Just how much has the iron improved over the years

[stixman]

The question puts me in mind of 'Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance' where the issue of defining 'quality' was debated.

Similarly the term 'Improvement' needs to be defined.
Progress, new materials, new design are not necesarily components in 'improvements' unless we know what parameters the OP had in mind.

Thus Charley's scepticism is apparent when he cites so-called improvements which might relate to cost reduction, standardisation, variety reduction etc and sets them against the downside of over-long Courses and the loss of shot making integrity. His opponents might say that long Courses were a good thing because you can build more real estate and that the golf clubs which require less exacting shot making skills make the game more accessible to players with less time and talent than formerly.

The term 'improvement' by itself and alone, without subjective definition, is meaningless. Personally, and with my definitions, irons have not improved since the end of the hickory era. Newer clubs may certainly be easier to get a satisfactory result from, but if that is not what I signed up for and there are other agreeable features which have been lost as a consequence, then I would struggle to demonstrate this quality as one of 'improvement'.

The great thing about 'improvement' is that everybody wants it, whatever it is, like the old political adage of 'in favour of Motherhood and against Sin'; we can agree on it
And, naturally the biggest winners are the manufacturers and marketeers because 'improvement' is what make the wheels of commerce go around

[okesa]

On the contrary,it is the handicap golfer with a variable swing who benefits most from the improvements made in design and manufacture and what professional golfers use is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.
Scomac2002 hit the nail on the head with his comparison between the Eye II and G25 (or G30) irons currently offered,incremental improvements result in a better performing product and that's not advertising bull but a result of playing old and new and being sensible enough to throw my old prejudices about modern equipment out with the bath water.
Forget spreadsheets,if I'm striking the ball better and more consistently I'm more likely to give myself opportunities to make pars and birdies and less likely to hit a rank bad shot into trouble,I detest the marketing garbage of the OEMs as much as the next man I'm just adopting a more sensible attitude towards what equipment is going to help my game.

[pdgolferman]

My old man once went to ping hq many years ago for a club fitting session. Apart from him, the only other two in the building was snooker pro Steve Davis and his manager / pal Barry Hearn. The old boy got invited to join them for lunch.
After said nibbles, the fitter dude pulls out a set of prototype sticks that were to become the G2 irons.
Less than half a dozen skelps later, the Barry man pulls out the cheque book and says "give me as many sets as you can....price no object...if we're gonna be in the sheet, it might as well be 20 yards closer to the pin in the sheet"
pd

[bobcat]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1302983884' post='3159860']
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.
[/quote]

I think the Hogan clubs you are referring to where call the Ben Hogan Radials

[stixman]

btw this is a 'Lazarus' thread.....a short run in 2011 (4years ago, the OP may not even be playing golf now!).

Put the ressurection down to a late spring.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1426961682' post='11186481'] On the contrary,it is the handicap golfer with a variable swing who benefits most from the improvements made in design and manufacture and what professional golfers use is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever. Scomac2002 hit the nail on the head with his comparison between the Eye II and G25 (or G30) irons currently offered,incremental improvements result in a better performing product and that's not advertising bull but a result of playing old and new and being sensible enough to throw my old prejudices about modern equipment out with the bath water. Forget spreadsheets,i[b]f I'm striking the ball better and more consistently I'm more likely to give myself opportunities to make pars and birdies and less likely to hit a rank bad shot into trouble,[/b]I detest the marketing garbage of the OEMs as much as the next man I'm just adopting a more sensible attitude towards what equipment is going to help my game. [/quote]

That's the crux of it, for me at least. A modern driver could carry a fairway bunker that a persimmon driver might not reach - but with irons, if you hit it on the green, then you did it (not the club) - and if you hit it in the junk, you did that too. There is no iron on the market that will save a shot otherwise destined for the crap. I should know, as I effortlessly carved a cavity back 3 iron out of bounds today.

The difference in outcomes between the most forgiving irons and anything else is a few feet. On occasion, even the OEMs admit this. Hitting mid irons only 3 feet closer to the hole, on a consistent basis, separates the very best ballstrikers on tour from journeymen - whereas an amateur won't even notice, and if they proceed to 3-stab from 40 feet away, why would they? Margins are WAY narrower for a touring pro, who hits it and putts it so much more consistently and with money on the line.

I'm glad for anyone who has found clubs that they like - but it's still the indian, not the arrow.

[Ozsouthpaw]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1426972270' post='11187311']
btw this is a 'Lazarus' thread.....a short run in 2011 (4years ago, the OP may not even be playing golf now!).

Put the ressurection down to a late spring.
[/quote]
Yep still around .handicap still 12 ,bit shocked to see thread 4 years later.
Still have the 1986 Honmas and play them every now and then for fun but moved on to adams a12 pros for everyday use .
Mishits hurt to much with honmas .
On reflection , IMO , huge improvements to design of players irons toward end of last century with weight distribution and sole design but little change since .
Modern technology has resulted in more precise specs. ,better matching , fitting etc and cheaper manufacture.
New metals are promoted for longer distance etc.etc. yet the likes of Mizuno still use 1025 steel for their MP range.
Don't think I could come at the SGI shovels on offer ,just not cricket.

[stevemcgee99]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426957969' post='11186269']
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.

[color=#282828]If there's a playing advantage, I think it might show up on a spreadsheet rather than a scorecard.[/color][/quote]

Exactly.

[okesa]

Why the obsession with professionals? As far as I'm aware this is a discussion based on a question posted by a handicap golfer who has answered his own question and the fact that he is using Adams A12 Pro irons is something of a clincher in favour of modern equipment.
Your contention that the difference is only a matter of 'a few feet' blithely ignores the fact that a few feet can be the difference between hitting the green or not,landing in or missing a greenside bunker or having either a realistic chance for birdie or a difficult two putt for par.Although played over thousands of yards golf is still a game of fractions and on the day a 'few feet' on every hole can be the difference between success and disaster.
The proof of the haggis is in the eating;a few years ago a friend who had played Eye 2's for many years refitted with G10's when they first came out,the result was he hit the ball more consistently in every way,flight,direction,distance.
Another pal recently bought G25's with the same results as well as a massive boost in confidence.
You may propose that it's the indian and not the arrow but you ain't gonna take out many palefaces with a warped bow and a bent arrow.

[birly-shirly]

I don't think anyone's obsessed with professionals. But I can see the justification at the professional level for worrying about the narrow marginal gains that might be available in irons.

I have no interest in being the golfing equivalent of the overweight, middle-aged cyclist fretting about the weight of his handlebar tape.

[scomac2002]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1427054802' post='11192373']

I have no interest in being the golfing equivalent of the overweight, middle-aged cyclist fretting about the weight of his handlebar tape.
[/quote]

That's a fair comment, but only in the context of comparing this year's offering to last year's or one of say 5 years ago. To use that line of reasoning when comparing current kit to that which was popular 30 years ago, or even 15 years ago for that matter is doing everyone a disservice. You can convince yourself based on your biases because there are other things that motivate your choice in equipment, but that doesn't change the evidence that points to the fact that modern designs are going to be materially easier to play. I've seen the head-to-head comparisons and they aren't outliers.

[birly-shirly]

Happy to fess up to some biases, or preferences, but part of the reason I indulge them is that I'm reasonably convinced that my scores aren't materially disadvantaged.

Tom Wishon's big club fitting manual lists the design factors that have a major, or a minor but material impact on game improvement, game improvement being defined in terms of any positive impact on distance, accuracy, trajectory, consistency or feel.

The major factors for iron heads are loft and lie. The minor, but material, factors are offset, bounce, sole width and radius, cg location, moi about the shaft, moi about the cg, and variable face thickness.

The major factors can be taken care of in any club head that can be bent.

The minor factors? I think I get what I need out of fairly traditional blades. I don't like, and I don't think I benefit from pronounced offset. I'm not a digger that needs much bounce or sole width. Wishon doesn't think the cg location really varies enough in practice between different models to make a difference. Variable face thickness is primarily a distance thing, and I'm not overly concerned with hitting any particular iron a few yards further, rather than hitting the next club up.

That leaves the 2 mois. My blades don't do me many favours here, but it's still only a minor advantage according to Wishon, and I'm happy with the trade off for irons that I like. But if I felt differently, I could pull the eye2s out of the shed and get all the moi anyone really needs, and plenty bounce, sole width and offset thrown in for good measure.

Those are ALL the iron head factors that Wishon thinks are worth taking into account in a custom fitting. Obviously choice of shaft and grip, overall length, swing weight and deadweight come into play too, but again I think I can get whatever I need THAT MATTERS with classic gear.

[stevemcgee99]

Maybe after I've played for several more years with no progress, I'll feel differently about this.

But:
[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1427061691' post='11192977'] I'm not a digger that needs much bounce or sole width.[/quote]
Seems to me that if I'm hitting fat the answer is not bounce, but skill improvement.

[scomac2002]

Thanks for the detailed reply, birly-shirly. It really is refreshing to have a debate on a subject in this corner of the universe without getting into a pissing match. That maybe what I like best about this corner of GolfWRX.
I accept your point-of-view that you have found everything you need in classic gear. As a newcomer to this part of the golf universe, I may well share your opinion in a year or two after playing my vintage kit. At the present though, I'm quite certain that there are "ease of use" advantages to modern kit versus the vintage stuff. I've seen the comparisons first hand and proved it to myself recently on a driving range. The new Pings are definitely more forgiving and have better feel over a selection of shots. There may come a point where I become so accustomed to the feel and characteristics of the vintage irons that the differences fade, but that is most likely due to familiarity rather than statistical proof.
At the end of the day, it's about what makes us happy. I can be equally happy playing either modern or vintage kit, but I'm convinced that there has been material advances over the years regardless of whether it shows up on the score card or not. Engineering rarely stands still. I know that I'm much happier driving my present day car than the one that I drove in my 20's.

[okesa]

[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1427064089' post='11193231']
Thanks for the detailed reply, birly-shirly. It really is refreshing to have a debate on a subject in this corner of the universe without getting into a pissing match. That maybe what I like best about this corner of GolfWRX.
I accept your point-of-view that you have found everything you need in classic gear. As a newcomer to this part of the golf universe, I may well share your opinion in a year or two after playing my vintage kit. At the present though, I'm quite certain that there are "ease of use" advantages to modern kit versus the vintage stuff. I've seen the comparisons first hand and proved it to myself recently on a driving range. The new Pings are definitely more forgiving and have better feel over a selection of shots. There may come a point where I become so accustomed to the feel and characteristics of the vintage irons that the differences fade, but that is most likely due to familiarity rather than statistical proof.
At the end of the day, it's about what makes us happy. I can be equally happy playing either modern or vintage kit, but I'm convinced that there has been material advances over the years regardless of whether it shows up on the score card or not. Engineering rarely stands still. I know that I'm much happier driving my present day car than the one that I drove in my 20's.
[/quote]

An excellent post and summation.
Let me add for the record that I am entirely in agreement with Mr Penna's comments about the way in whih equipment has been allowed to develop which has lead to the ruination of many classic courses and the virtual elimination of creative shotmaking.
The Augusta Invitational used to be my favourite contest,first of the year,the associations with so many great players and the colour and intensity of the Sunday back nine.
Does watching Blubba launch a pink Ping driver inspire?Not me.
But equipment changes are here and like them or not they are here to stay so make of it what you will,I have at least cast off a blinkered attitude in order to explore every possibility,I have played both types of equipment to a substantial degree and I consider that gives my opinion slightly more weight and credibility than those who have not.
btw I'm past middle-age and have rubber grips on my handlebars,overweight is correct though......

[HoldenCornfield]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1426960577' post='11186411']
The question puts me in mind of 'Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance' where the issue of defining 'quality' was debated.

Similarly the term 'Improvement' needs to be defined.
Progress, new materials, new design are not necesarily components in 'improvements' unless we know what parameters the OP had in mind.

Thus Charley's scepticism is apparent when he cites so-called improvements which might relate to cost reduction, standardisation, variety reduction etc and sets them against the downside of over-long Courses and the loss of shot making integrity. His opponents might say that long Courses were a good thing because you can build more real estate and that the golf clubs which require less exacting shot making skills make the game more accessible to players with less time and talent than formerly.

The term 'improvement' by itself and alone, without subjective definition, is meaningless. Personally, and with my definitions, irons have not improved since the end of the hickory era. [b]Newer clubs may certainly be easier to get a satisfactory result from, but if that is not what I signed up for and there are other agreeable features which have been lost as a consequence, then I would struggle to demonstrate this quality as one of 'improvement'.[/b]

The great thing about 'improvement' is that everybody wants it, whatever it is, like the old political adage of 'in favour of Motherhood and against Sin'; we can agree on it
And, naturally the biggest winners are the manufacturers and marketeers because 'improvement' is what make the wheels of commerce go around
[/quote]

So many great posts in this thread, but Stix' might be my favorite -- certainly can't go wrong quoting Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance! But the part I've bolded is the best point, to my mind. And the thing that gets lost in all this talk of forgiveness is feedback. There seems to be an assumption that forgiveness is the holy grail. But for me the goal is improvement, and an essential element for improvement in the human brain is the feedback loop.

We all do our best to avoid pain but its easy to forget how instructive a little pain can be. I've done my own tests on classic blades versus modern 'forgiving' cavity backs and in my opinion the biggest difference is kinesthetic, followed by auditory. That is, a bad shot feels less bad and sounds less bad but the ball doesn't care about that -- the end result is essentially the same. I've found that I prefer feedback to forgiveness, its how I get better. I can self-diagnose much quicker with old blades than I can with new cavity backs. Precision, painful though it may be at times, is preferable to ambiguity.

On the other hand, center strikes from cb's are also muted, and the dispersion results have been proven to be less consistent than center strikes from blades. To paraphrase Nick Price, with cavity backs our bad shots aren't as bad but our great shots aren't as great -- and great shots are what you need to win tournaments at the highest level.

In another thread on another board I saw someone gushing about Ben Hogan's ballstriking ability - "especially incredible considering the equipment he had to work with." Well, personally, I think if Ben Hogan were a young touring pro now he would never reach the same level of ball striking proficiency. The game and the equipment wouldn't allow him to. As Tom Watson says, "These big new clubs make you sloppy."

If the tour were today to outlaw metal trampoline woods, cavity backs, and plastic golf balls and re-institute persimmons, blades, and balatas there would be an unearthly wailing and gnashing of teeth, and many would be driven from the game. But, six months from now we would be witnessing some phenomenal ball-striking as the best would adapt and discover that precise inputs are rewarded with very precise outputs.

So, have irons improved? As Stix astutely points out it depends on how you define it. The beauty is that we each get to use our own definition.

[xgolfx]

The feedback of blades ( versus lack of feedback on hybrids and game improvement irons) hurts the average player in my opinion because his hands don't sting from a poor shot. How many times do you see a player set up to hit a hybrid like a wood rather than an iron? The high lofted wedges have hurt the average player because he has not learned a cut lob with a pitching wedge or proper sand technique. Also, high loft is useless unless the bounce is correct for the individual using the club. Many amateurs could play knock downs, part shots, hold ups,quail high draws, and other variations which have been outmoded by current equipment. Game improvement clubs , ie pings, have made a high cut difficult. I witnessed a clinic by Jack At a PGA. Bob Tway was requested to hit a cut with a two iron from the gallery. Jack replied,"he can't because he plays Pings".

CHARLEY PENNA

[dbuck47]

The iron head has improved in many segments in the last 30 years. Thirty years ago, it was 1985, and certainly since 1985, the quality and variety of some names like PING, Callaway, and Taylor-Made have improved, and a few of the prominent names today were either not here or were fledglings in 1985. Advances in materials and CAD/CAM has given many of these a better appearance as well as better consistency. Some designs have made it easier to get the ball in the air. A lot of the distance improvements though, are not from the iron head itself, but from the ball and also the recurring practice of making a 5 iron and stamping a "7" on it. Other improvements are the variety of shafts available for differing strengths/swing speeds, and better grip materials, but these are not just iron improvements.

As Charley said, many SGI/GI clubs do not sting as bad on a poor strike, and may not lose as much distance. That is a simple fact, but whether or not it is an improvement depends on your point of view. Like Charley, many of us would say that is not necessarily an improvement, while others would applaud the additional comfort and forgiveness. If it keeps more folks in the game, then great for all of us, and hopefully they will donate their blades to Goodwill so I can grab them for a song. Someday when it hurts too much, I too may get some X-22's with graphite shafts, but I will play my blades as long as I can.

I did a rudimentary experiment once with my '79 Wilson Tour Blades and my '92 Titleist DCI Golds. I hit about 15-20 balls with each 5 iron. The "group" in rifle terminology was about twice as tight and the center of the group was about a half club longer with the DCI vs the Staff. However 2 or 3 of the shots with the Staff were longer and closer to the target line the DCI. Twice as tight might be an overstatement. I don't think GI clubs will make a 100 shooter a 90 shooter. I might make him a 95-96 shooter and that sounds better than 100. It might make a 90 shooter an 88 shooter. He might hit one or two more greens, but he still has to putt On some of the greens he missed, he might chip close and have a shorter putt.

The larger head and promise of forgiveness might make a player relax a bit more and make a better pass at the ball. If the face isn't squared at impact though, it is going somewhere other than straight.

[CHE KJARRVERA]

I think new tech is only in the ball, the fw and the 460cc driver. Irons haven't changed much since the 60's except for the dispersion pattern becoming less accurate in exchange for forgiveness (and that sounds like an oxymoron if ever there was one). I actually want to like new gear and support the industry, but what I find about modern CBs is how hot the faces are. This creates gapping issues for me with the short irons, and long irons that spray around more than an older set of blades. The secret then is surely finding blades that are comfortable and buttery for the average player, rather than the latest hot faced sprayer... To gap effectively in my modern set I have to bag a combo of 4i, 6i, 8i, PW new school irons plus an old PW + SW to ensure I don't fly over the green on pitches. IMO the odd blade mishit isn't that bad when you get such a sweet feeling on every good connect, so I often just go 100% old school and think about staying there. Simlarly, off the tee I've also come to realize for me at least, it's often 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other in regards to what you play. After all, it's not as if the modern driver and 3w off the deck has all of a sudden become THAT much easier than in the persimmon era. If I had a dollar for every time a senior player has gently finessed the golf ball around the course with old sticks and kicked my arse - well, I want to be that old guy!

[oldschoolrocker]

When it is all said and done the majority of the game, as many have said, "is played between the ears."
Speaking only for myself, even though the new irons may provide advantages, I tend to eliminate them by engeeringing them out.
Club too upright-flatten/check
Shaft too long-cut/check
Head too light-add lead/check
Doesnt look right at address-no consideration/check

[birly-shirly]

I like OSR's list. I'd add loft - largely since my most recent experience with the disfunctional gaps in the Apex Edge Pros I acquired - but that's otherwise a great summary of what I think makes an iron playable. If you get those things right, I feel you have covered most of the issues that count towards performance.

I think there are great points above also about whether performance is the be-all and end-all of "improvement", rather than the quality of experience - and I completely agree on that front too, although it's admittedly very subjective. But I'd cheerfully trade the 1 shot per round that MIGHT be lost for clubs that I otherwise love. This comes out much more clearly with drivers - I'm much more convinced of the playability benefits of a modern toaster-on-a-stick, and I'm not immune to their charms, but I'll still enjoy playing persimmon as well for the experience.

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1427120393' post='11196475']
[...]Game improvement clubs , ie pings, have made a high cut difficult. I witnessed a clinic by Jack At a PGA. Bob Tway was requested to hit a cut with a two iron from the gallery. Jack replied,"he can't because he plays Pings".

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]
That's vintage Jack, who I don't recall being shy about sticking the needle into Ping as it began to eat his own company's market share. Sandy Lyle and Mark Calcaveccia had no difficulty hitting high cuts with their pings.

[Fellaheen51]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1427193201' post='11203609']
[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1427120393' post='11196475']
[...]Game improvement clubs , ie pings, have made a high cut difficult. I witnessed a clinic by Jack At a PGA. Bob Tway was requested to hit a cut with a two iron from the gallery. Jack replied,"he can't because he plays Pings".

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]
That's vintage Jack, who I don't recall being shy about sticking the needle into Ping as it began to eat his own company's market share. Sandy Lyle and Mark Calcaveccia had no difficulty hitting high cuts with their pings.
[/quote]

Hit a high ball with my irons, always have. Using my Ping i20's, my natural ball flight is a little left to right. My problem occurs when that high cut transitions to a fade and then to a slice. Swing flaws, not the club's doing. For the average hack such as myself, just give me straight with consistent distance. To much ball manipulation usually gets me in trouble.

Now, let me spend some time with the new(er) Apex's this year and I may revisit what I just said. This topic has been a fascinating read. Thanks for the civility exhibited. Stix's reference to "Zen and the Art....", perfect. Time to go grab my well worn copy for another read.

[jmvargas]

i have been playing for 57 years(i was 12) and it's not surprising that i played my best when i was younger....and with blades..

started using perimeter weighted irons with the Ping Eye2s in the 80s then switched to Callaways in the early 90s which lasted for more than 15 years and was never able to equal my scores when i was using blades....

of course i was stronger and better in my 20s and 30s(hdcp3-6) vs my 40s(10+ hdcp) and now approaching 70 but those newer irons were just very forgiving on mishits and much easier to elevate...

i can only surmise that i would have scored even better with the newer irons vs my blades...

now my REAL irons start with the 8!!

[majic]

Very interesting read. In my mind the biggest beneficiary of modern technology is the professional.
As many of you know I make reproduction hickory shafted clubs. My irons and woods are modeled after MacGregor and William Gibson. I can take any player and after around 4-5 rounds at 5500-6000 yards they will be shooting the same score. Go figure.

[BIG STU]

Mr. Penna brought up something that a friend of mine and I had a discussion on the other night. The course that I grew up on that my Dad ran would be really obsolete if it existed now. Mainly due to new balls and metal drivers.
I honestly believe as far as irons the best improvements over the last 25 years or so would be in the shafts. We have learned so much about shaft flex and kick that it is not funny. A good example A few years ago I acquired a set of FC-4000s (not my Dads set) I ended up retrofitting them with a set of pull out Rifle 7.0 shafts talk about something hitting sweet. A friend of mine who was playing the minis in Florida at the time hit them and loved them he offered me a substantial price for them and I sold them. He is still playing them in money matches even though he is now a club pro with a Nike Staffer deal.
Now I do play my vintage for fun but not in money matches any more even though I front line gamed my stock 70 VIPs until 2 years ago. My modern clubs are a forged cavity back and I do not have any problem working the ball with them. Now to defer they are not off the shelf units they were custom ground at the factory for me and weights were matched on the heads. And I do get looks on the range and on the course when I flush one because they have that "click" to them like flushing a Mizuno.
Another thing for me is I feel the game overall today is over complicated for those just starting. Too much instruction and too many choices in clubs and especially specialty clubs like different degree wedges. Like Mr. Penna said there is no art to shotmaking today in the amateur ranks. I did a re evaluation of my game especially the short game and I simplified it. I went back to my old wedge lofts of 56 60 and my PW is at 45. I quit carrying a 52 gap found out I did not need it because I went back to my "roots" so to speak when I could finesse a PW found out I could still do it. The only reason I carry the 56 60 combo is because these wedges have different bounce. I ended up taking out my beloved 3 wood ( been in the bag for 13 years) because I am not consistant enough with it anymore. Carry a 7 wood that I have carried for quite a few years can hit it between 190 to 200 yds and control it. I am down to 12 clubs in the bag and it makes things easier for me because in the past I could always manufacture a shot when needed
Now as far as modern clubs there has been great advances of metal structure and composition and that is what gives some modern irons the great feel that they have and I am strictly talking forged here not cast. But as far as basic design on a pure blade things have not changed much cosmetecially I will admit they may have moved the COG some but the looks have not changed much Just my .02 worth

[xgolfx]

I agree about today's beginner being overwhelmed by equipment and instruction. My dad gave me a cut down 5 iron to use in the caddy yard . We mapped out a course with tin cans for cups. Other caddies used my 5 iron or an iron , but no putters.the longest hole may have been 100 yards. Since we were in the woods off the first fairway, you had to learn trajectory. When I picked the range or went to look for balls in the bushes on the range, , my 5 iron came in handy for fishing balls out of the weeds. I would hit the balls back towards the tee and flip them up into my cap. Unfortunately, the economics of cart revenue harmed many caddie programs. I still believe my best education came from the caddie yard

I agree with Tad concerning equipment changes helping the pro greatly and the amateur less

CHARLEY PENNA

[mocokid]

Yes, best lessons in life from 8 years in caddy yard at Hackensack GC, NJ. You learn from life lessons from the very affluent and the very un-affluent, and various folks in between. Plus a # of excellent ball strikers: Geiberger, Irwin, BNelson, RH Sikes, and top ams.

[HoganApexBlades]

Caddying for 3 years @ Medinah CC was a great experience in the mid '70s. Looping for older, experienced gentlemen instilled respect and carrying for hacks taught me patience. I consider it a once in a lifetime opportunity that I will never regret doing.

[scomac2002]

I'm not a huge fan of Mark Crossfield and his verbose equipment reviews. That said, I was watching one of his videos this morning and in made intimate sense to me. There is a disconnect between what the average recreational golfer and a club manufacturer are referring to with respect to forgiveness. The golfer assumes you are talking about more fairways hit or closer proximity to target. what the manufacturer is referring to is the drop-off in performance when a less than center strike occurs. The sweet spots if you will are much bigger now resulting in less drop-off in performance when strike is less than ideal in terms of point of contact on the face. But, that doesn't impact direction of the ball as that is influenced by face angle to swing path. Yes the driver is more forgiving in the sense that the ball will travel almost as far when your strike is an inch off dead center, but if the face angle is open or closed to swing path you will just end up being further off line directionally than with older technology that wasn't quite as forgiving. I suppose this should be obvious, but it really isn't and the marketing most certainly doesn't touch on it. As many have said upthread, it's all about how you define forgiveness. I'm starting to have an appreciation why some commentators have stated that modern club design is having a greater impact on the pros than it is on the typical recreational player.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1427412151' post='11223583']
I agree about today's beginner being overwhelmed by equipment and instruction. My dad gave me a cut down 5 iron to use in the caddy yard . We mapped out a course with tin cans for cups. Other caddies used my 5 iron or an iron , but no putters.the longest hole may have been 100 yards. Since we were in the woods off the first fairway, you had to learn trajectory. When I picked the range or went to look for balls in the bushes on the range, , my 5 iron came in handy for fishing balls out of the weeds. I would hit the balls back towards the tee and flip them up into my cap. Unfortunately, the economics of cart revenue harmed many caddie programs. I still believe my best education came from the caddie yard

I agree with Tad concerning equipment changes helping the pro greatly and the amateur less

CHARLEY PENNA
[/quote]My dad started me out on our little 9 hole par 3 course with a cut down 5 iron later on he let me hit balls away from the driving range fence into the center of the range with the same 5 iron. A few years later I was doing the same things with my PW and SW I think that is why I developed such a feel for the wedges and the 5 iron has always been my go to club for get out of trouble shots.