How about playing golf for 50 years and using both old and current clubs. It's called experience. That is why I used the term "personal experience". They didn't really have Trackman in those days.
Let's switch it around. Have YOU any data to support all the statements you have been making?
I refer you to my question in Post #42.
I would define a traditionally lofted 7-iron to be 38 degrees. At least, that would be typical from the 1970s to the 1990s.
Annoyed is a strange word to use?? I'm curious as to what the word 'forgiveness' is supposed to mean, not annoyed by it??
In terms of traditional lofts, I would define it as a 7I being 34 degrees rather than 30 (or even 28).
And in terms of buying something, that is why I am asking the question.
I am in the market for new irons later this year and much prefer the top-down look of blades/players irons, compared with my current Ping G irons. However, I will play whatever set is best for me. My definition of 'best' is the set that gives the tightest front to back dispersion on all but total mishits, I'm not interested in what the number on the bottom of the club says or how far the seven iron actually carries. The marketing would suggest that I should stay in a set like my G irons, but other evidence suggests that what I might need is a players iron. I'm curious as to the experience/knowledge of others on this subject, I'm most definitely not annoyed by it?
Differences between GI irons and blades for me are as follows:
Size:
GI clubs are bigger, this can be a huge factor if you're not hitting the ball well or if changing from GI to blades.
Bigger heads mean you have more leeway before you're getting towards the edge of the club..... or the hosel!
It also helps with MOI as more weight can be put towards the perimeter, away from the sweet spot.
Loft:
GI clubs are generally stronger lofted, this doesn't affect forgiveness in any way but can inspire confidence as the user thinks that they're longer than their old blades, but on the downside they have to buy extra wedges.
Face trampoline effect:
This is probably the element that contributes most to the OPs concerns about distance.
Modern GI clubs tend to have hot faces (high trampoline effect) which can produce the occasional shot that goes much further than normal.
It used to be that blades were a one piece lump of solid metal, cast or forged, and they were very predictable. More and more modern blades, however, are going to multi material and hollow head construction with thin faces which allows the manufacturers to increase the trampoline effect and squeeze some extra yardage out, after all, distance is everything isn't it?
Perimeter weighting:
This is probably how a GI club is most easily recognised, a cavity back with weight moved to the perimeter. This doesn't increase the size of the sweet spot, that's a spot and doesn't have a size as such, but it does mean that strikes away from the sweet spot will lose less speed than a true blade. But this is where the waters are being muddied. Many modern blades are now multi-material with tungsten weights in the heel and toe or hollow headed with disguised perimeter weighting that you can't see as it's inside the hollow head.
Again a true blade is a single, solid piece of metal.
To answer the OP I'd say that the most forgiving and consistent club you could use would be an older GI club without a hot face, but the very movement of weight to the perimeter tends to create a thinner face which leads to the trampoline effect so look for one without too thin a face.
The least forgiving clubs are those with small heads and weight concentrated behind the sweet spot, these were produced back in the early part of the 20th century but luckily it was recognised that they weren't doing what was hoped and the design was dropped.
Three examples below:
Solid, predictable GI club; 1970s Ryder Heel Toe (easy to find for little money on ebay)
Diamond back, hickory iron, weight concentrated at the sweet spot
Centre weighted blade; 1950s Slazenger STM (an older model so not very easy to find)
View attachment 40950View attachment 40953View attachment 40951
Differences between GI irons and blades for me are as follows:
Size:
GI clubs are bigger, this can be a huge factor if you're not hitting the ball well or if changing from GI to blades.
Bigger heads mean you have more leeway before you're getting towards the edge of the club..... or the hosel!
It also helps with MOI as more weight can be put towards the perimeter, away from the sweet spot.
Loft:
GI clubs are generally stronger lofted, this doesn't affect forgiveness in any way but can inspire confidence as the user thinks that they're longer than their old blades, but on the downside they have to buy extra wedges.
Face trampoline effect:
This is probably the element that contributes most to the OPs concerns about distance.
Modern GI clubs tend to have hot faces (high trampoline effect) which can produce the occasional shot that goes much further than normal.
It used to be that blades were a one piece lump of solid metal, cast or forged, and they were very predictable. More and more modern blades, however, are going to multi material and hollow head construction with thin faces which allows the manufacturers to increase the trampoline effect and squeeze some extra yardage out, after all, distance is everything isn't it?
Perimeter weighting:
This is probably how a GI club is most easily recognised, a cavity back with weight moved to the perimeter. This doesn't increase the size of the sweet spot, that's a spot and doesn't have a size as such, but it does mean that strikes away from the sweet spot will lose less speed than a true blade. But this is where the waters are being muddied. Many modern blades are now multi-material with tungsten weights in the heel and toe or hollow headed with disguised perimeter weighting that you can't see as it's inside the hollow head.
Again a true blade is a single, solid piece of metal.
To answer the OP I'd say that the most forgiving and consistent club you could use would be an older GI club without a hot face, but the very movement of weight to the perimeter tends to create a thinner face which leads to the trampoline effect so look for one without too thin a face.
The least forgiving clubs are those with small heads and weight concentrated behind the sweet spot, these were produced back in the early part of the 20th century but luckily it was recognised that they weren't doing what was hoped and the design was dropped.
Three examples below:
Solid, predictable GI club; 1970s Ryder Heel Toe (easy to find for little money on ebay)
Diamond back, hickory iron, weight concentrated at the sweet spot
Centre weighted blade; 1950s Slazenger STM (an older model so not very easy to find)
View attachment 40950View attachment 40953View attachment 40951
But that would be inconsistent with the concept of 'same peak height for a particular numbered iron' suggested by @phillarrow
Be happy then!
I honestly think some of you guys are too good at golf too appreciate the forgiveness.
Be happy then!
In spite of those weights being different from the ones I've seen and quoted, they are very specific - which indicates standardisation. I've actually seen the same values elsewhere too.
I'm not disagreeing with you about what may be the design goals of normalising peak height of 'new' irons with previous models, simply your assertion that that is how each iron head is defined!
My assertion is that a lump of metal of a standard weight is moulded to a shape that achieves the design goals!
When it comes to irons surely you are talking about face open or closed face, swing path, and target line. A driver may have tech which can help you square the club face but hit an iron with an open face on an out to in path and nothing in the club is stopping the ball going right.
Nothing on you but there have been numerous references to older blades on this thread. It may be heresy, but the modern blade has no comparison to older versions.
