Modifying Old School Blades to a Single Length Set

[kaboboom]

So toying with this idea as a project. Let's say I start with a set of Hogan Plus 1s I hardly hit. Say the single target length is 37 1/2, and the common lie angle is 62.5 degrees. Without making a measurement, it seems like the 5 iron is the "pivot club" (this particular set seems short to me). Shaft extensions for 6 thru Equalizer, and slight cut downs for 2-4 irons. Might be a challenge without a loft & lie, but since your target lie angle is the same, you might be able to rubber hammer all irons to the target angle in a vise. Club weight variation? Maybe hard to lower, but adding weight down the shafts should be easy enough.

 

So I'd like opinions on whether this seems viable, or is there some fatal flaw not easily overcome? I've stashed a few too many sets, and it seems like a fun project to try...I hear those Cobra SL sets are fairly pricey, especially the forged.

 

Thanks in advance.

[rex235]

Boom-

 

You wish to turn this set of Hogan 1 Plus irons into a single length set- correct?

 

That means you're going to single plane swing.

 

First, take notes on your current set.

 

What's the current flex of those shafts?

 

What is the current swingweight of the set?

 

Now you have a base to determine what exactly you are seeking.

 

Assuming the 5 iron is the ideal length is one thing, but doesn't Bryson DeChambeau use the 6?

 

Remember, most of the people who we known for hitting straight shots had heavy clubs. Brad Faxon tried DeChambeaus irons, and the results weren't pretty.

 

Have thought about doing the same thing with a similar Hogan set, but haven't gone forward.

 

Good Luck.

[Socrates]

So toying with this idea as a project. Let's say I start with a set of Hogan Plus 1s I hardly hit. Say the single target length is 37 1/2, and the common lie angle is 62.5 degrees. Without making a measurement, it seems like the 5 iron is the "pivot club" (this particular set seems short to me). Shaft extensions for 6 thru Equalizer, and slight cut downs for 2-4 irons. Might be a challenge without a loft & lie, but since your target lie angle is the same, you might be able to rubber hammer all irons to the target angle in a vise. Club weight variation? Maybe hard to lower, but adding weight down the shafts should be easy enough.

 

So I'd like opinions on whether this seems viable, or is there some fatal flaw not easily overcome? I've stashed a few too many sets, and it seems like a fun project to try...I hear those Cobra SL sets are fairly pricey, especially the forged.

 

Thanks in advance.

Gotta be several threads on this. Destined for failure. Not just because you are going to bastardize a fine set of Hogan's.

 

Long irons are going to be far too light and the short irons are going to be way too heavy (you will need a grinder and a drill press). Since you are making even a greater error by using the current shafts, you will have shafts that are far too flexible and shafts that are going to be too stiff (not to mention the shaft diameter on the ones you shorten are going to be small). And you don't have a lie loft machine.

 

There is nothing good that can come from this venture. Sorry to rain on your parade.

[nolixul]

Setting aside other issues (lofts/lies etc), you will definitely have problems with shafts and head weights.

 

You will need to reshaft with the exact same spec shaft in all the heads. The Hogans are probably taper tip so you would need (for eg a 6 iron based build) 9 taper tip 6 iron shafts, butt trimmed the same. The Plus 1s I have seen were pinned, so you would need to tackle the pins whilst reshafting.

 

The head weights will ascend by about 7g per head. You need to get the weights the same. Whatever you use as the base club, it will mean adding substantial weight to the lower irons and removing a lot of weight from the short irons. The latter means porting the irons and/or (if the hosels and insertion depth allow) shortening the hosels, to get to matching weights. (Maybe even drilling the hosel bores a bit deeper if the heads allow).

 

Just take a look at BDC's original Edel set and you will see, visually, how much fiddling has to be done to get a conventional set suitable to play at single length. It is quite a task.

[kaboboom]

Very specific concerns...thanks to all. For posterity, maybe I can back-up a bit. Let's first put the "ruination" concern aside...I have way too many sets, and no real outlet for them, but certainly the Hogans could be a bad choice for all the reasons you've expressed. I'm also hearing extending existing shafts is flawed, especially given that they are taper tips. Finally, it's inferred that head weight adjustments would become garish and difficult, which implies current SL heads are weighted progressively and old school heads were not. So there's a lot more that goes into SL design that is baked in to the components...I get it...I'm sufficiently deterred. I'll study this a bit more but getting such quick expert opinions was appreciated. Still, there's a little bit of a "too bad" given the glut of vintage out there.

[nolixul]

SL heads are all the same weight. Therein is the weight issue as it's the conventional sets that are ascending weight.

[teevons]

Barney Adams input on SL

http://www.golfwrx.c...ons-experiment/

[raggal62]

I also thought about doing this as a winter project but the headweight issue is the one thing holding me back. I have a L/L machine so that's a non issue. Also have a set of uncut decent quality graphite iron shafts that would be perfect candidates. Still .... I suppose under the right circumstances I can get myself motivated. Just the thought of all that grinding, drilling, lead taping, etc.

[augustgolf]

I also thought about doing this as a winter project but the headweight issue is the one thing holding me back. I have a L/L machine so that's a non issue. Also have a set of uncut decent quality graphite iron shafts that would be perfect candidates. Still .... I suppose under the right circumstances I can get myself motivated. Just the thought of all that grinding, drilling, lead taping, etc.

 

While I wholeheartedly agree that attempting to tranition a "traditional" set to SL is not a good idea because of the headweight issue, I really need to ask people here.

 

Have you not seen some old-timer pros sets??? I know of 2 or 3 that I grew up around that had many an iron drilled out (for weight removal) and many that had drilled areas filled with lead (for added weight)

 

And, these were players who didn't have the benefit of ultra modern measuring devices. They did it all by feel.

 

I'm not saying that they had SL sets....not at all. I didn't see my first SL set until the Tommy Armour EQL's came out in the very late 80's/early 90's. And I was tempted to get a set, opting instead for the 845s (wish that I still had that original set - another thread dealt with the progressive offset issue of the 845's, and I can say that my PW (48 degree) had no offset, and very little going up to the long irons until about the 6 iron.)

 

Anyway....you can drill to remove and add weight, but why? When you can get a full set of weight matching heads, it sure would seem to make it much easier for your build.

[birly-shirly]

You know, I hate getting talked out of crackpot ideas almost as much as seeing other people talked out of them.

 

Single length IS probably a stretch here. But if I was in a fettling mood, I might be considering whether you could tighten up the gaps across the set. Pick a comfortable or arbitrary point in the set, and trim the longer clubs to 3/8" length gaps rather than 1/2". Compensate with lead tape. Shorter irons will still be shorter, but who cares? I don't believe they get harder to hit by virtue of their shortness. Mitigate the extra difficulty of the longer clubs, and be glad that you can still generate enough clubhead speed to get the long irons up in the air. Try not to worry about what you're doing to the frequency slope across the set. Have fun.

[kaboboom]

Well, I do have that set of 73 Staffs...I mean, they're already drilled out a bit.

[Swingingk]

You know, I hate getting talked out of crackpot ideas almost as much as seeing other people talked out of them.

 

Single length IS probably a stretch here. But if I was in a fettling mood, I might be considering whether you could tighten up the gaps across the set. Pick a comfortable or arbitrary point in the set, and trim the longer clubs to 3/8" length gaps rather than 1/2". Compensate with lead tape. Shorter irons will still be shorter, but who cares? I don't believe they get harder to hit by virtue of their shortness. Mitigate the extra difficulty of the longer clubs, and be glad that you can still generate enough clubhead speed to get the long irons up in the air. Try not to worry about what you're doing to the frequency slope across the set. Have fun.

 

 

I'm with Birly on this one. Tinkering with clubs is fun and vintage clubs are plentiful - why not? Considering how much tinkering Mr. Hogan himself did, I would think he'd be happy and proud of anyone gutsy enough to take the tools to their clubs to try and achieve a better game.

 

Birly's suggestion of lessening the length differences in the long irons rather than matching them seems very logical to me. Lead tape is easy for adjustments. But if you're committed to lengthening the shorter irons to match then I would suggest looking at Hogan Radial heads. They have fairly large soles that are just begging to be ground back thereby lowering headweight AND making a more playable sole. At least the heads would still look like blades and not some monstrosity with holes all over it. And it would still be Hogan.

 

Just my two cents.

[augustgolf]

Drill out holes around the perimeter of the back of the head, tap in some threads & then get some set screws to put in those drilled/tapped holes

[nolixul]

Well, the original post was specifically about single length, and the issues and advice are clear.

 

If one wanted to to explore other modification options, as some seem to be suggesting, then personally I would go the route of "MOI matching" the set - which is sort of being hinted at by others. That is definitely doable.

[kaboboom]

All good discussion, the key premise being it's fun to tinker when there is a hoard worth parsing. I did start this topic somewhat naively with SL, but I believe there are a few less extensive modifications suggested here. But to what end? If we go with the MOI objective, I'd like to ask on which specific clubs is this to be sought? Is it the longer irons down from the "pivot" iron? I've read that the longer irons on SL sets have shown to be challenging to get airborne. Would that be addressed by the mods or accentuated? I buy that there's little reason to be overly concerned about the lofted irons. So let's say the pivot club is the 6 iron. Then we are focused on 2/3-5 (I'd never mess with a 1 iron), but again, to what end? The suggestion (starting with Birly) is to compress the gaps which would mean to butt trim them (I think), then weight them. The "MOI" matching goal (again, I think) would be to then match the longer irons to the pivot club, but is this simply matching the club weights? Sorry, I'm just not very deep in my understanding of club building, but there still seems like a fun project here, and the scope appears to be getting more reasonable. Thanks.

[nolixul]

From memory there's a good post from Howard on MOI matching approximation without an MOI machine.

 

A good starting point is the club that you hit best in that set and match to that, whether it be a 4 iron, 6 iron, 9 iron or whatever.

 

You will find that the 3/8 imcrements are typical of MOI matched sets.

[raggal62]

Yes, lot's of good info on MOI matching over on the clubmakers side of the forum.

[kaboboom]

I think this would be the thread mentioned above:

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1551422-38-gap-moi-matched-set-shafts/page__p__16296706__hl__+moi#entry16296706

[Kirasdad]

I have more experience than most at this so I will weigh in. Tim and I worked on this concept for months last year trying several different iterations of modifying standard length vintage irons to SL. It didn’t work for a variety of reasons. In the end, ball flight issues were the deal breaker. My 4,5, and six iron were basically the same club. I learned a lot and I have a few thoughts that might assist the OP, or anyone else intrigued by SL golf clubs.

 

As follows:

 

You need to know your swing speed with a five iron. If it’s mid 80’s or higher then you can use almost any club head and shaft combo and go down to four or even three iron in the set. If you are under 80 (and let’s face it, that’s most of us on this forum) then you start with the six iron, or if you’re say at 70 or so the seven iron. I myself am about 78,79 swinging a midiron comfortably on the golf course. I can get it in to the low 80’s but I am pressing to do it consistently and it’s not conducive to good golf. So with SL to start I would play it safe and go with 6~SW.

 

The ball needs to get in the air so club head choice is crucial. I think someone else posted this, but if I was to do it over again and build a SL set with vintage heads, I would almost certainly use Hogan Radials. Designed with a low center of gravity the Radials are an ideal choice for a SL build. The also have the radial sole that adds to ball flight height, plus they’re forged from soft carbon steel so adjusting lie and loft is no problem.

 

The shaft doesn’t have as big an influence on ball flight as the club head, but it doesn’t hurt to get all the help one can, so something light for ball speed assistance is a good idea. A low kickpoint will also help a little. If graphite is your thing then there are tons of options there, but steel can be had in as little as 90 grams so there are possibilities there as well. I definitely wouldn’t recommend using old shafts. Trying to find a bunch of say, pulled Apex shafts is really hard and you don’t really know if they have been tipped properly to begin with, it’s a massive headache and not worth it, just ask Tim.

 

The clubhead weight should be somewhere around 271 grams. This is easy for the 5~8 irons. The 5,6and 7 just need varying amounts of lead tape to bring the weight up to the right amount. The 8 should be fine as it is. The 9, PW and the SW will need holes drilled in the back to take weight out. If you use Radials the wedge is 50 degrees so no need for a gap wedge.

 

Lengthwise, if you’re over say 5’9” I would start at 37” and work down from there if it seems too long. I am a hair less than 5’8” so 36.5” seemed to work fine for me. I liked having short irons that were over length. That is something that many SL experimenters seemed to struggle with but I like the extra length. You don’t have to force anything, the ball just goes. I think I have a tendency to force my standard length short irons to go farther and consequently swing too hard and trouble results. This issue was eliminated for me with SL. I might be an outlier there. Lie angle obviously depends on your build but 62/63 is ballpark for most folks.

 

If you are handy, have a workshop, and want a project, then give it a go. The Radials (or whatever you pick) are dirt cheap and if you went with lightweight steel and grips online you won’t spend a great deal of dough. The labor would be free, if you’re a do it yourselfer, so why not?

 

There is a “why not” and I would be remiss in not engaging in full disclosure. SL clubs are really hard to get right. If you are interested in a playable set then you’ll probably be disappointed. So the advice I would give you if you want to be a SL player is forget everything I’ve just said and go buy your self a set of Pinhawks, or spend a little more and get Cobras or splurge and get some Sterlings.

The Pinhawks are the way I’d go, well, they are the way I did go. You can buy them finished or buy the heads, pick your shafts and assemble them. I recently bought the 5-AW and matched them with FST stepless steel shafts. Since the heads are designed to be SL the heads all weigh the same and have the requested lie angle. All you need is expoxy, a saw, and a vice. I didn’t even have those items, but my neighbor has a workshop and so I put mine together there. All the shafts are tipped the same and are obviously the same length. If I can do this, believe me, anyone can. I have had them about two weeks. They are fine golf clubs, nice looking (for shovels) and they feel surprisingly good. I have only played nine holes with them because I am so busy with work, but they performed nicely. I hit some really good shots with them. I will need to play a lot more to see what I really have but I have liked them so far, and I have very little to lose. Financially speaking, there is a market out there for SL clubs now, and I would easily get my money back on the bay, if I decided for whatever reason to not change my four decades plus way of playing the auld game. The SL concept, I believe to be sound, probably not for everyone, but what is? Some folks will really improve due to the consistency of the set up and swing on a shot to shot basis. Perhaps I’ll be one of them. I think that’s why I ultimately play this game, the challenge to simply improve. There is probably a metaphor there, but I’ll leave that alone for now.

 

So there it is...a lot more than my 2 cents. I hope it’s helpful.

 

 

[Uncle T]

Cutting down the 3,4,5 with out adjusting swing weight you will get the same distance out of all 3 clubs just different flight and Launch angles.

[Kirasdad]

The swing weights on my vintage SL set were all the same (D1) after lead tape adjustments. The 3 and 4 irons especially need ample swing speed (85 or so) to provide for appropriate yardage gaps. Swingweight has little to do with it.