• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mick60now

any old iron

6 posts in this topic

could anyone explane to me any significant difference between golf blades made in 1970/80s and modern blades,

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!

The very best old blades were nearly identical to the very best new blades. The difference is that few golfers hit the pure blade long irons anymore whereas back then everyone did. There were some real dogs back then too. They looked like golf clubs but were in fact diabolical torture devices.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another big difference would have been the shafts. The old shafts were like tree trunks.

Also the old blades lacked the precise forging that the new forgings have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume the metal used to make them would be a little different as well? Just a guess tho.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good example of the difference in forgings would be the grain flow forgings of Mizuno. The relief grinding of the soles also make a huge difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set of Ben Hogan Radials and from what I've read up on them, they are from around 1983 and are forged. I don't know if they are considered blades or were an early form of game improvement irons. Anyway, the clubs are very easy to hit relative to how well (or poorly) I hit my newer Adams A4r's (game-improvement cast). Don't get me wrong, if I had money riding on a single 5 iron shot, I'd use the Adams. But it's surprising that this club's 30 year old design still works pretty well.

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
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • No offense, but in my opinion this makes you unprepared to discuss it.
    • Every year, something is changed in a club design.  The real differences are minimal, assuming your current clubs are from within the last 10 or so years (just throwing out a random number).

      However, I just got upgraded to the Ping G driver from the Ping G30, and the big change I noticed is the face of the driver has a bit more friction on the G (at least as I understand it).  What it seems to do is reduce side spin, while retaining normal-ish back spin (I use the low-spin tec version).  When I miss-hit a drive with my old driver vs the newer one, I see noticeably less slice or hook with the newer version.
        When I go through those articles, I mostly read through the reviews of them.  It gives a better idea of what might be better.
    • Right, but then you're just getting into however different people value different things (including money, the performance of their golf clubs, the looks of the golf clubs, the value of a name brand, etc.). People have different values. For something like this, there's rarely any agreement on those, nor is there any "right" or "wrong" answers. I use a set of muscle backs that could just as easily be from the 1950s as now. The tech on those isn't really improving much (though the shafts are undoubtedly much better).
    • We went round and round a bit on this last year, but I don't remember seeing decision 15-3b/1 mentioned.  The difference between this decision and 27/6 seems to be that B's ball is found in a timely manner.  The finding of the "other" ball makes it virtually certain that A's ball was moved by an outside agency (Player B).  In the other thread, B's ball is never found.  27/6 allows the same kind of relief as long as the "other" ball is found within the 5-minute search limit.  As I read the rules and decisions, this is a timing issue,  the rules require a decision to be made within 5 minutes of beginning the search for A's ball.  If the "other ball" isn't found, its presumed lost.   In a way this is somewhat similar to another discussion we had, where a player's ball apparently hit a cart path and went much further than anticipated.  He searched and didn't find it at the expected distance, went back and played another tee shot for the lost ball, and eventually found the original much closer to the green.  He couldn't then put the original into play and "negate" the second tee ball, as he'd already searched for 5 minutes. I don't know if the difference in the timing of the discovery is adequate justification for the different outcomes, but that seems to me to be the defining factor.  It would be interesting to get the take of some of the USGA rules experts on this, not on what the rules say, but on why they draw the distinction.
    • I'd have thought there would be a sliding scale, akin to a volume discount. Not just $x/18 = per-hole cost. Or if there are obvious points where it's not terrible to get back to the clubhouse, make 3-hole, 7-hole, 11-hole, 15-hole, and 18-hole rates. Then you could even consider the par of the holes. Heck, if the course started par 5, 4, 5 I'd be tempted to just play the first three holes three times.  I'd get more for my money than playing holes 4, 5, and 6 which are pars 3, 4, 3.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bandstan
      bandstan
      (46 years old)
    2. boobiemiles
      boobiemiles
      (25 years old)
    3. ElsieOlson
      ElsieOlson
      (77 years old)
    4. Matt66
      Matt66
      (26 years old)
  • Blog Entries