Blade question

[profsmitty]

I would love to have your collective comments regarding the following questions:

 

Are there significant and measurable differences between modern and "vintage" (read FG-17 and earlier) forged blades? Would a golfer playing the later be at significant disadvantage (or advantage, for that manner) to a play of equal skill and experience playing the later?

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

[ScooterMcTavish]

Hey Mr. Moderator,

 

I can only comment from my own experience with blades, and have been fortunate enough to play 3 quality sets, including a modern blade.

 

The chronology of the blades are:

1960s - 63'-64' Wilson Fluid Feel Turfriders, R flex

1970's - Campbell Gary Player Model Blades, R flex aluminum

1980's - Wilson Staff FG-17, R Flex

2000's - Nickent ARC Blades, DGS300

 

Likely the ARC Blades are not a really fair comparison, as they were almost more like a player's CB - the "cavity" in the MB was filled with a green elastomer that was supposed to assist with swings.

 

If you were comparing some 60's blades, I'd say "heck yeah, the modern blade has an advantage". My Turfriders have very sharp leading edges, incredibly small heads, and I'm still looking for the sweet spot. Should also mention the shaft thru the head makes them play way stiffer than an R. They even feel stiffer to me than the DGS300 did. Very difficult to play.

 

Compared to the 70's, I'd still say yes. Manufacturing tolerances were still very manual/physical at that time, and I found more inconsistency in the 70's irons. Everything from the feel of the shaft loading across the swing, to the way the ball reacted off the face. Part of this was my game at the time, but some clubs with identical shafts felt different than others.

 

Now we get to the main comparison 80's - modern. Truthfully, and despite Nickent's advertising, I found no advantage to the ARC Blades over the FG-17. I mean none. If anything, the lighter weight of the FG-17s, combined with a sharper leading edge work better in the thick rough/clay soils of where I live. And unfortunately, my time with the ARC Blades happened when I was tearing up my shoulder and back due to swinging too hard, combined with natural degenerative ageing.

 

And really, why should modern blades have any significant advantage?

 

I think the accuracy and consistency of forgings these days are likely better under computerization than they were in the 80's. But as anyone who has played forged irons know, the quality and grain of the metal can make a bigger difference than a 1/10 mm tolerance on a groove. Forged clubs are unique in that each one has a bit of individual character to it. And despite modern forging, I believe that this can never be removed from the club. Even more so, I believe the quality of steel that used to be used for forging is better than the steel being made today.

 

Shafts are an area where the modern club should have an advantage, again through the manufacturing process. This being said, there are abundant horror stories across the forums where shafts have actually been tested, and come in at something other than advertised. Consistency can be done with a number of clubmaker tactics including weight and frequency matching, spining, and flo'ing, but this is usually an aftermarket process. In other words, no advantage to the new blades, as both the old and the new blades can take advantage of this. Off the rack no advantage for the new blades.

 

I'm of the though the blade design, and where/how the MB is placed makes a bigger difference, in terms of getting the right club for your swing. And if I can shoot the same scores with 80's MBs that my partner shoots with 2000's GIs (and his hdcp is 3 better than mine), then I'm not seeing where the advantage is, other than the beautiful, undented chrome of new blades.

 

So no, my experience has taught me that MB blades are MB blades. It's really hard for me to understand how something like this:

 

 

or this...

 

 

Plays different than this:

 

 

or this....

 

[Swoosh-Thud]

(I assume grooves are not a consideration)

Modern blades are just a hair larger (I find Mizunos too long in the toe). But other than that- not really that much different. Some are easier to hit than others- both within the same era and between eras. Some are longer than others............mainly due to design.

A poor golfer will hit them all equally poor. A better golfer will find one of each era to his liking and play it better than others. The larger head is insignificant to the better golfer who tends to hit the sweet spot more consistently.

The first forged CBs (Ram Fx and Hogan Edge) were also the same size as their blade counterparts- I had both in the 80s & never found a difference so I went back to my Tour Grinds.

[okesa]

[size=5]I bought a set of Titleist Tour Model irons brand new in 1982 3-pw for £198 about $350,I still think these are a very underestimated club,I loved them and played really well with them although not everyone will like the long blade look.[/size]
[size=5]A few years ago I had Titleist 690.mb's which stupidly I sold in a clearout and even now am looking to replace,they have/had it all,quality product,clean classic and classy lines and very playable irons.[/size]
[size=5]Based on my happy experiences with Titleist blades I then bought a new set of 710mb's,they cost the thick end of £600 ($900) and were made up as a special order as they were lefty.[/size]
[size=5]On arrival I found 4 of the grips not on straight,solvent dribbles on some of the shafts and an approx. 2mm overhang of the ferrules over the hosels.[/size]
[size=5]Titleist took them back to correct the issues and when I queried the ferrule/hosel fit was told by the woman in Customer Services that "they fitted into the manufacturing parameters".She did not respond to my suggestion that they take their club builders/fitters to the nearest golf shop to have a look at other makes to see how ferrules should be fitted.[/size]
[size=5]All that combined with the fact that the numbers on the soles looked as though they were 'written' by someone not conversant with English made for a very unhappy experience and the question;"Why bother?"[/size]
[size=5]Moral of the story;older blades especially those made in the US were invariably of superior quality in almost every respect,their designs have become classics,who today makes a blade that looks as good as FG-17,Apex II,Ram TG,Mac VIP?[/size]
[size=5]What's the old saying about imitation and flattery?[/size]
[size=5]Where did Mizuno find their design for TN-67's and MP-37's?Jack Nicklaus World Series?More likely Hogan Personal.[/size]
[size=5]I still have a half set of Tour Models,they still play very well and so do my Fluid Feel,Staff Tour Blades,FG-51's,Muirfield 20th (gorgeous) and a set of Ram TG hopefully arriving tomorrow![/size]
[size=5]Buy old/vintage!More quality!Save the planet by recycling!Save yourself a heap of money!You don't have to be a lunatic to get involved but it does help![/size]

[rileyj]

The differences are the bounce (more on modern), the sweet spot location (more toward the heel due to more metal in the hosel), the height top to bottom (taller for modern), the loft/lie (stronger, more upright for modern), and the center of gravity (lower on modern) . In general, these differences are more pronounced the farther back you go. Some blades from the 70's and 80's will have almost no differences relative to modern. But some from the 70's like the Mac split soles will seem very different.

The thing is, normalizing for loft and lie, if you put a really good swing on it, you will find very little difference in outcome. It's the bad swings where you will notice excessive digging or a super low ball flight or something like that when using vintage.

[ABgolfer2]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1374202840' post='7487820']
I would love to have your collective comments regarding the following questions:

Are there significant and measurable differences between modern and "vintage" (read FG-17 and earlier) forged blades? Would a golfer playing the later be at significant disadvantage (or advantage, for that manner) to a play of equal skill and experience playing the later?

Thanks for your thoughts,
[/quote]

Is your query worded correctly?

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1374202840' post='7487820']
I would love to have your collective comments regarding the following questions:

Are there significant and measurable differences between modern and "vintage" (read FG-17 and earlier) forged blades? Would a golfer playing the later be at significant disadvantage (or advantage, for that manner) to a play of equal skill and experience playing the later?

Thanks for your thoughts,
[/quote]

I think any differences in the playability of heads are going to be really minor. Modern blades will probably have a horizontal CoG nearer the geometric centre of the face. I have a set of irons that were used by Ralph Maltby as an exemplar of old blades with a heelside CoG - and I don't feel I'm any more prone to hosel rockets out of these clubs than from more modern cavity backs. The old saying that a shank was close to a perfect shot is nonsense - decent players hitting it well wouldn't shank one ball in 200.

A blade, by definition, has a fairly uniform weight distribution. I don't believe there's enough discretionary weight to make a real difference to the clubhead's "forgiveness" or playability. In support of that, I'll cite Tom Wishon who finds that ALL cavity back iron designs - from players clubs to shovels - will in the real world play more or less the same. If that's true of the wide range of cavity-backs on offer, it has to be even more true of blades.

One difference is sole grinds - but even there I'm sceptical. On full swings, I think if the sole grind is in play, then you've already missed the shot. If you catch the ball "a bit" fat - how much is any sole grind really going to save you? I think there's way more benefit to having bounce and a rounded leading edge on a wedge that you're going to swing slowly on delicate part-shots around the green. Once you're in the middle of the set, hitting an iron with a full swing, I think the differences are going to be pretty minor. I'm of the view that a good strike is closer to thin than fat contact - so take that fancy sole grind out of play!

I'm doubtful that the vertical position of the clubhead COG will be significantly lower in modern clubs, as a rule, than found in the classic irons of the 70s or 80s.Weight distribution high or low has always been a matter of personal preference. Even as a shareholder in modern club companies, Greg Norman was often playing blades with a high CoG (even an inverted muscle) like those old Macgregors. I suspect, the CoG moves a few mm at most and much less than the variation in most players' strike pattern. Besides, a higher CoG isn't a mortal sin. Karsten Solheim designed in a higher CoG to his irons to add backspin via vertical gear effect. A lower CoG will launch the ball higher, but with less backspin. Is that an advantage?

Have steel shafts really improved in 40 years? If they have, then I really don't know how - other than that there are now a few more options for players that want something that looks or feels a little bit different. Still, you could retrofit fancy new shafts to classic heads and still come out ahead financially compared to buying a brand new set.

I think the one great advantage of old school clubs is that it's cheap to experiment on a longer term basis than just an afternoon at the range, and to learn what really works for you. I can compare some Mizzies which cost me £40, to some £50 Hogans - and conclude that I like lighter weight shafts better. A second set of Hogans, also £50, and I learnt that I can swing an Apex 4 shaft as well as the Apex 3. So, for less than £150, I have a set of irons in which I feel I can have real confidence in the fitting (as well as a couple of fallback sets if I have second thoughts!)

Also, modern lofts are IMO a big step backwards from the sensible and classic 4* steps off a 52* PW. Longer irons are MUCH easier to hit at classic lofts - and I'd guess that most golfers would be better served by irons at classic playing lengths too.

Lastly, comparing several sets of 30 year old irons that I own with a few Vokey wedges, I'd have to conclude that the durability of chrome-plating in modern clubs is far inferior to what it was in years past.

In favour of modern clubs - you can shop around for exactly what you want, rather than what the thrift shops or ebay offer up. I think a big part of the appeal of blades is visual. So if someone prefers the look of a slightly larger blade, or a rounded leading edge - then there are companies that will cater to that off-the-shelf or even by custom order. Nothing disadvantageous about that .

[okesa]

[size=5]Excellent post.[/size]

[Swoosh-Thud]

I'm going to disagree on a few points.

The biggest difference in irons over the past 30 years has been twofold: 1. turf mangement and 2. the golf ball.

Ben Hogan said the greatest invention to impact golf was the modern mower.

What you don't know is that those old pros would often play their drives to brown patches in the fairways rather than the green ones- to ensure they'd have a clean look at the back of the ball and the not so tightly mowed lies of the mowed sections (I know I was surprised when I was told that) - that's why the knife like edges and little bounce in older clubs.

With todays lush fairways a little bounce in the irons goes a long way.

The modern low spin ball doesn't need explanation. Not really an impact on irons other than distances and the # you put on the sole of the club.

The biggest difference in shafts is in QC. Back in the day the pros would find a set of shafts they liked and kept on replacing heads.

And yes there are many iron shaft options out there- I don't know why for the better player.

I'm old school and am not one dimensional- I don't play the same shot over and over and over again- every shot from tee to green is flighted and spun L <- -> R to a certain extent.

Other than a few sets I've pretty much kept everything I've played well for nearly 40 years. Some are easier to hit than others within their respective eras.

I also am a firm believer that only the pros benefit from a CB as when they miss they miss by mm and are still within the sweet spot penumbra. When the average golfer misses it can go off either side of the lines- in that case no difference between a blade and CB

[profsmitty]

Great responses to my question. BTW it should have read "former" rather than "latter".

[birly-shirly]

Re sole configuration and turf conditions - I don't know, but it seems like more and more instructors are teaching pitch shots that use the bounce on the sole of the club even out of tight lies, bare lies, and cart path lies. Those teachers point blank deny that sole grind is a factor in hitting shots 'thin'.

On the other hand, a very club-savvy pro once told me that one of the principal reasons that traditional blades remain popular on tour is the feeling that sharp, narrow soles help cut through longer grass and lush, rather than tight, lies.

Both lines of thought seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that ties together razor sharp grinds and a lack of turf.

FWIW I don't know how bad the fairways were back in the day - but I read that when Hogan came to the Open at Carnoustie, he discovered that he had to shallow his angle of attack because he couldn't take his customary divot out of the turf he found there. Now I grew up on a Scottish muni in the 80s with fairways like that - but I'd never have guessed that Scottish summer conditions were harder than the Texas conditions that Hogan grew up in.

I don't really want to say "this is right, that is wrong". But the only way I can see to reconcile all the different thoughts and theories about how the sole interacts with the turf is to work on the basis that none of it matters all that much. Strange as that seems, it makes sense (to me) if you allow an exception for low-speed pitch shots, and assume that on full shots the sole should not contact the ground until after the shot's fate is sealed.

If the picture here [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/411554-silly-question-wear-marks-on-irons/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...marks-on-irons/[/url] shows how low on the face a really good ballstriker makes contact, then that seems convincing to me that the sole won't contact the ground until it's passed the turf that the ball is actually sitting on. So too does that Stack and Tilt drill where you hit balls off a line, and the divots all [should] start beyond the line. Like this: [url="http://cdn.thesandtrap.com/e/e5/378x400px-e58886be_400.png"]http://cdn.thesandtr...58886be_400.png[/url]

[Swoosh-Thud]

Well. I don't know what to tell you then.

Same guy hates big divots- says they are totally unnecessary with the current conditions. Had to hit down in the past to get to the back of the ball cleanly. No need to be so steep today. We talk of scalping the grass as optimal from the fairway.

Regardless, since we are talking about vintage equipment, who do you think would know more- some current teacher who is indeed qualified to make an interpretation and analysis of the equipment used in the past or someone who's actually been there?

My money is on the guy who played with Hogan, won an absolute truckload of tournaments and who was a professional golfer when he used the equipment in question..........

.......or as I like to often quip: Experience trumps Google every time

[birly-shirly]

Now sir - I did not mean to question your credentials.

I'm just thinking aloud here -and have more questions than answers.

Was there anything specific in my post with which you took issue?

And as a good ball striker, where in your judgement should a divot start in relation to the ground the ball is sitting on?

[oldschoolrocker]

I will limit my discussion by comparing my oldest and newest sets. both recieve about the same amount of course time. A 1953 set of Macgregor M85 Colokroms and
A 2000ish set of Titlest 690.mbs.

The biggest differences between the two sets physically are, shaft length, loft of each club, and lie angle, although I play my irons flat, so the flatter lie angles of the older clubs is no issue.

The '53 set is shorter shafted with weaker lofts, a heavier club head with a straighter leading edge, and heavier swing weight.
Also, the set makeup included the 2 iron through PW as standard, as compared to the 3 through PW of the newer set.

I lose about 1.5 to 2 club lengths when I play the old Macs which I attribute more to the shaft than the actual club head specs or design. All lofts being equal with the same shafts I feel there would be minimal distance difference.

The biggest playability factor is interaction with the turf.

My predominant shot is a slight draw, although both sets afford me the ability to work the ball either way and control trajectory. i have to be more conscious of not being too steep with the Macs.

Both feel relatively the same on a flushed shot, but I get more pronounced feedback on off sweet spot strikes with the older set, while both reward a wayward swing with about the same degree of punishment. Any difference in this area I feel is more a function of the current shafting arrangement than club head design.

Looking forward to following this thread.

[Oldplayer]

As has been stated already modern blades of the last few years have been designed to offer more playability. Lowering of the cog with musclebacks, bigger heads, larger sweetspots by altering weight distribution to the toe are all factors in achieving this. Blades like the mizuno mp68 or 69 and TM rac mb's are good examples of this.

[Swoosh-Thud]

No.........not a ruminant- have ADHD and little time- prefer to dine-n-dash (why I often edit my posts when a few other neurons finally fire in sequence).

It's a different game from even just the 90s- with the balata ball what we used to call a draw- is now a hook...draws are now measured by feet........

Bottom of arc is always past the ball- has to be with proper foot work (we are talking about irons here) where?........ depends on many factors.

Perfect divot is the size of a dollar bill and under 1/4" in depth or a "[i]post it note" [/i]size for a high shot or take spin off (depends on how you hit it high- hang back, ball position or leavin the arms behind).

[majic]

The big difference in irons started with Dr. Joe Braly and the Precision shafts. He made True Temper improve the quality of their product. In the 90's when my Maxfli Australian Blades were in the market we had already started the big improvement in the forging process. Late 80's saw this. If you compare apples to apples for loft, lie, length etc you will find very little difference from the MB of today from the clubs of the 80's if shafted with identical shafts.

[okesa]

[size=5]What I cannot reconcile in my own mind,on the topic of sole grind,is why vintage irons are considered to be inferior.[/size]
[size=5]Given the quality of design and the playing experience of those designers,if there was a better way to go,surely they would have gone down that road?[/size]
[size=5]I cannot believe that,for example,the grind on Toney Penna or Tommy Armour irons is not as 'playable' as modern blades or maybe it's because course conditions in the UK have changed little over the years,we don't have the lush,irrigated fairways that you have in the US so perhaps the older blades are still suited to our tracks?[/size]
[size=5]I've just been looking at some older blades that I play reasonably well with,Macgregor Muirfield,Muirfield 20th,Apex II,Ram TG,most recent set of blades were Titleist 710MB,which I didn't particularly like (seemed like a good idea at the time) but would also readily admit that the Titleist 690.MB that I had before those were possibly the best blades I've ever used.[/size]

[KYMAR]

[quote name='majic' timestamp='1375547657' post='7597186']
The big difference in irons started with Dr. Joe Braly and the Precision shafts. He made True Temper improve the quality of their product. In the 90's when my Maxfli Australian Blades were in the market we had already started the big improvement in the forging process. Late 80's saw this. If you compare apples to apples for loft, lie, length etc you will find very little difference from the MB of today from the clubs of the 80's if shafted with identical shafts.
[/quote]

You really gotta say who you are when you post little treasures like this! I appreciate the humble craftsman, especially in today's "look at me" world , But i'd hate to think a post like this gets less consideration from someone misreading this who leaves thinking you're some hack who simply "owned" some Aussie blades in the 90's! HAHA!

Oh, and Post More!!

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='okesa' timestamp='1375559392' post='7598018']
[size=5]What I cannot reconcile in my own mind,on the topic of sole grind,is why vintage irons are considered to be inferior.[/size]
[size=5]Given the quality of design and the playing experience of those designers,if there was a better way to go,surely they would have gone down that road?[/size]
[size=5]I cannot believe that,for example,the grind on Toney Penna or Tommy Armour irons is not as 'playable' as modern blades or maybe it's because course conditions in the UK have changed little over the years,we don't have the lush,irrigated fairways that you have in the US so perhaps the older blades are still suited to our tracks?[/size]
[size=5]I've just been looking at some older blades that I play reasonably well with,Macgregor Muirfield,Muirfield 20th,Apex II,Ram TG,most recent set of blades were Titleist 710MB,which I didn't particularly like (seemed like a good idea at the time) but would also readily admit that the Titleist 690.MB that I had before those were possibly the best blades I've ever used.[/size]
[/quote]

Most folks who subscribe to the "older blades are inferior" line of thought is precisely because of course conditions here in the USA. They have changed considerably in recent times, as compared to those of 30 and 40 years ago. The obvious is the mower, with fairways shorter than times of olde.

It's already been mentioned by others, but with respect to the clubheads themselves, it's primarily CG placement, modern being more towards the middle of the face, and sole design, with camber, more bounce, and less sharp leading edges.

[majic]

Good player blades still have the CG towards the heel. This is to make them so you can hit draw/fade with control. There are some cavity clubs tht have the CG towards the center and are much harder to shape your shots. The hosel is shorter however and the 7-8 grams put into the hitting area. Tad

[NRJyzr]

I should mention, I'm not one of those who subscribes to the "new blades good, old blades bad" line of thought. Just realized I didn't make that clear in my earlier post.

[dpark]

I regularly play both "old blades" and new blades.

Old blades: Hogan Apex PC with Apex 4 shaft (circa 1984)
New blades: Titleist 681 with DG-300 shaft (circa 2000)

Primary difference: Apex PC set has a 51* PW/Equalizer while the 681 set has a 48* PW
Club lengths are the same as are the swingweights.

There is no question in my mind that the 681s are more playable from a greater variety of lies than the PCs. The bounce and sole camber on the 681s are a significant improvement over the PCs. I also get more spin from the 681s which is probably mostly due to the grooves. I also get a higher launch angle with the 681s (and without taking into account the higher lofts of the PCs, I hit the 681 PW higher than the PC PW).

When playing in firm conditions, other than the spin issues into the green, I can play fine with either. But as conditions get softer or out of the rough, the 681s are much more forgiving. However, I can work the PCs much more in either direction than I can the 681s (using the same ball).

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='dpark' timestamp='1375582894' post='7599810']
I also get more spin from the 681s which is probably mostly due to the grooves.
[/quote]

Unless you're talking about from the rough, it's not the grooves.

On a different note, have you ever had the opportunity to compare the 681s to Palmer Standards or Original Standards? It's amusing how much the 681s look like the Palmers (except for the 1985s)...

[ABgolfer2]

A lot of "older" blades were poor because they were made of 2nd rate (at best) components. Most players never had the opportunity to play the good stuff first time around. New blades are all good because the s*** brands no longer exist.

[dpark]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1375583337' post='7599842']
[quote name='dpark' timestamp='1375582894' post='7599810']
I also get more spin from the 681s which is probably mostly due to the grooves.
[/quote]

Unless you're talking about from the rough, it's not the grooves.

On a different note, have you ever had the opportunity to compare the 681s to Palmer Standards or Original Standards? It's amusing how much the 681s look like the Palmers (except for the 1985s)...
[/quote]

I have read all the stuff that grooves aren't supposed to make any difference from the short grass, and I understand the logic behind it, but I can hit a 6-iron 681 and a 5-iron PC from the same spot (basically the same loft for both) and the 681 stops and the PC does not. Trajectory is also lower with the PCs than the 681 (which could have something to do with it).

Funny you should ask about the Palmer Standards. My cousin has those irons and yes, they are similar, but the muscleback on the Palmers are even higher than on the 681s (lower ball flight) and the toe is a little more square (vs. rounded on the 681s). Personally, I prefer the look of the 681s and they are much easier to hit

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='dpark' timestamp='1375676299' post='7606014']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1375583337' post='7599842']
[quote name='dpark' timestamp='1375582894' post='7599810']
I also get more spin from the 681s which is probably mostly due to the grooves.
[/quote]

Unless you're talking about from the rough, it's not the grooves.

On a different note, have you ever had the opportunity to compare the 681s to Palmer Standards or Original Standards? It's amusing how much the 681s look like the Palmers (except for the 1985s)...
[/quote]

I have read all the stuff that grooves aren't supposed to make any difference from the short grass, and I understand the logic behind it, but I can hit a 6-iron 681 and a 5-iron PC from the same spot (basically the same loft for both) and the 681 stops and the PC does not. Trajectory is also lower with the PCs than the 681 (which could have something to do with it).

Funny you should ask about the Palmer Standards. My cousin has those irons and yes, they are similar, but the muscleback on the Palmers are even higher than on the 681s (lower ball flight) and the toe is a little more square (vs. rounded on the 681s). Personally, I prefer the look of the 681s and they are much easier to hit
[/quote]

The PCs are fairly high CG, aren't they? I would expect that has quite an effect.

There's also the flat face issue... I've mentioned this elsewhere, but a side effect of testing grooveless irons was discovering a perfect flat face will produce more spin than one that is not perfectly flat. Manufacturing techniques what they are, it's at least theroetically possible the newer clubhead could have a flatter face than the older.

More likely, it's degradation of the face surface from age. Magnified pics of iron and wedge clubfaces have shown little nicks and the like in the surface of the clubface, both visible and not visible to the naked eye. Even relatively early in the life of the club. This degrades the flat clubface, which could, applied to the topic of the previous paragraph, impart less spin on a golf shot. A club as old as the PC will likely have greater degradation of the face, thereby providing lower spin than one newer.

Such is how I see it, anyway.

[ScooterMcTavish]

NRJyzr said what I thought as well, something I saw different between my FG-17s (closer to the MBs) and my Apex II (closer to the PC).

Like I said in an earlier post, there is something to how the weight is placed on the MB that affects its playability for each player. The COG is certainly higher on the PCs, which gives different flight and spin chacteristics than the MBs.

I see this clearly with my Apex IIs which have a flatter trajectory than the FG17s. The Hogans almost seemed designed more for the person who hits down, while the FG-17s seem better suited for a sweeper.

[Swoosh-Thud]

Most older clubs had higher COGs whether an undercut muscle band in the middle of the club or just plain higher muscles- ball was spinny enough.

Back in the day the better player used his swing to control the curve (diminish) spin. Now with the low spin-straight ball the better player needs to swing to curve it.

[fluffy265]

I like to experiment and see what different designs have to offer. Regardless of how old a forging is I simply find certain designs suit me better than others.The affordability of classic & vintage gear these days allows me try out these designs at a fraction of the cost of a new set. Some designs have past the test of time, some have not. Being able to actually experience how these different designs affect play is gold to me.

I have a soft spot for Spalding's, my Trevino grinds (early 90's) are based on a very early Spalding design that evolved over the years (I know Tad can enlighten us here). On learning this info my eyes opened up to to earlier models with a similar shape. I picked a set of Pro-Flites (early 60's) to compare. These designs appeared similar at first but couldn't feel more different. The Pro-Flites sweet spot is concentrated towards the toe, and hitting that spot felt completely awkward to me. Off center hits had zero feedback and felt harsh.

The Trevino's sweet spot on the other hand is where I'd expect it, a hair inside center towards the heel. Feed back with these irons is sensational. They leave you with no doubt about where you're making contact with the ball without feeling harsh. I simply see this as a result of a design which has evolved well over time.

FWIW I use the Trevino's these days mostly to get my swing in tune if I haven't played in while.

Check out the pics below for comparison, the Pro-Flites concentrated weight towards the toe.

Now this little experiment just has me looking for 70's & 80's variants of the design, which I've noticed don't carry so much weight in the toe. I'm currently playing Tour Editions which are a match made in heaven for me. However I wont be happy until I've compared them to other blades of the era.

Personally If I could afford the modern offerings I would be looking at the the "J-spec" gear. I think the Japanese manufacturers do a nice job in paying homage to some of the early Mac and Hogan designs. Everything else just seems to look the same to me.

My 2 cents....

J

P.s Swoosh how about you post a pic of those 705 mb's!

[attachment=1820734:heads.jpg]
[attachment=1820738:profile.jpg]