Messing Around W/Some Older Irons…

[WillieT]

Today I decided to try something for fun. In the set of irons I "inherited" there is a mix of what I understand are department store style clubs - namely MacGregor, Spalding and even Lynx.  For this very unscientific test I chose to limit it to 7 and 8 irons (I have the widest distribution of brands in those styles).  What did I learn?  Well some clubs swing much easier than others.  As the Silver Scots are the most "modern" club I own, this was more of an exercise of what how they compared to basically one generation earlier designs.  I used a Callaway driving pad to cut down on the divots in a my somewhat soggy yard.  Still some hits were on bare grass to get a more realistic feel.  Here we go: 

8 iron contingent (only two to compare here): 

MacGregor Nicklaus Golden Bear (Reg.084) - very heavy almost clumsy feeling club.  I tended to be way fat on most strikes, really noticed this on bare grass swings.  Also on most swings I was way open resulting in slices - I am thinking it's weighting was such that it was me being slow in getting the club around.  The club itself has a large mid-back hump, I guess which is what is deemed "muscleback" in design. (see pic) 

Tommy Armour 845s Silver Scot - this is the club I have been hitting the most so its the most familiar.  Some slicing (still working on the videos for the My Swing section) but overall much lighter in feel. 

7 iron contingent (three to compare here):

Spalding Johnny Palmer Tournament - this club I am sure is a "department" store style club.  I am intrigued at its length and feel.  It was not a "weighty" as the Golden Bear but still did not feel totally comfortable.  Hits were more direct, i.e. fewer slices.  It looks to be more of a "blade" design.  Not as fat in the swings as the club came around better.  Of the three 7's tested it was the longest about 1/2" longer than the TA 845s 7.  It really needs cleaning and new grips installed. 

Tommy Armour 845s Silver Scot - like the 8 above, this is part of the playing set I am using.  It swings well and I tend to hit it pretty straight - most times than night. Very few fat shots and when I swing it well, ball launches with good trajectory.  I love using it to practice bump and run chip shots around the yard, as its length is conducive putter style swings.  

MacGregor Mike Souchak TSL 090 - I am presuming this another "department" store style iron as well.  This club really surprised me.  It has a balance very similar to the cavity backs of the 845s yet it is a blade design that swings very well.  It's shaft length is about 3/4" shorter than the 845s.  It did not matter if I was on the driving pad or the grass, the club landed consistent on the ball with a small divot after and great ball flight. 

It was a fun exercise that revealed to me that it is not always a new club that makes the player, but rather how the player adapts to whatever club they are handed.  One thing I would like to do, is locate a full set of the Mike Souchak irons to play and see how a full set feels. In the same respect I have wondered if I ought to shorten the 845s to better match my height/wrist to floor length (5'-6", 32").  I know the best thing would be to go and be properly fitted....but for now, its just fun randomly trying fun stuff.

[cooke119]

I have a very old set of Spalding's, like 35 years, can't believe I actually played with them, they are junk. I also have a set of Ping Eye 2s which I take out every once in a while, they are fun to play with but I don't hit them well, not like my new Cleveland's. Interesting test you did, do you actually play these clubs or do you have a newer set?

[Patch]

I have a couple of old clubs I mess around with from time to time. 

One is a 2i, with what appears to have some sort of fiberglass(?) shaft on it. It is from the 1960s I believe. It's tough club to hit at first, but gets easier the longer I swing it. It definitely gives immediate, bone jarring feed back on mishits. 

Another club I have, is what I call a "suit case club". It's one of those adjustable clubs. It ranges from a 1 iron to a putter. Again, a really tough club to hit. Even putting with it is a major league chore. 

The third, old club I have is a Hogan, 6i, muscle back blade. Probably from the 1980's. Maybe a little newer. This club I can actually hit really well, and is a club I use regularly in some of my practice sessions. 

I hit all these clubs from time to time, just for the hell of it. They can be very humbling to say the least. 

[p1n9183]

I have an iron set of ping easy. They have 20 years old with me. I use them in the range, i never practice with my gaming clubs. They are not that far away in performance than my current Titleist Ap1 716.

The clubs you tested are legends! i used to play with club like that when i started as a kid 30 years ago. Good memories! when i played just for fun.

[WillieT]

3 hours ago, cooke119 said:

I have a very old set of Spalding's, like 35 years, can't believe I actually played with them, they are junk. I also have a set of Ping Eye 2s which I take out every once in a while, they are fun to play with but I don't hit them well, not like my new Cleveland's. Interesting test you did, do you actually play these clubs or do you have a newer set?

Yes I actually play the Tommy Armour 845s Silver Scots as I just started to play last summer and they were available at a great price (less than $50 for for 3-PW).  Since they are "Pat Pend" I am figuring they are close to 30yrs old.  I know its older technology and there are much more forgiving irons out there and as such I am considering newer production irons, but have a real fascination with the older irons and yes even "true" wood woods. 

[flashypaws]

On 1/24/2019 at 8:08 AM, WillieT said:

Today I decided to try something for fun. In the set of irons I "inherited" there is a mix of what I understand are department store style clubs - namely MacGregor, Spalding and even Lynx. 

the problem is really the department store shafts.

the other problem is those are really bad blade designs.  the souchak isnt terrible, its still not good though.  that nicklaus design is garbage.  if you managed to get it in the air, youre a friggin single digit player.  those are all a weird mid-60's concept of a higher center of gravity designed to hit low, boring, piercing shots.  but to hit those right, you almost have to take no divot.  theyre insanely hard to hit well, and theyre really not that cool when you do hit em well.  balls just bounce once and take off runnin to the back of the green.  unless its really soft conditions.

none of those are a muscleback.  a muscle back has extra weight in the very center of the back of the club.  and a lot of it.  right behind the ball.  the exact opposite of what we do today, where we take all that weight and spread it around the perimeter of the head.

youll know youre swinging a set of musclebacks when the range on youre 7 iron is 145-195 yards.  when you know youre 7 iron will land somewhere between 145 yard away and 195 yards away...  youve got yourself some genuine muscleback irons.  and what you wanna do with em is snap em all in half and throw em in the garbage.

just for the record, if you found a nice set of wilson staffs from the same era, or even an early set of pings from the early 70's, except for the "scoring lofts" you probably couldnt tell em apart from a new set of blades.  (clubs used to have much tighter gaps.  12 1/2 yard between clubs or so.  so...  you never really had more than a 20 ft putt.  but...  courses played longer.  you werent gettin home with a 3 iron from 240.)

[WillieT]

8 hours ago, flashypaws said:

the problem is really the department store shafts.

the other problem is those are really bad blade designs.  the souchak isnt terrible, its still not good though.  that nicklaus design is garbage.  if you managed to get it in the air, youre a friggin single digit player.  those are all a weird mid-60's concept of a higher center of gravity designed to hit low, boring, piercing shots.  but to hit those right, you almost have to take no divot.  theyre insanely hard to hit well, and theyre really not that cool when you do hit em well.  balls just bounce once and take off runnin to the back of the green.  unless its really soft conditions.

none of those are a muscleback.  a muscle back has extra weight in the very center of the back of the club.  and a lot of it.  right behind the ball.  the exact opposite of what we do today, where we take all that weight and spread it around the perimeter of the head.

youll know youre swinging a set of musclebacks when the range on youre 7 iron is 145-195 yards.  when you know youre 7 iron will land somewhere between 145 yard away and 195 yards away...  youve got yourself some genuine muscleback irons.  and what you wanna do with em is snap em all in half and throw em in the garbage.

just for the record, if you found a nice set of wilson staffs from the same era, or even an early set of pings from the early 70's, except for the "scoring lofts" you probably couldnt tell em apart from a new set of blades.  (clubs used to have much tighter gaps.  12 1/2 yard between clubs or so.  so...  you never really had more than a 20 ft putt.  but...  courses played longer.  you werent gettin home with a 3 iron from 240.)

Flashypaws - great info!  I appreciate, as a newbie to understanding club design, the clarification on what is a muscleback.  Guess the Nicklaus could be called a "fatback" because you will tend to hit fat....seriously your input confirmed what I was feeling about the Souchak design as being the better design of the "inherited" clubs.  I am enough of want to know more person that this exercise was great fun in trying to figure out what club designers were trying to accomplish at that time.  For now I will stick with the TA 845s Silver Scots as my main clubs.  I have noticed how lofts have become stronger where my TA 845s 8i is 40deg would play similarly loft wise to either a current 91 or even a PW....I tend to be older school with things - I love old guitar amps, older guitars and even effects.  I am still much an analog person in a digital world.  So I will always behind the curve on things like current golf technology....still its fun to read about it.  All that to say, I may look for a set of Wilsons from that era just to have for fun.

[DaveP043]

42 minutes ago, flashypaws said:

 but to hit those right, you almost have to take no divot.  theyre insanely hard to hit well, and theyre really not that cool when you do hit em well.  balls just bounce once and take off runnin to the back of the green.  unless its really soft conditions.

just for the record, if you found a nice set of wilson staffs from the same era, or even an early set of pings from the early 70's, except for the "scoring lofts" you probably couldnt tell em apart from a new set of blades.  (clubs used to have much tighter gaps.  12 1/2 yard between clubs or so.  so...  you never really had more than a 20 ft putt.  but...  courses played longer.  you werent gettin home with a 3 iron from 240.)

Some of this makes me chuckle.  The first bit, that these styles of clubs are insanely hard to hit, is just flat wrong.  All of us who started playing before maybe 1975 started with irons just like these.  If they were all that hard to hit, very few of us would have continued to play.  And to be honest, once you started to hit them reasonably solid, a proper balata golf ball would stop just fine on the green.

On the other hand, I had LOTS of putts longer than 20 feet, but that's largely because I wasn't a very good player.  And I have never got home with a 3-iron from 340, not when I was young, not now that I'm decidedly not young, and 90% or more of golfers are in the same boat.  

Enjoy your antiques for what they are.  I specifically remember the Tommy Armour 845's, they were a top of the line club when they were introduced.  

[WillieT]

Decided that I would continue exploring the 'inherited set' as it is truly a mix of irons different models from same/different manufacturers.  Today, I took out the resident 4 iron, a Macgregor Tourney. (see pic) I have not seen much on this "version" and as it is the only one of this model in the set, I figure it is a lone wolf acquisition that the PO had made in the past.  I paired it against the TA 845s Silver Scot 4i just for kicks. Knew this would be more of a test as I typically don't swing long irons in my around the yard practice ball sessions.  Between the clubs, the results were amazingly similar, the first round with the MacGregor was sweet!  Club felt sweet and shots were pretty true.  The TA 845s was almost as true as I had few more missed hits but still fun to swing.  Definite fun comparing irons...