Forged irons

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

Yes, but was that due to blades vs. cavity backs, or forged vs. cast?

I was addressing the "GI" versus "blades" type arguments.

The materials make little difference. Forged, cast, doesn't matter much anymore. Cast processes are awfully damn good these days. I don't think there's any real measurable differences anymore.

[Golfingdad]

9 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

I doubt whether there's any performance benefit at all in having irons forged. And technically, there are also irons that are cast with a softer metal, if you like that feel.

 

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Yeah, there is evidence to support the idea that there is:

http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2032-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

Erik, I think you goofed here.  The guy didn't compare cast vs. forged, he compared cavity backs vs. blades.  He even mentions that the irons he was playing at the time were "Hogan Edge cavity back forgings."  (Just noticed that @acerimusdux already mentioned this)  EDIT: And now just noticed that you already responded. :P

I like that story though - as it provides me with a good excuse to get myself a set of blades one of these days , but I wonder if it's even applicable anymore?  This was more than 20 years ago, and technology has come a long way.  Add to that the idea that many tour pros play cavity backs now and it leads me to guess that the dispersion issue has possibly been addressed.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Erik, I think you goofed here.

I suppose. I saw earlier posts about GI clubs versus what PGA Tour players use, etc. and must've thought the topic was wandering into muscleback vs. cavity back vs. GI/SGI, etc.

In the interests of not further going off topic, I'll leave it at that. I goofed, yeah. Hope the link I posted was at least somewhat helpful, even if off topic.

[Wanzo]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Add to that the idea that many tour pros play cavity backs now and it leads me to guess that the dispersion issue has possibly been addressed.

I assume it's better. Would love to hear others observations on this. I play irons that are more game improvement than what tour players use, but I have some shots that seem to surprise me on the distance. What feels like similar shots will go different distances. Next time I buy irons I'm gonna try to look for some that lean more towards tighter dispersion for distance even if that means they go a bit shorter.   

[mvmac]

2 hours ago, Wanzo said:

I play irons that are more game improvement than what tour players use, but I have some shots that seem to surprise me on the distance. What feels like similar shots will go different distances. Next time I buy irons I'm gonna try to look for some that lean more towards tighter dispersion for distance even if that means they go a bit shorter.   

Couple things

- Some cast irons are made to be "hot" and others aren't.
- Consistent contact is important.
- Depending on how consistent you hit, a GI could be better for dispersion because mis-hits won't lose as much speed.

[Denny Bang Bang]

12 hours ago, lineape said:

Main reason is I can trade in all the stuff I have taking up closet space and get the 716 ap1 at no cost to me.

I honestly don't think you'd be any better off, unless of course you're able to upgrade to a more appropriate shaft, or something along those lines.  The 714 and 716 will be very similar in the ap1.

[Lagavulin62]

I don't want to distract from the technical aspect of the thread. We did mention personal reasoning for traditional vs newer offerings, gi's etc.  So last night I just wanted to read some of Jack's thoughts and not in particular this subject, but when I got to this point I thought about some of the things we are discussing. 

This is taken from an April interview in which Jack and Gary Player were interviewed together. Some of what Jack had to say and I will provide the link as soon as I can. I am not arguing anything here, just sharing. Enjoy.

Quote

"Although, in today’s game, the game’s different. The game is all different. I think that Hogan, Nelson, Snead era, played in a shot making era. I think we were probably in the latter part of the shot making era, although I think we were in the same basic era. And Tiger actually was taught from that era.
Then as Tiger went on, I think one of the reasons that Tiger excelled is that the equipment started to be more important than the player. But Tiger won so much, not because he was really good; he was really good, but he was really good because he could play the old equipment and play shots that other people never had to learn because equipment didn’t force them to learn it.
And today, the guys, you could take the guys today, they wouldn’t have a clue what we played with. I mean, one of the fellas came out this morning and looked at my irons on the practice tee and said, You can play with these?
I said, Well, I’ve played all my life with them. I’ve got the same clubs I played with when I was playing.
He said, Why don’t you get some of those irons that can help you? [laughter] I really thought it was just fine what I had it. [laughter] I did all right with them.
But that’s the mentality today. In other words, the golf ball doesn’t curve, so they really just hit the ball and hit it at the flag. If they play all right to left, they play all right to left. They get a golf club or a golf ball that suits what they do and play it. I’m not saying that’s bad, it’s just different."

http://www.nicklaus.com/news/2016-masters-tournament-interview-jack-nicklaus-gary-player/

Edit: Mod merged separate posts, quoted the Nicklaus quote, cleaned up. (Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:12:37 +0500)

[Wanzo]

11 hours ago, mvmac said:

Couple things

- Some cast irons are made to be "hot" and others aren't.
- Consistent contact is important.
- Depending on how consistent you hit, a GI could be better for dispersion because mis-hits won't lose as much speed.

Thanks Mike.  I'm working on my swing quite a bit lately, so hopefully number 2 (consistent contact) comes around as I play more and continue practicing.  Not sure if my irons are considered "hot", callaway apex.  And you are probably right that for the time being, the GI irons help more than hurt my dispersion until I tighten up my game some.   Good points. 

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, Lagavulin62 said:

http://www.nicklaus.com/news/2016-masters-tournament-interview-jack-nicklaus-gary-player/

It would help if you could quote the part you want us to read.

6 hours ago, Wanzo said:

Not sure if my irons are considered "hot", callaway apex.  And you are probably right that for the time being, the GI irons help more than hurt my dispersion until I tighten up my game some.   Good points. 

They are designed to be a distance forged club but I wouldn't say they're "hot". Some cast irons have thin faces and others like PING irons are heat treated for any "hot" spots. Also I wouldn't put the Apex irons in the GI category. Kind of more of a forgiving players iron.

[Lagavulin62]

4 minutes ago, mvmac said:

It would help if you could quote the part you want us to read.

 

I did with the post above this one. I also stated I would include the full interview for those interested, which is this link. 

Hmm,  another one for my Reading Comprehension class. 

 

[mvmac]

10 minutes ago, Lagavulin62 said:

Hmm,  another one for my Reading Comprehension class.

Seems like you need a class on how to post on online forums.

Helps to include the link with the quote you're posting.

[Lagavulin62]

5 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Seems like you need a class on how to post on online forums.

Helps to include the link with the quote you're posting.

So you shot 71 today. Not bad when you consider I had to work. 

[k-troop]

9 hours ago, Lagavulin62 said:

"I think that Hogan, Nelson, Snead era, played in a shot making era. I think we were probably in the latter part of the shot making era, although I think we were in the same basic era. And Tiger actually was taught from that era.
Then as Tiger went on, I think one of the reasons that Tiger excelled is that the equipment started to be more important than the player. But Tiger won so much, not because he was really good; he was really good, but he was really good because he could play the old equipment and play shots that other people never had to learn because equipment didn’t force them to learn it.

I'm not sure I follow this. 

Premise 1:  Tiger grew up learning to play at the end of the "shotmaking era" when balatas and blades forced pros to strike it true and craft shots (shot shape, height, spin, etc.).

Premise 2:  Equipment advances made learning these shots unnecessary.

Premise 3:  The guys Tiger played against (and beat) never learned how to hit these shots.

Conclusion:  Tiger beat these guys because he could hit shots they never learned to hit.

Except whatabout...Nearly everyone Tiger beat was OLDER than him, so they too would have learned to play in the "shotmaking era".  And if equipment advances made controlling/spinning the ball unnecessary, how did having those skills give Tiger an advantage?  And Tiger won the vast majority of his majors (like all but the first three) playing a multi-layer urethane ball.  (Although it is widely understood that when Tiger switched to Nike balls, he had them make a ball to his specs that spun more than standard urethane balls.)

Relating to the topic, equipment advances (and understanding basic physics) have largely eliminated what were perceived drawbacks to cast or GI clubs.  Some (such as deliberately low CoG) still make a difference in launch angle, but that is offset by reductions in loft.  The ball has made spin much more consistent and less of a factor.  But at the end of the day, the Indian matters much, much, much more--regardless of what arrow he's slinging.

[Lagavulin62]

Well I think the point he was making was that he felt Tiger had an advantage during that transition stage where older shotmakers could no longer compete and the younger guys didn't have the shotmaking skills that he had. So he sort of cane along at a good time in that sense. I don't think Jack is the kind of guy trying to keep his accomplishments above all. But I can see where someone might take that the wrong way.