• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dfreuter415

The New Callaway Apex Irons

14 posts in this topic

Late in 2003, Callaway purchased Ben Hogan Golf. At one time Hogan golf was known for making some of the best forged irons in the world and today - Callaway doesn’t even have a Ben Hogan department inside their company.

I was never a real fan of Callaway irons until recently when I played a round with the X Hot product.  After I played the round, my comment to my playing partner was that these clubs reminded me of the Hogan clubs that I have played for so many years.

Now there is a new Callaway product, a new Apex iron.....

http://www.callawaygolf.com/global/en-us/golf-equipment/golf-clubs/irons/apex-irons.html

For the fans of Ben Hogan irons:  What do you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Not bad looking, but I think some will like the Apex Pros better Hogan fans won't care for the Apex
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I think the look is great, nice to see them moving away from the bulky, colorful style they're known for.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callaway kept the Apex name and some key patents when it sold the rest of the Hogan brand to Perry Ellis.  The new Callaway Apex doesn't share much in common with the Hogan versions but it is a nice looking club.

It's about time Callaway paid tribute to the Hogan legacy with a premium club versus some of the crap that they sold under the name in the past.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

It is a moot point, but I would have preferred that Callaway license the name Ben Hogan to Perry Ellis for the production of clothing only, and retained control of the name and use it for equipment. There is a market for quality forged cavities and blades, as evidenced by Titleist and Mizuno. I don't know who developed them, but the last iteration of true Hogan irons was the Apex, Apex plus, and Apex Edge which were blades, forged cavity, and "slotted" forged cavity. They were nice looking clubs.I would have liked Callaway to further develop those and sell them as Ben Hogan. I don't know what this says about those clubs, but they sold in the premium line, around $800-1000 depending on set composition, and can now be bought on the used market in good shape for $100-175. I like Callaway and their products and have a couple in my bag. I think they are a quality company and do what they do quite well. I do not mean to comment on their new Apex product in a negative way, as I have only seen pics on the internet. It is sad that the Ben Hogan brand has been degenerated to its present state.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a moot point, but I would have preferred that Callaway license the name Ben Hogan to Perry Ellis for the production of clothing only, and retained control of the name and use it for equipment.

There is a market for quality forged cavities and blades, as evidenced by Titleist and Mizuno. I don't know who developed them, but the last iteration of true Hogan irons was the Apex, Apex plus, and Apex Edge which were blades, forged cavity, and "slotted" forged cavity. They were nice looking clubs.I would have liked Callaway to further develop those and sell them as Ben Hogan.

I don't know what this says about those clubs, but they sold in the premium line, around $800-1000 depending on set composition, and can now be bought on the used market in good shape for $100-175.

I like Callaway and their products and have a couple in my bag. I think they are a quality company and do what they do quite well. I do not mean to comment on their new Apex product in a negative way, as I have only seen pics on the internet. It is sad that the Ben Hogan brand has been degenerated to its present state.

At the same time,  this is the Callaway Golf Company not the Ben Hogan Golf Company...

Two brands are difficult to push. I don't blame them. It's costs a lot of money to push a brand, much less two ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Seems that looking at the specs even these irons have the same strong lofts that my burner pluses have. I would have expected lofts closer to traditional blades. Actually, I've been spending some time recently looking for iron sets with lofts that are more traditional and it's been hard to find any outside of the more expensive pro/tour models.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

At the same time,  this is the Callaway Golf Company not the Ben Hogan Golf Company... Two brands are difficult to push. I don't blame them. It's costs a lot of money to push a brand, much less two ...

True and good point, but they should be able to achieve economies and it would have expanded their base somewhat. Perhaps not push a separate brand so much as a model line under the Callaway brand, but still using "Hogan Apex" for instance with the traditional design. Of course, branding/naming and actual production of product is two different things.On the other hand others have tried and then rethought i.e. Titleist/Cobra.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time,  this is the Callaway Golf Company not the Ben Hogan Golf Company...

Two brands are difficult to push. I don't blame them. It's costs a lot of money to push a brand, much less two ...

I understand it's all under the Callaway brand but they already are effect pushing multiple lines; X-Hot, Razor Fit Extreme and OptiForce.  They could have branded the higher handicap players clubs under the Callaway name and the lower cap products under the Hogan name.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Sorry to join in conversation so late, but as a long-time player of Hogan Apex irons (since '71), I feel that golfers everywhere lost a little something special when the brand ended.  I've tried and played every major manufacturer's forged blades over the years and nothing, including premier Japanese brands, comes close to the feel and playability of those old Apex irons.  My game today doesn't justify or warrant a forged blade, so I'm not personally destraught at Callaway's decision to resurrect a name into an iron with no real linkage to the past product.

I agree with some others here that it would be nice if Callaway did produce something that was a legitimate heir to the Apex line, but I also feel it wouldn't matter....it wouldn't work.  Callaway doesn't really make a forged iron worth very much today, so just making another forged iron and putting the Apex name to it, wouldn't serve the player hoping to capture, or re-capture, the quality of the Hogan Apex irons.  When the Hogan Company lost direct input and feedback from Mr. Hogan, it lost the soul of what made a Hogan Apex iron a Hogan Apex iron.

Today's top quality forged blades are very good...I didn't mean to imply earlier that they are not.  It's just that I've never found anything that felt as good in my hands or gave me the "ball off face" feel and control as my old Apex irons (although the MP32's were pretty close).  I'm sure there's a little bit of nostalgia in there somewhere, but I don't believe its totally that.  They were just great clubs, and I always felt more connected to the shot than just merely making a swing.

Regarding the statement that it's the Callaway company and not the Hogan company, that is indeed true.  But I don't recall seeing Mr. Callaway's name on the US Open trophy either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to join in conversation so late, but as a long-time player of Hogan Apex irons (since '71), I feel that golfers everywhere lost a little something special when the brand ended.

I concur with your assessment about Hogan irons. I bought my first real set of irons in 1975. I was determined to get a set of Wilson Staff irons, but bought a set of Hogan's when they had a set with shafts that were one inch longer than standard in stock. (I am 6'3".)  Fifteen years later, in 1990, I bought Hogan's first perimeter weighted forged irons, the Hogan Edge, and played those for another fifteen years. In fact, the Hogan Edges still come out in November for my winter golfing until the birds start singing in April.

As a post script:  I finally did buy a set of Wilson Staff irons on eBay for $100, the Ci7 model, and was going to make them my winter irons, but they just didn't have the feel or overall performance of the Hogan Edge, so the Edge's are still my backup set of irons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit these almost everyday at work ( i work at a golf stores)...they feel so great, to me they don't feel like forged, they feel soft. I have been hitting them a lot. I am getting more yrds on these than the Titleist 714 CB or AP2. I'm getting more yrds with these than all of the mizuno's as well. They looks nice, simple, sleek. I am going to probably purchase these soon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True and good point, but they should be able to achieve economies and it would have expanded their base somewhat. Perhaps not push a separate brand so much as a model line under the Callaway brand, but still using "Hogan Apex" for instance with the traditional design. Of course, branding/naming and actual production of product is two different things.On the other hand others have tried and then rethought i.e. Titleist/Cobra.

I do like the look of the new callaway apex.

Some of you may also be missing the fact at the time that callaway began stripping parts, pieces and personal that were not contributing to profitability, one of which was The Hogan company. Callaway was sinking and pissing away money in the form of lost revenue and market share. In Callaway's hey day they were a 1.4 billion dollar company, now they are about half the size. They lost market share due some poor acquisitions, their ball business, over inventoried of older clubs and a poor marketing use of names like razor and diablo etc.  Callaway was not healthy at all and scaled back to clubs as a necessity. With the exception of taylormade/adidas/adams  & maybe Ping there are very few club companies making $$ today in a flat to down market. Many other of these companies had to sell themselves or merge  they too would be in trouble. Now in order to stay afloat they need to make new different  innovative product every 9 months and hope they sell it.  TM has done a remarkable job over the years, but now its beginning to catch up, they effectively are selling against themselves at times.

Now as far as Hogan is concerned, the name has merit. But in todays market do you think those orange puma hat wearing wanna bies are thinking of Hogan when it comes to golf or forged irons?

I didn't think so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been watching the new Apex irons early release testing and then the advertising with growing enthusiasm.  Man, they looked sweet in the pictures, and not having been a long-time Hogan Apex fan I wasn't offended by the name.  Last Friday I made the trek to the Edwin Watts store up the road a bit with the aim of finally getting my hands on the clubs and giving them a try.

Honestly, I'm not sure what it is about them in the "flesh" but as I handled them all the excitement just faded away.  In the end, I stuck them back on the rack and walked out without even giving one a swing.  They sure looked... nicer... in the pictures.  Didn't see the Pro version, but my game isn't such that I need those anyhow.

Just one perspective, of course, and what makes a golf club look okay to one person and not to another is a mystery the club makers would all like to solve I'm sure.  And this from a guy that plays G20s which are not generally noted for their good looks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • GAME GOLF - Digital Tracking System
      Well, I went ahead and bit. Amazon Warehouse Deals has a few for $86 each. I had a $25 Amazon GC from Christmas, so after tax, it's going to be $66. It says the packaging is damaged, but no mention of problems with the device. Here's hoping it comes in good shape, and that it warms up pretty quickly so I can use it!
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (February 2016)
      The tournament I was supposed to play in was cancelled , so I played in a shotgun start today. The group I was in played at a quicker pace than the group in front and the group behind us, so I had plenty of opportunities for practicing greenside chipping and bunker shots as well as putting.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase. The context of the question and interview plus the exact wording gives a clearer understanding of the statement. I accept deeper field of talent, I don't accept that it's automatically 'a ton' or an order of magnitude greater. What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now. I am certain it's gotten harder for the PGA qualifiers to make it tot he weekend. I am less certain by how much the margin has shifted. The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form. You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers. About 26 million golfers today in the U.S. Worldwide in 1920 who knows? But including Europe, Australia, and other 'commonwealth' countries it was likely double that - maybe triple. Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide. Most generous is about 61 million. While there are a lot of clubs world-wide, participation of 'casual' unaffiliated golfers per club is not going to be the same as in the U.S. and that's the only way I get a number close to 100 million based on actual data. U.S. golf population talent base roughly tripled between Jack and Tiger and I expect worldwide it was a similar rate of increase. I think since the 1920's the U.S. has had about half the wold golf population, though that's started to decline of late as Asian participation increases. Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger. I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger. How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable. Were Tiger's achievements (esp. the 'beat the field' streak) tougher than Jack's because of field depth, yes. How much more I'm not as sure as you. Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible. Combine Tiger's regular wins and Majors and I have no problem giving him the greatest player of all time nod. I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to. They didn't play against each other so your confidence isn't any more a fact than my uncertainty. We're both estimating. Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill. As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable. I agree and that's why I think size of field is relevant to the comparison, because I think the scoring variability of the top 90 golfers in the world overlaps considerably with the next 90 down and even a bit beyond that. That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (January 2016)
      I managed to complete the January challenge (without missing a day, I believe). It was a great months' work for my game - having to blog every day sure helps to focus each session.
    • Steel vs Graphite generic question
      S300 is one of the lowest launching steel shafts.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries