90s irons vs 2020s irons

[JavierB]

Hi,

 

I was planning on buying a Dunlop forged iron set designed by Seve in the early 90s (allegedly the best set he ever designed), and wanted to ask you if anyone knows how do irons form the 90s compare to irons from today.

 

I know irons today have a stronger loft, but, lets say, an iron from the 90s with the same loft as an iron from today (club number aside), how does their performance compare as far as carry, launch and spin?

 

Thank you

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JavierB

[scooterhd2]

Loft for loft, its a chunk of metal on a stick. F=ma. You apply the same input and hit the middle of the face, you'll get the same speed output. Spin will depend on what model you are comparing them to today. You can find some very low spin irons, so I wouldnt be surprised if they spin more than the average iron today, but not necessarily more than a quality players iron. 

[cardia10]

I don't honestly think there has been significant advances in irons in years. Today's hollow goo filled clubs have been done before, clubs like the Titleist T200's just thinly cover a very ugly cavity. I think the idea is to make you feel and look better playing an ultra forgiving club. Kind of like putting lipstick on a pig I guess. They have also increased lofts significantly which in reality does nothing for performance but boosts the ego I guess. I think at this points, most companies are recycling ideas and putting a different color makeup on them.

[cgasucks]

There has been zero technological advancements in forged blades and players' cavity backs without any multi materials, foam and other tech mumbo jumbo added in.  You can only pound a billet of carbon steel into so many shapes.  With the same loft and same length and when off the sweet spot, a blade made in 2022 will perform the same as a blade made in 1992.

Edited December 15, 2022 by cgasucks

[black bnr32]

I think y’all are underestimating the advancement in manufacturing consistency and ball flight optimization for each iron in the set.

[Klubster]

I think you will find that different shafts make a much larger difference in ball flight, distance and dispersion than the heads do.

[SE Gamer]

I'm on the side of there really not being much difference between a forged iron today, and one from ~20 years ago. I just retired a 15 year old set of Snake Eyes 600B blades. Hit them against this year's releases from Mizuno (221) and Callaway (Apex MB). 

Feel wise, the Mizuno was pretty close (the Snake Eyes 600B is a really pure iron). While the Apex MB felt terrible in comparison to both. Performance wise, any differences were negligible. And I didn't find the newer stuff to be more forgiving on mishits in any meaningful way. In short, the current offerings are nice. But for me weren't worth it, as I wouldn't really be gaining anything.

 

Now, I still replaced the blades. But instead with a Rogue ST Pro set. Are they better? Maybe. Manufacturers have made advancements in cramming forgiveness into much more compact and appealing heads. But unless someone is such a poor ball striker that they need an ultra-mega super game improvement iron. Committing to a set, regardless of whether it was released this year or 20 years ago, is highly likely to yield similar results. 
 

[scooterhd2]

1 hour ago, black bnr32 said:

I think y’all are underestimating the advancement in manufacturing consistency and ball flight optimization for each iron in the set.

 

I'm sure theres some validity to mass produced cast clubs being more consistent than prior generations, but I'm not believing that on quality forged clubs. I'm sure many would argue that they were better in the good ol days when they were being made in renowned Japanese forging houses and not an assembly line in China. 

 

The other part of that is nothing new. Plenty of older sets that put weight lower and wider in the long irons and concentrated mass in the center in the short irons. More common sense than engineering marvel. You just here more marketing about COG and tungsten because jacked lofts and low spin equals distance. And distance sells. And if the clubs were really that much better, why arent our handicaps signifcantly lower?

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by scooterhd2

[JavierB]

Thanks so much everyone for the input. I keep my ears open.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JavierB

[dfeldss]

6 minutes ago, JavierB said:

Thanks so much everyone for the input.

 

Has anyone tried or actually played with irons from this era and can tell how much clubs do you lose in distance with them compared to todays irons? (if any)

 

Did you read everyone's replies?

[msg]

I have a 1999 Titleist 990's, Tommy Armour 845 Silver Scott and Srixon 585. My 585 goes 10-15 yards more because of the lofts and are more forgiving for sure. But other than that, I do not see or feel any difference. 

[vandyfan]

I just moved back into a set of Ping Eye 2 BeCus from a set made in 2020 because the differences are negligible (lofts are weaker on the Eye 2s but I have figured out the carry differences) and that eye 2 "W" wedge is just so good. 

[willie991]

Hate to think of the money I've spent over the years to have the best irons for me in the bag.  Cast... forged... Carded my second ace some years ago with a set of Titleist 690mb's in the bag.  

Recently, have bagged Callaway Mavrik irons, Srixon blades, etc.  The past few months have had some of the best rounds of the year with my Ping Eye 2's in the bag.  As 2023 dawns, I am about convinced to leave the Eye 2's in the bag for the year.  

Have there been improvements in iron technology since Karsten blessed the Game with his investment cast, cavity back irons?  Probably.  For me, at 76 years old, I'd much rather take down the young bucks with 30 year old irons in the bag and see them cringe with $1,500 irons in theirs.  

[ChipNRun]

This is a very complex question. Someone could write a book on it. In fact, Ralph Maltby did. It's called The Maltby Playability Factor: Understanding Golf Club Dynamics (2005). The book contains a major section on the evolution of iron head design, from the early 1900s up to the Callaway Hawkeye VFT iron of 2002. The 38-page section includes engineering diagrams, photographs and MPF tables to compare the different designs.

 

To shift your question, let's use 1980 v. 1990 as a benchmark year. Some influences:

• In 1980s, retired aerospace engineers start going to work in golf industry. Between World War II and then, many of the changes to golf irons were cosmetic rather than functional. Some have compared the golf club design to that of the auto industry: real emphasis on having the coolest new tail fins rather than focusing on efficient performance. Aerospace introduced modern science into design and structure of clubs.
• Advent of graphite shafts. In the 1960s, some experimented with aluminum and fiberglas shafts. But, aluminum shafts were sensistiv to air temperature extremes: your regulars functioned as senior flex above 90* or so, and became Stiff below 60*... and, fiberglas tended to splinter. Graphite shafts much more stable than aluminum,  and more durable and reliable then fiberglas.
• Relocation of center of gravity. Modern designs started moving CoG away from the heel, and lower on clubface. Lower CoG helped improve launch.

The Karsten group began experimenting with perimeter weighting with the Ping I model in 1975. The II, III and IV models followed. Next came the Ping Eye, followed by the Ping Eye 2 in 1982.

 

Karsten group also led the way on custom-fitting of golf clubs for everyday golfers. The adjusting of clubs for proper lie angle and shaft length ensure the golfer gets a clean hit with a decent golf swing.

 

Below are examples of three post-1980 clubheads with enhanced playability. As others have said, Players irons/blades have not changed that much. But, GI and SGI models now offer greater playability for the everyday golfer.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by ChipNRun
Clarification: Aluminum and fiberglas shafts

[NRJyzr]

10 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

 

 

 

Chiming in just to comment on the concept behind the above image...

 

IMHO, this is rather overstated.  It's true with some designs, but not nearly as many as is often suggested.  Such as, Hogan irons usually having a short C Dimension, which was intentional.

 

I think you need to go a bit farther back to find a heavily biased heel side CG across all product lines.  And even then, there are some such as Wilson Staff irons, or most Spalding sets, that have a C Dimension similar to what we'd see in modern Mizuno blades.

 

(sticking only to blade comments since that was most/all of the market in those days 🙂)

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by NRJyzr

[cgasucks]

11 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

This is a very complex question. Someone could write a book on it. In fact, Ralph Maltby did. It's called The Maltby Playability Factor: Understanding Golf Club Dynamics (2005). The book contains a major section on the evolution of iron head design, from the early 1900s up to the Callaway Hawkeye VFT iron of 2002. The 38-page section includes engineering diagrams, photographs and MPF tables to compare the different designs.

 

To shift your question, let's use 1980 v. 1990 as a benchmark year. Some influences:

• In 1980s, retired aerospace engineers start going to work in golf industry. Between World War II and then, many of the changes to golf irons were cosmetic rather than functional. Some have compared the golf club design to that of the auto industry: real emphasis on having the coolest new tail fins rather than focusing on efficient performance. Aerospace introduced modern science into design and structure of clubs.
• Advent of graphite shafts. In the 1960s, some experimented with fiberglas shafts. But, flex changes according to air temperature extremes... plus fiberglas tended to splinter. Graphite shafts much more durable and reliable then fiberglas.
• Relocation of center of gravity. Modern designs started moving CoG away from the heel, and lower on clubface. Lower CoG helped improve launch.

The Karsten group began experimenting with perimeter weighting with the Ping I model in 1975. The II, III and IV models followed. Next came the Ping Eye, followed by the Ping Eye 2 in 1982.

 

Karsten group also led the way on custom-fitting of golf clubs for everyday golfers. The adjusting of clubs for proper lie angle and shaft length ensure the golfer gets a clean hit with a decent golf swing.

 

Below are examples of three post-1980 clubheads with enhanced playability. As others have said, Players irons/blades have not changed that much. But, GI and SGI models now offer greater playability for the everyday golfer.

 

 

 

 

I started golf when the VFTs were their current model at the time.   I thought they were the most technology advanced club at the time and wanted a set but couldn't afford it since they're were going for at least $1200 CDN in 2001 dollars.  So I settled with a set of 845s.

[RolandofGilead]

On 12/15/2022 at 3:52 AM, JavierB said:

Hi,

 

I was planning on buying a Dunlop forged iron set designed by Seve in the early 90s (allegedly the best set he ever designed), and wanted to ask you if anyone knows how do irons form the 90s compare to irons from today.

 

I know irons today have a stronger loft, but, lets say, an iron from the 90s with the same loft as an iron from today (club number aside), how does their performance compare as far as carry, launch and spin?

 

Thank you

 

 

If you are talking forged blades, I bet you can find some from the ‘90s that are every bit as good as contemporary ones when paired with the right shaft for your swing. I’ve got sets of Wilson Staff FG-51 (1992ish) and the legendary 1999 Ben Hogan Apex blades that are actually probably better than most current options.

[ChipNRun]

1 hour ago, cgasucks said:

So I settled with a set of 845s.

The Tommy Armour 845s are one of my all-time favorite iron models, that I never owned. Others include Ping Eye 2 (although I played Eye 2 clones for 14 years), and Mizuno MP57.

[cgasucks]

6 minutes ago, RolandofGilead said:

 I’ve got sets of Wilson Staff FG-51 (1992ish) and the legendary 1999 Ben Hogan Apex blades 

 

I've got a barely used 2-E set of those irons from a former Hogan pro for a steal of a deal and feels like butter but I just can't see myself using them as my primary set since I don't want to ruin the finish which is why I play my 990s.  Feels just as good as the Hogans but way more durable since they're cast 431 Stainless Steel in a satin finish.

[84425]

Blade design per se hasn’t changed much over the years. What might have ‘improved’ though is the sole (improved in the sense that modern soles probably suit a larger group of players). So you may gind that the sole grind of a specific modern blade suits you better than something older. On the other hand, maybe you like a straight and sharp leading edge, limited chamber and limited bounce and then you are better of with 30-40 year old blades than with something new. 

[RolandofGilead]

1 hour ago, cgasucks said:

 

I've got a barely used 2-E set of those irons from a former Hogan pro for a steal of a deal and feels like butter but I just can't see myself using them as my primary set since I don't want to ruin the finish which is why I play my 990s.  Feels just as good as the Hogans but way more durable since they're cast 431 Stainless Steel in a satin finish.

My friend you must not have hit them much if you don’t notice a difference between Endo forged 1030 steel and cast 431 stainless steel 😉

[ChipNRun]

In response to original "CG Zone" diagram...

 

4 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

IMHO, this is rather overstated.  It's true with some designs, but not nearly as many as is often suggested.  Such as, Hogan irons usually having a short C Dimension, which was intentional.

 

I think you need to go a bit farther back to find a heavily biased heel side CG across all product lines. 

 

I meant the image to show the general location in CoG, comparing pre-1980 to the follow-on aerospace era enhancements. If you can find the Maltby spiral-bound book on the used shelf somewhere, get it. I've spent hours looking at the different clubhead sketches and how the design has evolved over 100 years.

 

To the left is a new base diagram. It shows the actual measurement of the C-dimension: Distance from Center Line - Face to Center Line - Hosel. (Possibly not all WRXers know how to measure C-Dimension).

 

And below is a page from the Maltby book that contrasts the high-right VCoG position of a 1920s iron with the modern low-center VCoG of the VAS iron.

 

 

Related topic: Some wedge designers of recent years  have taken to raising the VCoG on wedges to prevent ballooning of shots. The Edison wedge site discusses this.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by ChipNRun
Clarify C-dimension measurement.

[FormerBigDaddy]

I gamed the taylormade 2005 tp cb's up until last year.  They were awesome and wish I would have kept a set bc they're every bit as good as today's forged cb's.  Only thing that hasn't been mentioned is the groove rule change several years ago with USGA making most irons prior to 2008 (i think) non-conforming.  But I'm really not sure how much that really matters.

Edited December 16, 2022 by FormerBigDaddy

[Chunkitgood]

Maltby seems biased in favor of low cog.

 

The challenge of playing golf most people never overcome is not squaring the club face, it’s hitting the ball before the ground.  They bottom out too far back.

 

So, are clubs designed to help help people who hit every shot more or less fat or thin with no speed likely to be optimum for people who hit the ball first?  Seems unlikely.

 

The question was about clubs today vs in the 90’s in terms of carry, launch and spin.  The vast majority of clubs made today are low spin high launch clubs made for the vast majority of people who hit the ball poorly.  Generally the cog is lower, meaning higher launch and lower spin, with trajectory being more determined by internal ballistics.  Older clubs relied more on speed applied properly to the ball to produce spin which had more of an influence (external ballistics).

 

So loft for loft, today’s clubs generally have a lower cog with more spin, and a higher launch angle.  It would seem that whether that is a good thing and how it affects carry depend on how you strike the ball.  If you never plan to learn to to strike the ball well it is probably a good thing, as the many posters here who start off by saying “I’m a decent ball striker” then proceed by their questions to prove the opposite can attest.

 

As a consequence of all this, gaps have been widened in the short clubs and compressed in the long clubs to account for the different methods of getting the ball in the air, so you get to buy more wedges and your long irons are frequently unplayable, so they don’t sell you those (while continuing to charge as if they did) and you get to buy hybrids, driving irons, untitling clubs, etc. as replacements.

 

 

[ChipNRun]

5 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

Maltby seems biased in favor of low cog.

 

I would suggest that Maltby identified the problems that too high a CoG created for the average golfer. And, Maltby has shown that clubs with higher Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) tend to be ones with lower Center of Gravity. And, irons that were leader in their era's MPF often were leaders in popularity with purchasing golfers: Ping Eye 2, Tommy Armour 845, Callaway VFT. And such popular iron models achieved popularity before Maltby released his concept of MPF.

 

Also, pay attention to the caveats which Maltby himself gives on use of MPF. It deals only with clubhead design, and does not take into account either shaft used, or golf ball used.

 

As for low CofG, today's OEMs often use, in irons and wedges, a progressive center of gravity location. Longer irons lower CofG, shorter irons and wedges higher CofG. The Vokey SM6 arrived in 2016, and Titleist emphasized the PCOG in their marketing.

 

The popularity of mixed iron sets uses this concept. The "pro" head irons - often 8i to AW - have a higher CoG to prevent ballooning, whereas GI head irons have a lower CoG to promote launch.

 

Edison wedges emphasize a similar function in their marketing.

 

Also see, What is CoG?

 

5 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

So, are clubs designed to help help people who hit every shot more or less fat or thin with no speed likely to be optimum for people who hit the ball first?  Seems unlikely.

"every shot more or less fat or thin" not sure which way we're going. People who mix fat and thin, or fat or thin? Please define More or less. In reality, most golfers that break 100 even hit some fairly good shots, but also a vexing mix of inconsistent shots.

 

No iron has been designed yet that will save a shot struck outside the face grooves and/or on the top half of the clubface. Your extreme helpful iron does not exist.

 

6 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

So loft for loft, today’s clubs generally have a lower cog with more spin, and a higher launch angle.

First, it is not a very good grounding statement. Loft/head design is a big factor, but it doesn't take into account shaft and ball used.

 

6 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

The question was about clubs today vs in the 90’s in terms of carry, launch and spin.  The vast majority of clubs made today are low spin high launch clubs made for the vast majority of people who hit the ball poorly.  Generally the cog is lower, meaning higher launch and lower spin, with trajectory being more determined by internal ballistics.

 

"cog is lower, meaning higher launch and lower spin" This applied for drivers, but not for irons. See What is CoG article.

 

And, "All else equal, a higher spin loft will result in a higher spin rate." This comes from a Trackman article on Spin Loft.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

9 hours ago, RolandofGilead said:

If you are talking forged blades, I bet you can find some from the ‘90s that are every bit as good as contemporary ones when paired with the right shaft for your swing. I’ve got sets of Wilson Staff FG-51 (1992ish) and the legendary 1999 Ben Hogan Apex blades that are actually probably better than most current options.

Totally agree. The craftsmenship and finish on the iron sets I find from the late 80s early 90s is incredible.

[orangeology]

all would have mattered had we kept our swing speed same for 20 yrs. 

[joostin]

Just adding to all the things already said.

The "tech" can only do so much:

 

- Manipulate MOI

 

- Manipulate CG locations (centered heel to toe, maybe progression from low to high like @ChipNRun showed)

 

- Sole shaping for some kind of turf interaction story 

 

- Grooves / friction story

 

- Increase the "sweet area" as I like to say:  Possibly higher COR on centered strike, but definitely attempts to increase COR retention away from center - just like drivers (like original 460cc drivers vs today's 460cc drivers, there could be a bit of ball speed difference loft for loft, strike for strike), but to a lesser extent.

 

- Manipulate the looks

 

- Sell stories for $$!

 

90s and older tech can be perfectly fine.

Edited December 17, 2022 by joostin

[Fairways_and_Greens]

I play a few times a year with 1980s blades (blades, not muscle backs) just for fun. Once loft is considered, the biggest difference by far for me is sole grind/turf interaction. 

[84425]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:28 PM, ChipNRun said:

In response to original "CG Zone" diagram...

 

 

I meant the image to show the general location in CoG, comparing pre-1980 to the follow-on aerospace era enhancements. If you can find the Maltby spiral-bound book on the used shelf somewhere, get it. I've spent hours looking at the different clubhead sketches and how the design has evolved over 100 years.

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/dd854088c35baf85453a8c2ba9f2ea9c8873a10b1b393c5617fb03cdaacb26a8/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/dd854088c35baf85453a8c2ba9f2ea9c8873a10b1b393c5617fb03cdaacb26a8/1280/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2022_12/CL_FH.jpg.daa36ef07d1e87a3feca02b711ab7d70.jpgTo the left is a new base diagram. It shows the actual measurement of the C-dimension: Distance from Center Line - Face to Center Line - Hosel. (Possibly not all WRXers know how to measure C-Dimension).

 

And below is a page from the Maltby book that contrasts the high-right VCoG position of a 1920s iron with the modern low-center VCoG of the VAS iron.

 

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/dd854088c35baf85453a8c2ba9f2ea9c8873a10b1b393c5617fb03cdaacb26a8/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/dd854088c35baf85453a8c2ba9f2ea9c8873a10b1b393c5617fb03cdaacb26a8/1280/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2022_12/image.png.7ae2b7a82f460a1044ba017051dadf60.png

Related topic: Some wedge designers of recent years  have taken to raising the VCoG on wedges to prevent ballooning of shots. The Edison wedge site discusses this.

 

Please correct me if i’m wrong, but they way i read it you can hugely improve the playability factor of any club by just making the lie more upright (thereby increasing  the C-Dimension). Shouldn’t the playability factor somehow take lie angel into account and add or substract somr of the outcome if the lie angel is more or less upright than a certain standard (let’s say a 60* lie angel on a 6 iron)?

Edited December 17, 2022 by 84425