vintage irons for swing improvement

[bamfur]

I bought myself a set of Ben Hogan PT III irons. I believe they are forged blades from 1964. Does anyone know anything about these irons? I can not find any reviews on them, because I guess it predates the internet. Are these still any good or garbage?

I really want to become a better ball striker. I had an idea that these old forged blades with smaller sweet spots will be more punitive, thus forcing me to fix my swing. I'm hoping these wont let me get away with imperfect shots as much as my game improvement cavity backed irons, instead turning fades to slices, draws to hooks, and mishits going no where.

After practicing with these and dialing in a better swing with these puppies, my hope is that my current cavity GI clubs will feel super forgiving in contrast. Thus applying an improved swing to more forgiving clubs and shoot better scores...

I think my plan makes sense in concept, but maybe not in practice for some reasons I might be missing. Has anyone undergone a similar experiment and had positive results?

 

[Richie3Jack]

I bought myself a set of Ben Hogan PT III irons. I believe they are forged blades from 1964. Does anyone know anything about these irons? I can not find any reviews on them, because I guess it predates the internet. Are these still any good or garbage?

Made from 1020 carbon steel. Should have very long hosels, probably 3" long or at least 2.5" long.

Lofts will be weak, PW will be about 50-51* loft. Shafts are old True Temper...before the Apex shafts with the red label came out. Lie angles will be a little flatter, probably 59.5* for a 5-iron. Shafts will be about 1/4 to 1/2" shorter than today's standard (5-iron should be about 37.5" long).

Before 1975, Hogan pretty much always made a great blade for that timeframe. After '75 it got a bit dicey, although he did have some great ones like the Apex II's, the '83 Apex PC, the '88 and '92 Apex Redlines and the '83 Personal

I really want to become a better ball striker. I had an idea that these old forged blades with smaller sweet spots will be more punitive, thus forcing me to fix my swing. I'm hoping these wont let me get away with imperfect shots as much as my game improvement cavity backed irons, instead turning fades to slices, draws to hooks, and mishits going no where.

Play around with them enough and your timing and hand-eye coordination will get more precise. You'll also start to learn that mis-hits are not *that* bad. I usually find that the old MacGregor blades were really brutal with mis-hits. But Hogan mis-hits were pretty reasonable.

After practicing with these and dialing in a better swing with these puppies, my hope is that my current cavity GI clubs will feel super forgiving in contrast. Thus applying an improved swing to more forgiving clubs and shoot better scores...

I think my plan makes sense in concept, but maybe not in practice for some reasons I might be missing. Has anyone undergone a similar experiment and had positive results?

I own 11 different sets of blades. I've got 5 different sets of old Hogan blades ('63 IPT, '67 Percussion, '70 Bounce Sole 1+, '83 Personal and '83 Apex PC). I tried to hit some GI irons at the PGA Demo Day and actually hit my blade long irons much higher than those GI irons.

Personally, I don't think it can hurt. You pay less than $100 for some old blades and play around with them a bit and if you want to 'game' something else for important rounds of golf, you can.






3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

Oh yeah, the longer the hosel, the higher up and more towards the heel the CoG will be according to Tom Wishon. I remember some kook claiming that Ben Hogan just hit 'heel cuts' because he wore a sweetspot in his irons that was noticeably towards the heels. He didn't heel anything, he just flushed it on the sweetspot. I remember a little over a year ago I was on the range with my Hogan IPT's, which have a 3 inch hosel and a friend of my didn't believe that the CoG was more towards the hosel. Then I just absolutely flushed one....the ones that make that 'sound' that the guys nearby can hear that you flushed. Luckily a piece of the grass still stuck to the clubface, right where I hit the ball. When I showed it to him...it was up a little on the face and a little towards the heel. That was the end of that discussion.





3JACK

 

[bamfur]

Ritchie thank you for your prompt and informative replies. I have read this before and I believe it was a from a contribution you wrote elsewhere regarding the more heel oriented sweetspot owed to the longer hosel. My concern with that is, will I hone in a more "heel-seeking" swing if I use these regularly for practice? Not that that in itself is a concern, but that I might continue doing that with the center sweetspot of my current gamers? Alternatively, if i stay heel-oriented, wont I make myself more prone to hitting the hosel?

 

[Richie3Jack]

No. If your swing isn't awful, you won't hit it off the hosel.

It's not like the COG is on the edge of the scoring lines. It's *slightly* towards the heel. Noticeable when you look at wear marks, but not that noticeable when you are hitting the ball. And it will give you a better feel for the clubhead and sweetspot, which is always a good thing.








3JACK

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Only in golf is this theory employed, makes me giggle every time.

 

[bamfur]

Jim, meaning it doesn't work? Is this akin to the training methods in the Ben Stiller movie, Dodgeball? If you can dodge a wrench...? I was hoping it would be more like sprinters running with parachutes or ankle weights for added resistance, or practicing with heavy framed tennis racquets to build strength and timing...

 

[softconsult]

"I think my plan makes sense in concept, but maybe not in practice for some reasons I might be missing. Has anyone undergone a similar experiment and had positive results?"

Seems to me liked a flawed plan. Flawed because you are presuming that because you will get more feed back from the blades, therefore you will somehow know what to do to fix the problem. Why would that be the case? In other words, the problems are there with both types of irons and if you knew what to fix, you would have already fixed it. To me, there are already enough variables, so why introduce more by swinging two different sets of club?

Keep us posted on the experience.

 

[birly-shirly]

I like blades, but I also like my pings. I think it's more important to really like the clubs you're playing than to worry about what sort of feedback they'll give you. If you really love the looks and feel and set up of a blade, then I think that will count for a lot. But if you find yourself getting tired of the "feedback" on thin and toe hits, then I don't think they're going to be doing you much good.

Basically, I don't think it matters that much. Blade, cavity, forged, cast - lots of room for personal preference and be sceptical of marketing puff and theories.

My biggest problem with the "blades for learning" theory is that I think being able to control low-point, face angle and swing path are all bigger issues than "sweetspot" contact, and I don't see how blades give you any better feedback than cavity-backs on the first 3 criteria.

On the other hand, I am the biggest fan of Pelz putter clips or the rubber generics being sold now. These train sweetspot contact (albeit with a putter) far more effectively than a blade, in my opinion. The unexpected windfall for me is that I might be seeing my chipping improve too.

 

[bamfur]

My biggest problem with the "blades for learning" theory is that I think being able to control low-point, face angle and swing path are all bigger issues than "sweetspot" contact, and I don't see how blades give you any better feedback than cavity-backs on the first 3 criteria.

These are very valid points. With my current irons I already get feedback on these three criteria just fine from ballflight and "feel".
1. Lowpoint - I can see whether I hit thin or fat
2. Face angle - I can see where the ball flight path starts
3. Swing path - I can see if the ball side spins left or right - relative to the face angle

Damn now I have buyers remorse...

 

[birly-shirly]

These are very valid points. With my current irons I already get feedback on these three criteria just fine from ballflight and "feel".
1. Lowpoint - I can see whether I hit thin or fat
2. Face angle - I can see where the ball flight path starts
3. Swing path - I can see if the ball side spins left or right - relative to the face angle

Damn now I have buyers remorse...

No reason why you should regret your purchase - so long as you didn't pay over the odds for for a "collectable" set...

I've got no reason for thinking that you haven't got a really nice set of irons there. If you want to try blades, then I think a vintage set of hogans is probably as good a place to start as any. You read in the mags about "modern blades" and how they're so much easier to hit these days. I'm not sure how that works myself. Other than hosel length, I have a hard time seeing how much design variation you can have in a forged blade. Take a look at Callaway Bobby Jones blades and tell me how club design evolved in the 20 years after your hogans were made. Sole designs come and go - I don't know about quantum leaps.

I'm all for trying these things out. You might find that the benefits of cavity-back designs have been somewhat exaggerated.

Also, there's a modern trend to get the weight low in the clubhead - but Karsten Solheim thought there were benefits in having the club's CoG slightly above the point of contact with the ball. That's probably one reason why Ping clubs rate surprisingly poorly in Ralph Maltby's surveys. If you take Karsten at face value, you can certainly have the weight distributed too low in an iron clubhead - but I don't think that's going to be a problem with your new blades...

 

[Richie3Jack]

Blades typically have a much thinner sole so the golfer has to control the low point better because they can't hit it as 'fat' as they could with a GI iron. I would say the same thing with controlling the face angle. Close the clubface too much and you're more likely to hit if off the toe.

I'd be skeptical of using blades and improving on them alone. I think it takes practice and some good instruction. But, if you can get that and have some patience, I think you'll enjoy the benefits.

When I was growing up, I didn't have a ton of money. Neither did my friends. So we would often trade our sets with each other. I played a lot of blades back then and a lot of cavity backs during that time.

I always struck it my best with the blades. Whenever I used CB's, I would hit it well for awhile and then things would taper off. It wasn't until I got into all the junk about 'you need upright lie angles' that I started to struggle with blades...and even then it wasn't as bad as CB's. The book 'Whole Brain Power' tackles this on a certain level....stop using the motor skills that require precision...and they'll erode.





3JACK

 

[birdie_man]

No reason why you should regret your purchase - so long as you didn't pay over the odds for for a "collectable" set...

I've got no reason for thinking that you haven't got a really nice set of irons there. If you want to try blades, then I think a vintage set of hogans is probably as good a place to start as any. You read in the mags about "modern blades" and how they're so much easier to hit these days. I'm not sure how that works myself. Other than hosel length, I have a hard time seeing how much design variation you can have in a forged blade. Take a look at Callaway Bobby Jones blades and tell me how club design evolved in the 20 years after your hogans were made. Sole designs come and go - I don't know about quantum leaps.

I'm all for trying these things out. You might find that the benefits of cavity-back designs have been somewhat exaggerated.

Also, there's a modern trend to get the weight low in the clubhead - but Karsten Solheim thought there were benefits in having the club's CoG slightly above the point of contact with the ball. That's probably one reason why Ping clubs rate surprisingly poorly in Ralph Maltby's surveys. If you take Karsten at face value, you can certainly have the weight distributed too low in an iron clubhead - but I don't think that's going to be a problem with your new blades...

Good post. Makes sense to me. Interesting on the PINGs. Higher COG gives you less spin. Anything else to say there?

 

[birly-shirly]

Blades typically have a much thinner sole so the golfer has to control the low point better because they can't hit it as 'fat' as they could with a GI iron. I would say the same thing with controlling the face angle. Close the clubface too much and you're more likely to hit if off the toe.

I'm not sure I understand your point about clubface angle. It seems like you're saying that a closed blade is more likely to result in a toe strike than a closed CB. I don't understand why that would be so.

As regards control of low point, this is just my experience, but to me a fat shot is a fat shot regardless of the amount of bounce in the sole. And in fact, I think a large amount of bounce makes some shots more, not less, exacting. Hands up who'd prefer a low bounce wedge from a tight lie...

I do think CBs give you some leeway on the thin side though.

 

[birly-shirly]

Good post. Makes sense to me. Interesting on the PINGs. Higher COG gives you less spin. Anything else to say there?

Not much that I can add of my own. But you should read this - Set of golf clubs - Patent 4512577

Especially where it asserts "By designing the club head so that the center of impact will normally be below the center of gravity, the twisting action referred to above is produced. Such twisting action adds to the backspin normally produced."

I thought this added a new spin (pardon the pun) to the debate we had a while back about the "tour pitch" and vertical gear effect. It's not for me to say whether Solheim was right in what he claimed in his patent - but I think he would have to count as a credible witness. You would still have to quantify the effect and also factor in the point that Virtuoso made about the location of a wedge's CoG in relation to the clubface, taking into account the weight and offset in the hosel.

Ralph Maltby is also on record as saying that he believes many of Pings older irons have a higher CoG than is optimal for playability. That always seemed curious to me, as it seemed a rather obvious trick for Ping to miss and they didn't make their reputation by making clubs that were hard to hit.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I'm not sure I understand your point about clubface angle. It seems like you're saying that a closed blade is more likely to result in a toe strike than a closed CB. I don't understand why that would be so.

Toe is closer to the ball than the heel and sweetspot at impact.

As regards control of low point, this is just my experience, but to me a fat shot is a fat shot regardless of the amount of bounce in the sole. And in fact, I think a large amount of bounce makes some shots more, not less, exacting. Hands up who'd prefer a low bounce wedge from a tight lie...

I do think CBs give you some leeway on the thin side though.

Figuring out what golf club designers try to do with golf clubs isn't hard. They try to compensate for the hackers. Even today's modern blades have plenty of compensation going on with lie angles suddenly being much more upright, to help with the slice. Or lighter shafts, stronger lofts and lower CoG's.

Obviously, the same goes with GI and CB irons. If you hit well behind the ball, it's going to be a fat shot regardless of the iron. But if you catch some turf a little early, you can get away with that with a GI and CB iron. Much harder to do with a blade that has a thin sole.







3JACK

 

[birly-shirly]

Toe is closer to the ball than the heel and sweetspot at impact.

OK - but isn't that true of both blades and CBs?

Figuring out what golf club designers try to do with golf clubs isn't hard. They try to compensate for the hackers. Even today's modern blades have plenty of compensation going on with lie angles suddenly being much more upright, to help with the slice. Or lighter shafts, stronger lofts and lower CoG's.

Maybe. That's a side issue for me - as my clubs are all throwbacks. The closest I've got to the blades you describe would be some mid-80s Apex PCs with constant weight shafts, which I think are a bit of a help in the longer irons. On the other hand, I've got sets of Eye 2s and i3s (the oversize versions) which got put in play by better players even when they had the option of blades. Nevermind me, the OP has irons from the 60s!

Obviously, the same goes with GI and CB irons. If you hit well behind the ball, it's going to be a fat shot regardless of the iron. But if you catch some turf a little early, you can get away with that with a GI and CB iron. Much harder to do with a blade that has a thin sole.

Again, I think the differences are much more apparent on shots missed a little thin, than on shots caught a little fat. Either way, I don't feel like my Pings are lying to me when they send off a respectable looking shot. I still know when contact is a little less than flush - either thin or fat - so I feel like the feedback is still there.

There's another dimension to this though that you haven't addressed. That's that better quality learning happens when you're getting some encouragement and sense of success. There's plenty of authority for the proposition that, for optimal learning, you need a level of difficulty that lets you succeed around half the time and learn from the other half of your attempts. If CBs, or shovels, or short irons, or teeing the ball up are what get you to hitting halfway decent shots - then that's going to be more significant to your learning than the sting of a forged blade.

Maybe as a college golfer this never became an issue for you. In fact, maybe as a better golfer you needed a much smaller margin for error in order to see enough room for improvement on enough shots to learn anything new.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Toe is closer to the ball than the heel and sweetspot at impact.





OK - but isn't that true of both blades and CBs?

CB's have bigger heads and perimeter weighting. So you could hit it off the toe more and not feel it nearly as much.






3JACK

 

[jpeck]

This debate always gives me the impression folks start to focus on the wrong thing. Their attention is drawn away from the swing that creates impact in the first place. I'm sure this theory causes those with an old set of blades in the garage to rub their hands with glee at the possibility of shifting them for $$$.

Of the killer golfers I've played against, the most frightening were those who stuck with the same clubs for decades.