Blade Design: What happened in 1965?

[cold_war_era_golfer]

Sorting through my clubs and storing things for the winter I had a thought.

1965 Top Flite Professionals had a relatively flat back compared to previous years.

1965 MacGregor MTs had a flat black.

1966 Wilson Dynapowers had a relatively flat back compared to previous years.

 

Mid 50s to early 60s all three companies had more muscle on the back portion of the blade.  

 

I understand golf trends change and may competing companies will adjust to match the trend.  Maybe that was what was happening?  It certainly was a nod back to early 1950s-hickory era blade design.  

The flat back look didn't last very long either.  

Edited November 16, 2022 by cold_war_era_golfer

[BIG STU]

It is all about weight distribution. The staffs with their design with weight distributed more towards the sole are easier to get airborne for the average golfer. I think in the ensuing time frame you are talking about manufacturers were leaning towards the average weekend golfer with less swing speed than the average tour pro. Which Karsten changed the whole set up when he refined the Pings. BTW the Macs you have pictured I had a set and they were a Bear to get Airborne even when I could still swing a club. The 65 Top Flites I had a set and I could handle them ok at the time now days no way

[DoughBack18]

I’d imagine the vcog on those had to be really high! You’d need to have a lot of shaft lean nowadays to get one of those on the sweetspot.

 

Could that aspect of it have anything to do with course conditions of the era? I’ve seen videos from the 60’s and the turf definitely seems “fluffier” than today. If the ball is naturally sitting up it would almost make sense to have the sweet spot slightly higher on the face.
 

Although that doesn’t necessarily help your launch angle! But spinier balls and higher lofts of the day probably offset that too… (sorry for rambling there!)

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

4 minutes ago, DoughBack18 said:

I’d imagine the vcog on those had to be really high! You’d need to have a lot of shaft lean nowadays to get one of those on the sweetspot.

 

Could that aspect of it have anything to do with course conditions of the era? I’ve seen videos from the 60’s and the turf definitely seems “fluffier” than today. If the ball is naturally sitting up it would almost make sense to have the sweet spot slightly higher on the face.
 

Although that doesn’t necessarily help your launch angle! But spinier balls and higher lofts of the day probably offset that too… (sorry for rambling there!)

Not rambling at all, I think you are pretty much on the money.

I was criticised by my home Pro for having an old fashioned swing ( having started about 65 years ago). I was too handsy and I had a lot of shaft lean which led me to trap the ball on all iron shots. This was what you did in the UK then given prevailing turf and course conditions. My problem with the modern ball and equipment was keeping it down and out of the stratosphere.

It's fun changing to a more modern technique btw...sort of keeps you engaged with the game.

[cold_war_era_golfer]

Maltby gives the ‘65 Top Flites a 385.   In comparison to other clubs I’ve played such as the MacGregor Fc4000 he gives those a -341.   Yes that’s a negative.   I’m not sure what all the Maltby ratings do for my play skill level. 
 

[NRJyzr]

9 hours ago, cold_war_era_golfer said:

Maltby gives the ‘65 Top Flites a 385.   In comparison to other clubs I’ve played such as the MacGregor Fc4000 he gives those a -341.   Yes that’s a negative.   I’m not sure what all the Maltby ratings do for my play skill level. 
 

 

Maltby's MPF is great, because they measure the actual physical characteristics of the clubhead.

 

That said, I would suggest *not* paying much attention to the final score.  It's an arithmetic formula that creates a high value on a low a CG, as far from the hosel as possible. (It's literally C Dimension minus Actual VCOG, with some small adjustments)

 

The relevant numbers in MPF are the Actual VCOG,  the MOI, and the C Dimension, which is the distance the CG is from the centerline of the hosel, said measurement taken at the leading edge when the club is properly soled.

 

The Spalding clubhead you included in your post is rather excellent in its characteristics.  The CG of .757 is quite low for the era, and the C Dimension indicates it's not too close to the hosel.  It also has a rather respectable MOI.  A lovely club.  🙂

 

Side note:  the CF4000 rates as it does due to the high CG that is also heel biased.  

 

[cold_war_era_golfer]

12 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Maltby's MPF is great, because they measure the actual physical characteristics of the clubhead.

 

That said, I would suggest *not* paying much attention to the final score.  It's an arithmetic formula that creates a high value on a low a CG, as far from the hosel as possible. (It's literally C Dimension minus Actual VCOG, with some small adjustments)

 

The relevant numbers in MPF are the Actual VCOG,  the MOI, and the C Dimension, which is the distance the CG is from the centerline of the hosel, said measurement taken at the leading edge when the club is properly soled.

 

The Spalding clubhead you included in your post is rather excellent in its characteristics.  The CG of .757 is quite low for the era, and the C Dimension indicates it's not too close to the hosel.  It also has a rather respectable MOI.  A lovely club.  🙂

 

Side note:  the CF4000 rates as it does due to the high CG that is also heel biased.  

 

 Very interesting.  Here’s another spalding iron. This has a higher actual vcog than the the 1965 model.  But a lower MPF.   Although I will say I’m not sure what to make of the Maltby grading   I’ve played those low rated MacGregors on the same course as the high rated Spaldings and scored about the same at the end of the day.  

Edited November 21, 2022 by cold_war_era_golfer

[NRJyzr]

9 hours ago, cold_war_era_golfer said:

Very interesting.  Here’s another spalding iron. This has a higher actual vcog than the the 1965 model.  But a lower MPF.  

 

The higher CG is why the MPF score is lower.  

 

Some people really like that MPF final score, but I am one who does not.  I don't think it has value.  It's not a forgiveness measurement, it's really "how well does this align with the design principles of the creator of the formula?"

 

Ralph Maltby believes a lower CG is better for golfers.  He also believes it's important to move the CG as far away from the hosel as is possible.  When he decided to create a formula to use as a grading system, those are the two primary components.

 

In his formula, MOI, which is really the measure of forgiveness, doesn't get a lot of weight.  It's an interesting difference between he and Tom Wishon, who believes MOI is more important than does Ralph Maltby.  There's an MOI formula adjustment, but designs with a CG above .840 get no bump from MOI.  And, the lower the CG, the greater the increase for MOI.

 

People talk about Matlby's biases, but that's all it really is; he likes that center of gravity to be low (sorry to be repeating myself, LOL).  If it isn't, the design doesn't score well. 

 

Ultimately, if you are able to get the CG on the golfball, that's what matters.  Some golfers have a swing that needs a higher CG, some need the lower CG.  

 

About the CF4000 scoring...   The midpoint of a golfball is 0.840".  Anything above that receives extra negative scoring in his formula.  Such as seen in the CF4000; that's where the -194 in the VCOG CF below came from.  It's a sliding scale, as the CG goes higher, the points deduction increases on something greater than a linear scale.

 

 

Sorry for making this so long.

 

[cold_war_era_golfer]

9 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The higher CG is why the MPF score is lower.  

 

Some people really like that MPF final score, but I am one who does not.  I don't think it has value.  It's not a forgiveness measurement, it's really "how well does this align with the design principles of the creator of the formula?"

 

Ralph Maltby believes a lower CG is better for golfers.  He also believes it's important to move the CG as far away from the hosel as is possible.  When he decided to create a formula to use as a grading system, those are the two primary components.

 

In his formula, MOI, which is really the measure of forgiveness, doesn't get a lot of weight.  It's an interesting difference between he and Tom Wishon, who believes MOI is more important than does Ralph Maltby.  There's an MOI formula adjustment, but designs with a CG above .840 get no bump from MOI.  And, the lower the CG, the greater the increase for MOI.

 

People talk about Matlby's biases, but that's all it really is; he likes that center of gravity to be low (sorry to be repeating myself, LOL).  If it isn't, the design doesn't score well. 

 

Ultimately, if you are able to get the CG on the golfball, that's what matters.  Some golfers have a swing that needs a higher CG, some need the lower CG.  

 

About the CF4000 scoring...   The midpoint of a golfball is 0.840".  Anything above that receives extra negative scoring in his formula.  Such as seen in the CF4000; that's where the -194 in the VCOG CF below came from.  It's a sliding scale, as the CG goes higher, the points deduction increases on something greater than a linear scale.

 

 

Sorry for making this so long.

 

Please don't be sorry for making it "long" this is GREAT insight.  I still don't really understand half of the Maltby stuff, although your explanation does help.

I like your point about the individual player having certain swings.  Jack's '59 Tommy Armours were very similar to the FC4000s Maltby lists and he had no issue(although most of us aren't like Jack).  I had been reading one of Bobby Jones books were he said something like he could get by with any modern steel shaft after adjustment.  Numbers and decimals are just one way to look at golf.  Plus how can you really trust Maltby when he calls FC4000s "CF4000"  🙂

[AdamMH]

Another couple honourable mentions for this thread -- Accuform PTMs and Powerbilt Scotch Blades.

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, cold_war_era_golfer said:

Please don't be sorry for making it "long" this is GREAT insight.  I still don't really understand half of the Maltby stuff, although your explanation does help.

I like your point about the individual player having certain swings.  Jack's '59 Tommy Armours were very similar to the FC4000s Maltby lists and he had no issue(although most of us aren't like Jack).  I had been reading one of Bobby Jones books were he said something like he could get by with any modern steel shaft after adjustment.  Numbers and decimals are just one way to look at golf.  Plus how can you really trust Maltby when he calls FC4000s "CF4000"  🙂

And the 59 FCs are a total different design compared to the 62s different weight distribution and all. I may be biased here but I never saw 62s that hard to hit maybe since I have been hitting them on and off since I was in my teens. Now I will admit the "Diamondbacks" like the 59 model hit differently for me in terms of feel. I have a set of 57s which are non FC faces. Same shafts as both of my sets of 62s and they certainly feel different to me. They have the same Pro-Pel shafts. For me it is mostly feel and weight distribution

[golferdude54]

After looking at the MacGregor MT model as mentioned by the OP and Accuform PTMs, I found out that I like this flat back muscle design even more than the Hogan Precision/Personal muscle design and that's saying a lot. How come no one makes this flat back design anymore?

[AdamMH]

49 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

After looking at the MacGregor MT model as mentioned by the OP and Accuform PTMs, I found out that I like this flat back muscle design even more than the Hogan Precision/Personal muscle design and that's saying a lot. How come no one makes this flat back design anymore?

My money is on aesthetics more than anything. Most people don't look at those clubs and suddenly get more optimistic about their ballstriking 😉 I will say the PTMs aren't any less forgiving than a typical blade.

[golferdude54]

Seems like Hogan did it before them in 1964 with this model, interesting design: blade-on-blade with flat back!