 5 years and he ain't tired of them yet

[rex235]

[quote name='BIG STU' timestamp='1395656143' post='8936837']
[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1394704528' post='8861335']
I've got two sets of 'Big M' Diamondbacks, the CF 4000 MT2 and the PT2 Recessed Weight with Colokrom finish.
Never mind what Maltby claims, I find they play fine, the CF 4000 with a slightly less challenging sole than the earlier PTs. They do not forgive pecking or hitting from the top, a nice clean descending blow thru. the ball and they go as well as anything. The big plus is the rock and roll 'sweet shop' finish, the only thing missing is Marilyn Monroe and Cadillac fins. And the shafts, what chrome, complete with copper underlay! you don't get that out of China!
[/quote]I have to agree with you on the CF 4000s MT2 I have one set that was my dad's and I do play with them. They have all the original shafts which I think are the Pro-Pel 2 . For ovious reasons I have never messed with them except to change grips. A few years back I bought another set at a charity sale for $10 3 thru 9 iron no wedge as usual. I took those and pulled the shafts and put in a set of Rifle 6.0s that were pullouts man you talk about something hitting good! I ended up selling those ones to a friend in Florida who was playing the minis at the time with the agreement that I would buy them back when he got tired of them. It has been 5 years and he ain't tired of them yet
[/quote]

Stu-

On "pulling the shafts"..

How did you deal with the shaft pins?

[BIG STU]

[quote name='rex235' timestamp='1395708032' post='8943121']
[quote name='BIG STU' timestamp='1395656143' post='8936837']
[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1394704528' post='8861335']
I've got two sets of 'Big M' Diamondbacks, the CF 4000 MT2 and the PT2 Recessed Weight with Colokrom finish.
Never mind what Maltby claims, I find they play fine, the CF 4000 with a slightly less challenging sole than the earlier PTs. They do not forgive pecking or hitting from the top, a nice clean descending blow thru. the ball and they go as well as anything. The big plus is the rock and roll 'sweet shop' finish, the only thing missing is Marilyn Monroe and Cadillac fins. And the shafts, what chrome, complete with copper underlay! you don't get that out of China!
[/quote]I have to agree with you on the CF 4000s MT2 I have one set that was my dad's and I do play with them. They have all the original shafts which I think are the Pro-Pel 2 . For ovious reasons I have never messed with them except to change grips. A few years back I bought another set at a charity sale for $10 3 thru 9 iron no wedge as usual. I took those and pulled the shafts and put in a set of Rifle 6.0s that were pullouts man you talk about something hitting good! I ended up selling those ones to a friend in Florida who was playing the minis at the time with the agreement that I would buy them back when he got tired of them. It has been 5 years and he ain't tired of them yet
[/quote]

Stu-

On "pulling the shafts"..

How did you deal with the shaft pins?
[/quote] I delt with them 2 ways First I clamped the head in a clamp and drilled from the side with my drill press with a cobalt bit. Then I cut the shaft about 3 inches from the hosel and went through the top. Now a couple of the shafts were "frozen so to speak from age and I tried to heat and remove and finally I had to put them in the head clamp and drill them out. Now I did use real good bits (read expensive ) not from Home Depot or Lowe's but off the Snap On tool truck. It can be time consuming. If I had been doing it for a customer at the Golf Shop I would have charged by the hour for head prepping