Retro Testing - Can the Old Guys Keep Up with the New Kids?

[Subdiver1]

The "Ball roll back" discussion referred so many times to how advancements in technology, club and ball design have made courses too short that I wanted to see just how much of an advantage my new clubs might provide over the ones I played in “back in the day” (boy that phrase makes me feel old).  So, I headed over to the storage unit to do some digging around for my Titleist Tour Model irons (circa 1980) and whatever else I could find.  Interestingly enough, earlier in the day I stumbled across the MGS Titleist 975D vs. TSR3 video from last October (https://mygolfspy.com/retro-golf-2023-titleist-tsr-versus-1998-titleist-975d/).  I was surprised by the results MGS got.  Since I just so happen to have gamed a 975D back in the day, and swear I was able to drive it longer than 250 (isn’t memory a wonderful thing) and since I still have that driver, I figured I'd add it to the mix and see what my testing would show.  

Weather conditions: 

-60 deg F, sunny and clear. 

-4 MPH breeze blowing from the right of the range.  Unfortunately, shots had to be hit off the mats.  I would have preferred au natural, but…

Equipment: 

-1980 Titleist Tour Model Forged irons (Club Specs: https://www.titleist.com/golf-clubs/irons/1979-tour-model)

-True Temper Dynamic Stiff, steel shafts (I think I had these reshafted in the late 80s or early 90s)

-Lamkin Oversize Perma-Wrap grips

-2019 Taylormade P790 irons ( Club Specs: https://www.taylormadegolf.com/P790-Irons/DW-TA228.html?lang=en_US)

-Oban CT-115 S, steel shafts

-Winn Dry-Tac oversize grips 

-Titleist 975 D, 8.5 deg driver, 

-Grafalloy ProLite +35 Stiff shaft

-Lamkin Oversize Perma-Wrap grip

-Swing Caddie SC300 launch monitor

-Wilson range balls

Hypothesis: The old irons won't be as "hot" as the new, but the difference won't be more than one club.  

I recall being able to hit the ball pretty long before a couple of surgeries restricted my movement and fitness routines.  But with the MGS testing I was left wondering if I wasn't one of those guys who over estimated his distance as a rule, rather than an exception.

Let's get the 975D out of the way first.  I was just as long with the 975D as I am with my G400.  Interesting. 

No

Now for the really interesting stuff.   The iron comparison (Red chart) was pretty eye opening to the advantage of new equipment; at first look.  Then I realized the loft numbers and the discussion over "jacked lofts" may be relevant to the results (club specs can be found at the links provided next to each up in the Equipment section).  So, I went back to look at the numbers again and do some additional analysis (Green chart).  Look at the 12 yard advantage (Red chart) the P790s have over the old "blades" absent comparison of the loft length of each club the numbers look definitively in favor or new gear.  But when we consider those other factors things start to look a little different (Red chart, right columns for comparison, Green chart for test data).  

Comparing test data for similarly lofted clubs starts to paint a different picture.  For 2 of the 3 comparisons the older Titleist had the advantage.  I don't think 0.5 degrees of loft is giving me 10 yards of advantage.  Maybe the 4-6I and 5-7 comparison.  I REALLY don't want to start the whole "jacked loft" discussion back up.  We can clearly see that while the TM and Titleist iron static lofts are now similar, the launch angle of the TM 6 and 7 irons is clearly higher, resulting in a higher flight Apex (Green table).  So, more height, about the same carry is arguably advantageous.     

Conclusion:

1. (supported by objective data) We need to change the paradigm of labeling irons as 3, 4, 5 etc. and shift to loft numbers (30 deg, 45 deg etc) like we do on wedges; apples to apples comparison.

Not having some old Titleist DT 100s or Maxfli DDH IIs to throw into the mix means I couldn't compare ball performance with each iron to see what contribution that made to the equation.  The things is, anecdotally speaking, I recall hitting the ball a similar distance in my youth to what the data here shows; admittedly those balls probably spun way more (especially the balatas).  This is born out by the Driver data.  Aside form the launch monitor data the range had a flag posted at 274 yards, which I verified with a range finder.  I carried several of the tested drive shots to the landing area around the flag; so visual verification of launch monitor data occurred.  As much as we want to lean on technology helping the young guys, and some veterans, "overpower" courses the data here gives me pause on that claim. 

I look forward to your thoughts.

[revkev]

Interesting but there are other factors in play starting with shaft length and perimeter weighting of modern iron heads, Leigh tee overall club weight, etc. 

Do lofts get jacked for marketing purposes? Not entirely they were adjusted to hit certain windows. 
 

Additionally certain swing types may benefit from more loft rather than less. Modern fitters are able to identify that because they have greater available data to work with.  
 

Bottom line I think the actual performance difference between the irons lies in-between your two charts. What we aren’t seen is the most important aspect of iron play, dispersion. 
 

Cool test - thanks for sharing 

[Subdiver1]

4 minutes ago, revkev said:

Interesting but there are other factors in play starting with shaft length and perimeter weighting of modern iron heads, Leigh tee overall club weight, etc. 

Do lofts get jacked for marketing purposes? Not entirely they were adjusted to hit certain windows. 
 

Additionally certain swing types may benefit from more loft rather than less. Modern fitters are able to identify that because they have greater available data to work with.  
 

Bottom line I think the actual performance difference between the irons lies in-between your two charts. What we aren’t seen is the most important aspect of iron play, dispersion. 
 

Cool test - thanks for sharing 

Concur with you.  The benefit of head and shaft advancement is that we can really tweak the club to a given swing for maximum benefit.  Back when these Titleist were the new stuff other than an R or S shaft option that was it.  Sure they could tweak lie and loft by heating and bending the hosel but we didn't have the analysis equipment to really tell what was beneficial over what somebody "thought" might be better.  

For me the answer to your dispersion question was, "WOW!  Why did I ever put these in storage?"  Other than a few mis-hit shots, which really didn't end of being all that bad, other than short, I was REALLY happy with how well shots held my line and after dialing in some distance expectations I was dropping shots where I was trying to.  I do believe my P790, the T200s I hit last fall, the PXG Gen 5 and 6 irons I hit in the last couple of months and many others of the new players distance and game improvement clubs are way more forgiving than these 1980 blades.  With all that being said, if you take a look the wear pattern on my P790 7-iron face  you'd probably echo the PXG fitter I recently worked with who said something alongs the lines of, "I guess consistent contact is not an issue for you."  But that was where Callaway (like them or not) jump started the  stride toward benefitting the regular recreational golfer over the years; starting with bigger heads and larger sweet spot which improved their misses being tighter and more controlled.  I'd be the original Tommy Armour 845s were probably more forgiving than these.  Ping probably was too, but I could never get into them.  More toward your point on dispersion, notice the spin numbers on the table I just added; 3, 4 & 5 Iron spin diff wasn't too bad, but from 6I on down it gets a bit disconcerting.  I imagine this was typical in clubs back in those days, spin control was not so easy to measure or compensate for.  We couldn't just swap 14 different shafts out to dial a club in for each individual (again, regular to stiff shaft?  Kind of like ordering a beer in 1983 vs. 2023, did you want beer, or not beer?  Now you need 4-days and a chemistry degree to decide which "beer" you want).  Spin was where I struggled when I was younger (just a year or two really ;D) if/when I started cutting the ball; I could go from blowing it by the dads to slinging a HUGE slice over into another state when I really got after it; especially with those old persimmon drivers.  I'd love to be able to be able to swap the shaft on these heads out like we can with new club heads and then compare something like the P770, T100, Mizuno Pro P221/225 etc.  That would really give us and idea of how far head performance had come. 

Good feedback though, thank you.  Glad you enjoyed it. 

Club

 

[Shapotomous]

Very interesting experiment!  Maybe i missed it in the posts but are the iron lengths the same from set to set?

I have an early 70's set of wilson staffs and in comparing them to my current Mizuno JPX 900 forged irons the main difference (besides about a 2 club loft difference) is the forgiveness on my tendency to miss hit toe side.  The Mizzy's dont penalize me nearly as bad as the staffs.   

I felt the same thing as you with the driver and fairway woods....man do the old guys feel heavy!  There isn't much difference in distance between similar lofts between the old & new but the old are harder for me to get any height and miss hits are heavily penalized.

[Subdiver1]

1 hour ago, Shapotomous said:

Very interesting experiment!  Maybe i missed it in the posts but are the iron lengths the same from set to set?

I have an early 70's set of wilson staffs and in comparing them to my current Mizuno JPX 900 forged irons the main difference (besides about a 2 club loft difference) is the forgiveness on my tendency to miss hit toe side.  The Mizzy's dont penalize me nearly as bad as the staffs.   

I felt the same thing as you with the driver and fairway woods....man do the old guys feel heavy!  There isn't much difference in distance between similar lofts between the old & new but the old are harder for me to get any height and miss hits are heavily penalized.

I had links to the iron specs that show lengths, but didn't specifically provide that data in the earlier post.  The lengths for the irons 3I to 3I, 4I to 4I were comparatively close; +.05" advantage TM; but when using comparative lofted clubs (e.g. Titleist 3 to TM 5), the length advantage shifted to +.05" in favor of the older Titleist.   As far as swing speed goes, the differential was varied, and swapped when comparing clubs based on loft (of course the length advantage swapped as well).  Something I learned a few years ago about club length was that "Standard" length back then (pre-2000s I think) was 1/2" shorter than what it is today; so that checks with the manufacturers stats provided below (from the links).  There is obviously going to be some ball speed advantage when there is swing speed advantage.  I think I provided the data you are looking for below. 

To your point on forgiveness, I would agree that our newer irons are more forgiving than the old blades.  Concentration on MOI, perimeter weighting and other technical advances definitely seem to help that.  A discussion I had just this afternoon spoke a little to your point and my perception that I hit these old irons well; 1. I hit down on the ball so I don't have to worry about catching the turf and getting caught in it like those with a sweeper swing who benefit a wider sole; 2. I think (opinion here) that having a smaller head, and being very aware of that when I sat the club behind the ball, I was really focused on contact and not trying to kill the ball too try and "keep up" with the newer clubs.  But, I would agree that my P790s are going to be, overall and in the long run, more forgiving than these old Tour Models; but they sure were fun to play with.  

 As far as perceived weight goes, the Wilson 1200 "wood" woods really do heavier than any fairway metals I have.  They are also quite a bit shorter.  The 975D kind of felt that way, heavy, but I almost wonder if because it looked small, but was really about the same weight that I mentally considered it "heavy."  I didn't notice/perceive any weight difference in the irons, but they should all be in the D2/3 range so there really shouldn't be a weight difference there.  Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Shapotomous]

There is about a 1/2" length difference as the standard between "older" and "modern" irons although "modern" refers way back to probably late 80's which seems "older" to a lot of folks!  I was wondering if your Titleists fell into the "older" length or not.

I agree with point #2 about mentally bearing down to hit the sweet spot of the smaller head.  I use the 4i from the Palmer First Flight set from the late 70's to hit balls into my net for this reason.  With the instant feedback on face impact location, I hope it ingrains a concentration level into my swing that a more forgiving club may not. 

The classic staffs are fun to take out for a few rounds per year.  I am surprised at the distance I still get from the old persimmon driver.  I think someone here mentioned it is a good idea to play softer balls with the older persimmons so i use Callaway super softs for those rounds.

[Subdiver1]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:26 AM, Shapotomous said:

so i use Callaway super softs for those rounds

I didn't even think of that.  When I get a chance to break them out I'll go through my shag bag and grab some of that type ball for the testing.  It is probably a good idea, though we did have the Top Flite XL and then Pinnacle back in the 80s that were about as hard as any golf ball could be without actually being igneous rock. 

They do follow the charts so they are the "older," shorter length.  I enjoyed playing with them.  It is just hard to keep up with others playing the newer gear, especially the young bucks who hit the ball a mile.

[Hook DeLoft]

Just for kicks, it would interesting to see the numbers using wound balata balls vs. the modern ball.  Would the old clubs spin the ball even more with the balata causing a big fall off in distance?  Would the balata with the new clubs increase playable spin?

[Subdiver1]

On 4/11/2023 at 2:19 PM, Hook DeLoft said:

Just for kicks, it would interesting to see the numbers using wound balata balls vs. the modern ball.  Would the old clubs spin the ball even more with the balata causing a big fall off in distance?  Would the balata with the new clubs increase playable spin?

Definitely a good question, it occurred to me as well.  Apparently it also occurred to people.with resources and it has been done.  Interesting results.  I definitely recall more distance with DT 100 vs. Balata balls, but the feel of the Balata was so soft; like hitting a cotton ball.  Of course if you skulled one you were lucky to only have to search for one piece, but the feel and spin on clean shots was the definition of pure.  Anyway, it looks like we have data.  I found a couple of old balls at the range the other day, I'll have to take a couple of pics and post them so we can date them; personally I am thinking 1970s or early 80s. 

https://golf.com/gear/robot-testing-modern-equipment-balata-ball-results/?amp=1

[JollyGreenBucket]

This is super cool! Thank you for doing it. It makes me kind of think...maybe there just isn't that much difference between the irons, and really the big difference is in CG placement which helps get the peak height up? Or am I misreading your data?

[vandyland]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:58 PM, Subdiver1 said:

We need to change the paradigm of labeling irons as 3, 4, 5 etc. and shift to loft numbers (30 deg, 45 deg etc) like we do on wedges; apples to apples comparison.

Back when Terry Koehler was in charge at Ben Hogan they tried printing the lofts on the bottom of irons rather than call it a "7 iron" for example. You may be able to see in the picture below this clubs says "34" so probably a 7 iron. As I recall it was hard for many people to get used to that. 

There are people smarter than me but since we move CG around (especially in the game improvement clubs) now so much in irons, I think @revkev makes a good point talking about "windows" and, by extension, I would say land angle as well. If you drop the CG lower and farther back, wouldn't that naturally launch it higher even at the same loft? So as we have diversified away from just blades in the 60s and 70s and moved into more and more types of iron designs, some of those seem to benefit from stronger lofts. 

But I also agree it is funny when someone hits a 27.5* 7 iron (mine is 35*) and then puffs their chest out because they hit it 180 yds. Never mind it missed the green 20 yds right and 15 yds long, haha. 

 

[Hook DeLoft]

13 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

Definitely a good question, it occurred to me as well.  Apparently it also occurred to people.with resources and it has been done.  Interesting results.  I definitely recall more distance with DT 100 vs. Balata balls, but the feel of the Balata was so soft; like hitting a cotton ball.  Of course if you skulled one you were lucky to only have to search for one piece, but the feel and spin on clean shots was the definition of pure.  Anyway, it looks like we have data.  I found a couple of old balls at the range the other day, I'll have to take a couple of pics and post them so we can date them; personally I am thinking 1970s or early 80s. 

https://golf.com/gear/robot-testing-modern-equipment-balata-ball-results/?amp=1

Thanks for the link. I’ve been saying for years that most of the distance increase is due to the ball. One thing to consider is that the modern ball’s lower spin allows players to swing harder without worrying about huge misses. Add in launch monitors that allow optimization of launch conditions, players hitting the gym and tight, firm fairways and you have a recipe for huge distances at the elite level. One question I would have for the authors of the article is how much performance change would occur with a wound balata ball over time even though the balls were sealed.