Just how much has the iron improved over the years

[Ozsouthpaw]

Now I'm really confused

I have for the last 15 years gamed GI forged clubs with reg steel shafts . ( mizzies and BH) . Last week I got hold of a set of Honma Professional CL 708's with carbon s2 shafts. I've no idea how old they are ,mid 80's.? But I can say that I reckon I could butter my toast with them they are so narrow. Gamed the 5,7,8 today and OMG I was hitting 15 yards further with each ,stopping the ball on a dime and could not even feel the ball at impact.
This has me totally confused as I was always told that blades would be to hard to hit for me ,Handicap 12,.
Cannot wait, to to use the rest but unfortunately the 9 and 10 needs shafts so will have to wait .Perhaps the 3 and 4 will be a different story. Has anyone any experience with these
In reality have irons improved that much over the years? Btw I'm 68

[Mudguard]

Maybe find out what the lofts were on the clubs for comparision. I think if a club's weight, loft and length is the same, then there's probably not likely to be a huge difference in distance for strikes out of the middle.

[78blades]

From the 1960's to now the irons have improved greatly.

I'm not familar with the irons you have, but would think b/c of the narrow sole and such that they would be from the 70 or 80's.

[p.vandeloo]

I don't think that the newer irons are 'better'.
Sure, newer clubs have COG lower which makes it a little easier to hit it higher and get the ball airborne but design of blades hasn't really changed that much over the years. Especially mizuno's offerings look a lot like old hogan designs. I find that older clubs are a little heavier most of the time which makes it easier to feel the club during the swing.

[wrmiller]

Honma made (makes?) some of the best quality irons and persimmon woods I've ever seen or hit. Their 3 star woods were the highest quality and materials available at that time.

A friend had a set of their irons with the carbon/steel shafts and basically wore them out. Wouldn't even consider anything else.

[kafka01]

[quote name='78blades' timestamp='1302850406' post='3155225']
From the 1960's to now the irons have improved greatly.

I'm not familar with the irons you have, but would think b/c of the narrow sole and such that they would be from the 70 or 80's.
[/quote]


How do you define "improved".

Take a blade - hasnt "changed" much - if all the club manufactures had to sell blades as their bread and butter business they would go bankrupt since you just cant come up with a so called innovation every one or two years to make you buy new irons as it is the trend right now. Yes, blades got a bit more forgiving, the sweetspot is more centered due to a different mass distribution i think - but thats pretty much it. Its a piece of pure and clean metal on an end of a shaft.

When it comes to CB/GI/SGI clubs - you have a lot more you can sell off as innovation. But imo it doesnt really matter if you game a 10 year old CB or a brand new set - it´ll still do what its supposed to do.

But the last thing i´d judge an iron by is distance - this factor has very little to do real innovation. I can build you an iron that goes super far when i strap it on a long leightweight shaft and bend it strong like crazy - but if you are consistent with it, thats a whole different deal.

There was this one manufacturing CEO who threatend within the next 6 months i had to change my whole bag - so much innovation they had in the pipeline - well, all their product is out by now - i just dont see what my 3 year old gear (heck my MP33s are even stoneage compared to that) cant do just as well as the new stuff.

BTW. i´d take quality (like Honma) over "innovation" everyday of the week!

[SmileyDan]

I play Dimension Z irons and the guy that owns the company used to be the CEO of Ben Hogan golf and worked close with Mr. Hogan. According to him blades haven't 'improved' a single bit...

Off topic: Don (owner of Dimension Z) talks about the importance of perfecting the tune on your set. He tells stories about Mr. Hogan obsessing, fiddling and perfecting his equipment. He also refers to Mr. Hogan helping Jack Fleck build a set of clubs (Fleck went on to winhe US Open that year)...

But I'd agree that outside of blades, irons have changed/improved over the years. If you play blades it doesn't matter the brand in so far as you like the appearance/feel, it's more about how precise you build the set IMO.

[Shallowface]

IMO, the biggest improvement in irons in the last few years has been sole design.

In the old days, blades had flat soles with sharp leading edges that were really prone to digging. Even many of the game improvement clubs of the past (for example the original Karsten I Ping irons vintage 1968-1975. They were improved in 1976. Other examples that come to mind are the orginal Lynx Master Models and the first series of the Wilson 1200 Gear Effects)had flat soles and sharp leading edges.

Now, nearly all clubs have some degree of front to back camber and more blunt leading edges. While nothing can help a really fat shot,at least these go through the ground more smoothly than some of the older designs, particularly on today's softer turfed courses.

[78blades]

Kafka01

I'd disagree. As I posted, the difference between todays muscle backs and 1960 blades is huge. Now days the hosel is shorter, the sweet spot is more out towards the toe of the club, the CoG is lower, the sole design is better and so on. I'd agree that there isn't that much difference in the last 15 years. As for the MP 33's, hell those are classic and a classic is never out dated.

[Ozsouthpaw]

Really appreciate above . Discovered these Honma's were first made in late 80,s and the shafts are Boron carbon.?
Lofts are weak ,32 for 6 iron, and shafts are app.half inch longer than standard length of BH apex edge with steel shafts.
Could it be that blades give longer ,lower length than GI because of the metal mass behind the ball .
Hosel from heel to ferrule is as long as Sole is from heel to toe for 4 iron. Sole is narrow .flat and has sharp edges.Literally cut the grass out back with practice swings as good as the mower
Perhaps because I am a sweeper I find the soles great for me.Does anyone produce such soles these days.
OR this is just the honeymoon with different clubs and I'll come down to earth.
Btw Could not believe that Honma sell 5 star clubs with gold plating for in excess of 12,000 bucks ,talk about oneupmanship.

[Staffer]

[quote name='Ozsouthpaw' timestamp='1302845463' post='3155170']
In reality have irons improved that much over the years? Btw I'm 68
[/quote]

No, there is only marginal difference between the best GI today and Ping Eye 2 of the 80´s. Eye 2 will spin a bit better, especially from the rough.

Blades are pretty much the same since the 80´s as well, except that most manufacturers today move the sweet spot towards the toe. More like a fashion thing.

Graphite shafts are much better today though, but I prefer steel, so...

[p.vandeloo]

[quote name='78blades' timestamp='1302926214' post='3158464']
Kafka01

I'd disagree. As I posted, the difference between todays muscle backs and 1960 blades is huge. Now days the hosel is shorter, the sweet spot is more out towards the toe of the club, the CoG is lower, the sole design is better and so on. I'd agree that there isn't that much difference in the last 15 years. As for the MP 33's, hell those are classic and a classic is never out dated.
[/quote]

Those are differences sure, but not necessarily improvements if you ask me.
If you want your clubs to teach you and provide the most feedback possible then you can't go wrong with a set of old school irons IMHO.
Those sharp leading edges and zero (or negative) bounce soles will teach you low point control in a hurry!
By the way, there were clubs with a more forgiving sole as early as 1969 (Hogan Bounce Soles).

As for the longer hosels, the extra mass in the longer hosels will move the sweetspot towards the heel and that makes hitting it pure a little harder if you use today's more upright lie angles. But with the older flatter clubs the sweet spot actually was much more inline with the shaft during the swing, essentially making it easier to flush the ball!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that equipment has changed and so have the swings (as a result perhaps...). If you are aiming to learn a more Hoganesque swing-style you are better of using similar equipment because of the differences.

[Shallowface]

I've never bought the idea that playing with sharp edged flat soled blades made one a better ball striker. They are probably the reason why so many of us are confirmed scoopers who are buying Tour Strikers to try to rid ourselves of the problem.

While most of the older clubs sold to us were of the flat sole and sharp leading edge variety (simply because they were easier and cheaper to mass produce in the pre-investment casting days compared to doing more sophisticated sole grinds), the fact remains that the tour pros didn't use that stuff.

When Johnny Miller hand modified his set of 1946 MacGregor 915s, he said he rounded the soles and sawed off the hosels, adding lead tape to make up for the lost weight.

Another example is the Spalding irons of the 1960s and early 1970s. While what they sold to us off the rack were sharp enough to shave with, their tour staff got a 4 way cambered sole for which the company was famous.

Those designs didn't cause the best players in the world to lose their ability to hit great iron shots, or they wouldn't have used them.

It's been a while since I've seen any Hogan Bounce Soles, but I don't remember them as having enough bounce to make a real difference. They also sold a club called the Round Sole, but I've never seen any in person. The Wilson Staff 1971 buttonbacks had more bounce than most clubs of the day, but the soles had no real camber from front to back, which IMO is more forgiving than bounce alone.

[professor_doom]

[quote name='78blades' timestamp='1302926214' post='3158464']
Kafka01

I'd disagree. As I posted, the difference between todays muscle backs and 1960 blades is huge. Now days the hosel is shorter, the sweet spot is more out towards the toe of the club, the CoG is lower, the sole design is better and so on. I'd agree that there isn't that much difference in the last 15 years. As for the MP 33's, hell those are classic and a classic is never out dated.
[/quote]


I'm not really a fan of the long hosel either, especially the ones you'd see on 50s MacGregors. But a lot of the '60s Wilson Fluid Feel irons had hosel lengths similar to modern clubs. Between that and the drilled-out hosel, the sweet spot location was pretty much in the center of the club. I actually like a higher CoG--I find it gives me better trajectory control and improved distance. I find that narrower soles make it easier to work the ball and help cut through the rough. The old soles and sharp leading edges However, I do tend to dig on moist or soft fairways (I'm of the opinion that many courses are downright wasteful in their water use today) so there is something to be said for the sole designs more popular on newer irons--not that these weren't available in the past. Take, for example, the Hogan bounce soles or, as an extreme example, the early 80s Radial irons. The X31s had pretty hefty soles too.

[Joe9977]

I'd say if professional golfers have been providing feedback to manufacturers for the last 50 years on small areas where the irons can be better, today's irons must be better.

[stevemcgee99]

I'm sure there have been improvements to the irons. I'm not convinced it matters that much. For most people, an improvement in skill will have way more impact than a marginal change of bounce or sweet spot location.

[Fellaheen51]

Karsten Solheim had the last significant improvement in the iron golf club. Just variations on the theme ever since. He was the one that brought easy(ier) to hit irons to the golfing masses. The more I've learned about the history of such things, the greater the appreciation of how revolutionary his design was.

Where one could make an argument for iron improvement over time is with shafts. So many more choices compared to what was available in the past. Even they have plateaued with only marginal improvement (at best) lately. At least how they relate to my game and pocket book. Give me a Precision Rifle over a Project X any day.

[scomac2002]

IMO it's a bit disingenuous to infer that engineering and club design has stood still in a material sense over the past 30 years or even 15 years for that matter. All I need to do is compare head to head an early cavity back rendition versus the current state as in say an Eye 2 versus an i25. You will find the modern club is superior in forgiveness and feel over a selection of shots. The same could be said for present day metal woods versus early renditions of such. That's not to say that the classic clubs aren't playable, it's just that they will be a bit more exacting. I suspect the maddening part is for most of us the marketing claims that every year the current flavour offers huge performance gains as in TM's old marketing schtick of 17 more yards. That said, the performance gains are noticeable over time.

[birly-shirly]

By comparison with the advances in drivers, I'd say it's fair to rate improvements in iron design over 30 years as close to zero. I have an R1, and there's almost no comparison between it and a persimmon driver, other than that you still need to square the face. But I also have 30+ year old Hogan blades, which play very similarly to modern TM blades.

If you go back 30 years in irons, you could be playing Mizuno blades with a nice cambered sole grind, or a set of Eye2s which I think are, for practical purposes, every bit as forgiving as anything else you could buy today. The law of diminishing returns kicks in hard as soon as you add any sort of well-designed cavity.

There's probably more choice today of well-designed cavity backs, and so more chance of finding something that combines forgiveness AND your personal taste in shape, sole, offset, weight etc - but that's not inherently better design, just wider choice. Maybe the biggest growth is in the category of "players cavity back" irons. You could probably argue that the gap between the best designed and the worst available irons has narrowed - which is improvement of a sort.

[oldschoolrocker]

I find the term "improvement" to be relative in nature. I tend to throw my hat in the ring of zombie apocalypse marketing conspiracies when hearing tales of new found wonders, be it automobiles, or golf clubs.

[okesa]

Greetings from a distant planet.....

The answer to the question is that 'the iron' has improved a great deal over the years in design,manufacture and playability.
I still have great affection for vintage equipment and on occasion play with Macgregor or Wilson Staff blades but for competitive golf I carry a Titleist 905R Driver and Ping S.56 irons.
Why? Because at 62 they allow me to compete and play at a reasonable level (12 h'cap) despite the fact that years ago I detested Ping and swore never to play them but now reckon the S.56 to be just about the best irons I've ever played and they suit my swing admirably which is cool as I have no desire to ape Ben Hogan.

See you on the next eclipse.....

[birly-shirly]

Good Lord okesa, now where's my fatted calf...

[stixman]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1426869484' post='11180355']
I find the term "improvement" to be relative in nature. I tend to throw my hat in the ring of zombie apocalypse marketing conspiracies when hearing tales of new found wonders, be it automobiles, or golf clubs.
[/quote]
Home is where the heart is! I drive a '93 volvo 940 SW....exactly the same deal.

[stixman]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1426878633' post='11181281']
Greetings from a distant planet.....

The answer to the question is that 'the iron' has improved a great deal over the years in design,manufacture and playability.
I still have great affection for vintage equipment and on occasion play with Macgregor or Wilson Staff blades but for competitive golf I carry a Titleist 905R Driver and Ping S.56 irons.
Why? Because at 62 they allow me to compete and play at a reasonable level (12 h'cap) despite the fact that years ago I detested Ping and swore never to play them but now reckon the S.56 to be just about the best irons I've ever played and they suit my swing admirably which is cool as I have no desire to ape Ben Hogan.

See you on the next eclipse.....
[/quote]

And there was me wondering why they gave me a shot back at Annual Revision. Maybe I should try me a set those there new fangled whiz bangs.
Next eclipse..second coming, happen?

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1426878633' post='11181281']
Greetings from a distant planet.....

The answer to the question is that 'the iron' has improved a great deal over the years in design,manufacture and playability.
I still have great affection for vintage equipment and on occasion play with Macgregor or Wilson Staff blades but for competitive golf I carry a Titleist 905R Driver and Ping S.56 irons.
Why? Because at 62 they allow me to compete and play at a reasonable level (12 h'cap) despite the fact that years ago I detested Ping and swore never to play them but now reckon the S.56 to be just about the best irons I've ever played and they suit my swing admirably which is cool as I have no desire to ape Ben Hogan.

See you on the next eclipse.....
[/quote]

Having embraced modernity on the hardware side, are you also upgrading the old software and getting on board with the latest thinking on modern performance statistics, Okesa? There's an article just posted up on the main site that's practically written for you.

[oldschoolrocker]

Greetings O,
How the hell you been?

[stevemcgee99]

"great improvement".

So on average (considering way more than than half of golfers use clubs built within the last decade) do players hit fairways and greens in regulation more frequently?

Are miss hits closer to the fairway than before?

Do players hit thin or fat less often?

Are they hitting in the right direction?

I don't believe the economic investment (as an industry) in equipment has impacted this at all in the last couple decades. What I see on the course is average players might carry fairway bunkers more often but they can't predict where the ball will land. When they are good, they probably get 50 yards further than they would have otherwise (with the driver - don't think the irons make any difference). I don't see the extra difference as an 'improvement' for these better players. I see it more like cheating.

[okesa]

The question asked was;
'Just how much has the iron improved over the years?'.
Not; 'Have bladed irons improved?'
Not; 'Have drivers improved?'.
The answer is that in general terms irons have improved in several respects because manufacturers have access to technology and materials that were not available even thirty years ago and is all part of a natural progression just as the matched set with steel shafts replaced hickories.
You don't have to like them and you certainly don't have to play with them but the advances in materials,design and manufacturing precision are irrefutable.

[xgolfx]

I find it difficult to quantify the changes. Two, three, four and five irons have been replaced by hybrids. Lofts have been altered, even recently. The wedge of today's number one player has the loft of Tiger's nine iron. Shafts are longer in general. Manufacturers have replaced craftsmanship with one size fits all using material in irons. The woods changed in size via the use of titanium and steel, ( for profit) because the USGA knuckled under to the manufacturers. This resulted in many great courses outmoded by equipment. The instruments have made shots easier for the tour player, in my opinion

CHARLEY PENNA

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1426931430' post='11184877'] The question asked was; 'Just how much has the iron improved over the years?'. Not; 'Have bladed irons improved?' Not; 'Have drivers improved?'. The answer is that in general terms irons have improved in several respects because manufacturers have access to technology and materials that were not available even thirty years ago and is all part of a natural progression just as the matched set with steel shafts replaced hickories. You don't have to like them and you certainly don't have to play with them but the advances in materials,design and manufacturing precision are irrefutable. [/quote]

"Improvement" has to be qualified. If you're talking about advances in manufacturing, does that benefit the player or the manufacturer?

I'm primarily interested, and I assumed the OP, in the former. Persimmon wood to early metalwood is an example of an advance in manufacture and materials which did not immediately benefit the player - but cut production costs for the manufacturer. Lob wedges and other loft tweaks may be an innovation in design that help retailers sell more clubs, but which actually hurt the average player's score.

I think it's reasonable to look at modern vers traditional drivers for a benchmark. There I think the advances in design and materials are obvious, and translate into obvious advantages on the course. Though I still think there are attractions to playing persimmon.

Compared to drivers, I think improvement in irons is much harder to quantify. I like the Pings - and I'm sure they're cleverly engineered - but would they give me any advantage on the course compared to a well set up set of 30 year old Hogans or Eye2s? If there's a playing advantage, I think it might show up on a spreadsheet rather than a scorecard. That could be a material advantage to a professional hitting long irons over water hazards to tucked pins with hundreds of thousands at stake, but scarcely noticeable to a handicap amateur.