Technology does change the game

[StefanUrkel]

Just imAgine if dustin cared about his body. Best played ever

[JonMA1]

6 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

Yep. The picture you posted of the top of the grips to show the difference in length caught my eye...the blue grip on the Mizzy looks like it might not be on all the way or something like that.

Are all the Mizuno irons that much longer than all the Hogan irons, or is each club a little different?  Or do you just have the 5 irons for the Radials and not the whole set?  You could also measure them like this to find out:

Should be 37 3/4". I'm curious on which one is not the stock length.

Not that easy to get an accurate measurement, but it does seem to be closer to  37 7/8". I bought the mizuno set new so they should be at the stock length.

Yes, I regripped them myself. It's very possible likely the grips weren't slid on there as tight as possible (even though I made point of trying to do so), or that there is extra material on the end of the Pure grips.

As far as the radials, I have a set of 9i - 3i. In addition, a spare 5i and 7i I picked up separately. The mizunos are longer throughout the set and were when I first brought them home (before I re-gripped them).

It seems odd the Hogan 5i and 7i from the full set match the length of the spare 5i and 7i. It would mean that both were cut down the same length or the specs I found on the web are inaccurate. The clubs I have do not match.

 

[1badbadger]

11 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Not that easy to get an accurate measurement, but it does seem to be closer to  37 7/8". I bought the mizuno set new so they should be at the stock length.

Yes, I regripped them myself. It's very possible likely the grips weren't slid on there as tight as possible (even though I made point of trying to do so), or that there is extra material on the end of the Pure grips.

As far as the radials, I have a set of 9i - 3i. In addition, a spare 5i and 7i I picked up separately. The mizunos are longer throughout the set and were when I first brought them home (before I re-gripped them).

It seems odd the Hogan 5i and 7i from the full set match the length of the spare 5i and 7i. It would mean that both were cut down the same length or the specs I found on the web are inaccurate. The clubs I have do not match.

 

I know where you got those specs, and that site normally has good info, but I don't think these are correct. Hogan always used a 37.75" 5 iron until they were purchased by Callaway.  I was a full time club builder, fitter and club repair expert for many years in Fort Worth, TX, and there are a lot of Hogan clubs here, and I've worked on many of them.  I don't remember ever seeing stock irons with those lengths.

Another way to check is to line your Mizuno irons up against a wall or counter and measure how much of a "step-down" there is between each club.  It should be 1/2".  If it's 1/4" on some and 3/4" on others, chances are the grips were not seated all the way.

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

Another way to check is to line your Mizuno irons up against a wall or counter and measure how much of a "step-down" there is between each club.  It should be 1/2".

Thanks @1badbadger. I just checked it out and there is a slight variance of 1/16" in some of the 1/2" step downs. I'll try to make sure they are seated properly tomorrow.

Still, the mizunos are longer and they shouldn't be. I'm tempted to remove the grips from both clubs and measure - just out of curiosity. Maybe the Hogans were just shortened by 1/2"?

[1badbadger]

2 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Thanks @1badbadger. I just checked it out and there is a slight variance of 1/16" in some of the 1/2" step downs. I'll try to make sure they are seated properly tomorrow.

Still, the mizunos are longer and they shouldn't be. I'm tempted to remove the grips from both clubs and measure - just out of curiosity. Maybe the Hogans were just shortened by 1/2"?

It's possible. What is strange though is the extra Radial 5 and 7 iron that you have match the full set.  

I had another thought...are any of the shaft bands still in tact on the Radials?  They made those in a ladies version, which might be what you have. The shafts band will say Vector 1.  The heads look the same as the men's version, but they are shorter with a ladies flex shaft.

[JonMA1]

8 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

It's possible. What is strange though is the extra Radial 5 and 7 iron that you have match the full set.  

I had another thought...are any of the shaft bands still in tact on the Radials?  They made those in a ladies version, which might be what you have. The shafts band will say Vector 1.  The heads look the same as the men's version, but they are shorter with a ladies flex shaft.

No, they're Apex 3 shafts (regular flex). 

Spoiler

Funny you should ask about the women's version. The first set of irons I ever bought were the Lady Radials from a thrift store. The clubs were considerably shorter and the grips smaller. At the time, I just didn't know any better. That set was missing the 5i and 7i, which is why I bought those clubs separately from eBay. I have since given those undersized clubs to my niece.

 

[JonMA1]

Removed the grips from both 5 irons and it looks like the Hogans were trimmed 1/2" shorter.

Sorry this went so far off topic. The upside is that I finally re-gripped Hogans. I'll play these clubs at least one round this season and try to remember to post the score and stats.

[1badbadger]

21 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Removed the grips from both 5 irons and it looks like the Hogans were trimmed 1/2" shorter.

Sorry this went so far off topic. The upside is that I finally re-gripped Hogans. I'll play these clubs at least one round this season and try to remember to post the score and stats.

Thanks for the update.  I hate to throw another curve ball at you, but is there a chance your Mizunos are +1/2"?  Since the extra Radial 5 and 7 irons are the same length as the full set, maybe they are std length and the Mizzys are longer.

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

Thanks for the update.  I hate to throw another curve ball at you, but is there a chance your Mizunos are +1/2"?  Since the extra Radial 5 and 7 irons are the same length as the full set, maybe they are std length and the Mizzys are longer.

I was fitted for them and there wasn't any mention of adding length, but honestly, I don't know what the fitter did with them.

The Mizunos are slightly shorter than the Adams irons I have, if that helps.

[golfintheworld]

I see alot of it being stats driven. 30 years ago, the only stat that really mattered was "W". Yea guys like Jack were touted for their driver distance, Player for short game, etc. But there wasn't this obsession with every little detail. I don't think I ever averaged more than 165 with a 7 iron, but I also didn't obsess over how far pros were hitiing it. 

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, golfintheworld said:

I see alot of it being stats driven. 30 years ago, the only stat that really mattered was "W". Yea guys like Jack were touted for their driver distance, Player for short game, etc. But there wasn't this obsession with every little detail. I don't think I ever averaged more than 165 with a 7 iron, but I also didn't obsess over how far pros were hitiing it. 

While there is more data and opportunities for comparison, golfers have always been interested with hitting it farther and how far the pros hit it. If Hogan had a Trackman many golfers would be "obsessing" over those numbers

The best players of each generation tend to be some of the longest players at the time. Jones, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Norman, Tiger, Dustin Johnson, Rory.

Hogan's first book was called "Power Golf".

Nicklaus distance tips from the 70's
https://practical-golf.com/10-cant-miss-tips-from-jack-nicklaus/

[golfintheworld]

While that's true, there is the other

    

books the pros write that deal with the other parts of the game. Again it's about the obsession that I have the issue with-the obsession of what the pros do and not what the obsessee should be taking from them.

[1badbadger]

5 hours ago, golfintheworld said:

I see alot of it being stats driven. 30 years ago, the only stat that really mattered was "W". Yea guys like Jack were touted for their driver distance, Player for short game, etc. But there wasn't this obsession with every little detail. I don't think I ever averaged more than 165 with a 7 iron, but I also didn't obsess over how far pros were hitiing it. 

I would never go as far as to say winning is less important now than it was 30+ years ago, but I get your point.  I think part of the reason was back in the 20's and 30's when there were more life-long amateurs like Bobby Jones, winning was the only reason to play.  They didn't make any money, so a top-10 didn't mean sh*t.  A high finish and a nickel would get you a cup of coffee, so they played for the trophy.  

In the 40's, 50's and 60's even as more guys were turning pro, that mentality carried over because there wasn't all that much money for Tour players yet.  A handful of finishes in the top 20 today and you can buy a big house, nice cars and eat steak. Back then you'd starve.  Winning was the only way to make a living.  

As the purses have increased, winning is still important, but it's not a "life-or-death" situation so to speak, you know what I mean?  If a guy blows a lead on the last day and finishes 3rd now days, he still wins $400k, so it sucks he didn't win, but there has got to be a different mentality knowing even if you collapse you'll still make hundreds of thousands of dollars vs the early days where losing a tournament might mean you can't afford to get to the next one!

The increase in purses is the reason why all these detailed stats have become a big deal.  1 stroke here, .5 strokes there in the modern game can add up to a lot of money over the course of a season.

[golfintheworld]

I agree with you 1badbadger . Maybe the stats are how the pros try to isolate their shortcomngs and eliminate one at a time. I'm trying to figure out this: If the stats make them better players, then shouldn't they be heads above the pros from yesteryear? Those guys relied on instinct and a teacher to help them work out their issues. I don't see today's pros being better players per se considering the technology gets them out of gnarly situations that the pro of yesteryear had to rely on their shot making abilities.

[mvmac]

10 minutes ago, golfintheworld said:

If the stats make them better players, then shouldn't they be heads above the pros from yesteryear?

They basically are but it's not the stats that are making them better players. 

 

[MuniGrit]

On 2/24/2017 at 11:46 PM, StefanUrkel said:

Just imAgine if dustin cared about his body. Best played ever

He would still have to make putts under pressure consistently.

Edited March 2, 2017 by MuniGrit

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, golfintheworld said:

I agree with you 1badbadger . Maybe the stats are how the pros try to isolate their shortcomngs and eliminate one at a time. I'm trying to figure out this: If the stats make them better players, then shouldn't they be heads above the pros from yesteryear? Those guys relied on instinct and a teacher to help them work out their issues. I don't see today's pros being better players per se considering the technology gets them out of gnarly situations that the pro of yesteryear had to rely on their shot making abilities.

There's no question the guys back in the day played more by feel and played well despite not having video or stats or all the stuff that is common today.  They didn't even have swing coaches...Hogan didn't have a teacher who helped him develop his swing since he was a junior...he dug it out of the dirt himself.  As bad-ass as that is, I think we can agree that it isn't the best method and a good swing coach is priceless.

A lot of the stats are used by players to determine why they aren't playing as good this year as last year, or if they are top 5 in putts per round one year and the following they are 150th, they are able to zero-in on an issue that might not be obvious otherwise. 

[golfintheworld]

3 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

if they are top 5 in putts per round one year and the following they are 150th, they are able to zero-in on an issue that might not be obvious otherwise. 

This is where a good swing coach can make the diffference.