Yamaha Tour Blades similar to Hogan Channelback blades??

[vanla01]

Doesn't it look like the Yamaha blades are the modern version of the Hogan Channelback blades??

Edited November 12, 2012 by vanla01

[potuna]

Nope.

[vanla01]

Nope.

I'm definitely curious with recent forgings from ENDO. The Epon Personals were similar to the Hogan Apex and the new Yamaha Tours have a similar look as well.

Edited November 12, 2012 by vanla01

[Ian-500]

Can't see it myself

[chiromikey]

i did see it and to be honest, there probably isn't a blade design that hogan hasn't come up with over the years...

[+TourSpecGolfer]

Depends on what you mean by similar, that they have channel then yes but so have many.

everything else is totally different about it.

[MoreBeerBetterGolf]

How can people not see that aside from the lettering and finish that they're essentially the same design? I'm not knocking Yamaha and I'm a big JDM homer like everyone else here and there's no question there are remarkable design similarities. Not just these but the Personals as well.

I'm curious also Chris what make them completely different from each other other than looks? I mean, a blade is a hunk of forged steel whose playing characteristics are mostly determined by the CG and club weighting, the positioning of the mass creates both the look and the performance of the club. Granted they are likely somewhat different in muscle thickness and weight placement, length of toe to heel, etc. using computer models that probably didn't exist when the Hogans were made.

Physics are physics and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there isn't much Yamaha or anyone else can do to drastically improve the performance of blade irons. At this stage it's just finding something you like to look at that feels right to you.

[bogeydog]

Not sure what Yamaha has done however they have been masters at tweaking their designs to alter cg and spin. Maybe they have internal weighting?

[RIduffer]

Aesthetically, a channel is a channel. They look similar. One would hope, beyond the face milling there is some incremental technology/knowledge incorporated into the non visual characteristics...

[Spoon]

nope not at all

[vincent]

not similar at all...

[+TourSpecGolfer]

Metal on stick, swing swing ball go good golf fun! Ball white round, small vroom vroom to next field.

Yes physics are physics and each iron has different physics. When generalized CBs are the same as blades as well. Hunks of metal.

Steak is meat, diamonds are Shimmery stone, watch tells time, car is motor 4 wheels and seat.

Everything is different especially performance due to the changes in design.

Golf equipment has grown a lot in the last 5 years, if your critical you can see improvements even in the last 1-2 years.

[idrive]

First glance.

After further review I think if you get a chance to hold these side by side they are,

for both being blades, quite different in shape.

[MoreBeerBetterGolf]

I think my point was missed entirely and my wording taken out of context.

The Yamaha almost certainly is an upgrade in both playability and feel over the Hogan, even though they are very similar in design characteristics in the way they distributed the weight in the head by use of the channel. Said improvements almost certainly come from more precise discretionary weight placement, CG placement, and physical dimensions of the head that modern technology allows.

But when everyone is working with the same type of steel, similar head weights, computer design software, expert forging, etc., there can only be so much discretionary weight to be placed around the head, in so many combinations when dealing with a blade type iron. Computer analysis has been out long enough that iron heads have been optimized for MOI, CG, and feel for some time. The tweaks being made on blades especially may fit some players' swing profile or perception of better than the same company's previous models....but are hardly revolutionary. Even the aesthetics seem to be getting rehashed on certain levels. And it is ok to admit it.

It's almost as if sales of JDM products rely on some notion that there is voodoo magic involved that allows manufacturers to somehow bend the rules of physics. Sorry kids, there is no Easter Bunny and Santa is your weird uncle John in a fat suit and a fake beard. No one wants to hear it but it's true. It's okay to acknowledge basic truths, be honest about the state of the art in our discussions, and still embrace the new offerings as incredible works of art that have been tweaked enough from year to year to keep us trying them in search of our "Holy Grail(s)."

Everyone knows JDM is top notch stuff and the people here--myself included--are junkies for it. I was considering ordering a set and I'm a bit disappointed that they essentially look like an updated version of a ~20 year old Hogan design.

PS: If TM had come out with the Yamaha design, called it "ChannelBladez", and someone posted comparison pics, all Hell would break loose. But since its Yamaha...OhNoYouDi'int!!!!

Edited November 14, 2012 by MoreBeerBetterGolf

[ant]

there been plenty of advancements in blade design but mostly around more length from the club, ease of use and currently preferred ball flight which it seems to be the higher the better. there are 'blades' with significant amount of offset, lower and towards the toe cg placement and probably inside blade cavities, inserts and weight ports and god knows what else in some models. none of that of course what true blade is all about but this is how it is and true blade is pretty much thing of the past now. if you want true blade there is little you can do to improve on models circa 60s or so, its all been done before.

[+TourSpecGolfer]

I think my point was missed entirely and my wording taken out of context.

The Yamaha almost certainly is an upgrade in both playability and feel over the Hogan, even though they are very similar in design characteristics in the way they distributed the weight in the head by use of the channel. Said improvements almost certainly come from more precise discretionary weight placement, CG placement, and physical dimensions of the head that modern technology allows.

But when everyone is working with the same type of steel, similar head weights, computer design software, expert forging, etc., there can only be so much discretionary weight to be placed around the head, in so many combinations when dealing with a blade type iron. Computer analysis has been out long enough that iron heads have been optimized for MOI, CG, and feel for some time. The tweaks being made on blades especially may fit some players' swing profile or perception of better than the same company's previous models....but are hardly revolutionary. Even the aesthetics seem to be getting rehashed on certain levels. And it is ok to admit it.

It's almost as if sales of JDM products rely on some notion that there is voodoo magic involved that allows manufacturers to somehow bend the rules of physics. Sorry kids, there is no Easter Bunny and Santa is your weird uncle John in a fat suit and a fake beard. No one wants to hear it but it's true. It's okay to acknowledge basic truths, be honest about the state of the art in our discussions, and still embrace the new offerings as incredible works of art that have been tweaked enough from year to year to keep us trying them in search of our "Holy Grail(s)."

Everyone knows JDM is top notch stuff and the people here--myself included--are junkies for it. I was considering ordering a set and I'm a bit disappointed that they essentially look like an updated version of a ~20 year old Hogan design.

PS: If TM had come out with the Yamaha design, called it "ChannelBladez", and someone posted comparison pics, all Hell would break loose. But since its Yamaha...OhNoYouDi'int!!!!

I understand your general point butif you think this way why would you be surprised about this?

If you think these are a set of updated hogans because they have a channel I don't know what else to say.

Voodoo magic isn't exclusive to JDM gear or Yamaha or TM or even the Golf Industry. it's called marketing and new product release and there are still tangible developments in tech, design & performance even today.

Physics? please tell us about the physics of both these sets of irons outside of that they look similar.

With all due respect i feel The point your making is vague and generalized and it also applies to just about anything from cavity backs to answer putters to wedges and on and on.

I suggest you hit both sets built to the same specs side by side then tell us your thoughts on feel, forgiveness, trajectory, dispersion, and distance.

[MarkColby]

The Hogan has a muscle at the bottom, then a channel (recess) and then sticks back out at the top. The Yamaha has a muscle, then an indent and a further indent. It never comes back out, which means it's NOT a channel. Don't see it.

[MarkColby]

I think my point was missed entirely and my wording taken out of context.

The Yamaha almost certainly is an upgrade in both playability and feel over the Hogan, even though they are very similar in design characteristics in the way they distributed the weight in the head by use of the channel. Said improvements almost certainly come from more precise discretionary weight placement, CG placement, and physical dimensions of the head that modern technology allows.

But when everyone is working with the same type of steel, similar head weights, computer design software, expert forging, etc., there can only be so much discretionary weight to be placed around the head, in so many combinations when dealing with a blade type iron. Computer analysis has been out long enough that iron heads have been optimized for MOI, CG, and feel for some time. The tweaks being made on blades especially may fit some players' swing profile or perception of better than the same company's previous models....but are hardly revolutionary. Even the aesthetics seem to be getting rehashed on certain levels. And it is ok to admit it.

It's almost as if sales of JDM products rely on some notion that there is voodoo magic involved that allows manufacturers to somehow bend the rules of physics. Sorry kids, there is no Easter Bunny and Santa is your weird uncle John in a fat suit and a fake beard. No one wants to hear it but it's true. It's okay to acknowledge basic truths, be honest about the state of the art in our discussions, and still embrace the new offerings as incredible works of art that have been tweaked enough from year to year to keep us trying them in search of our "Holy Grail(s)."

Everyone knows JDM is top notch stuff and the people here--myself included--are junkies for it. I was considering ordering a set and I'm a bit disappointed that they essentially look like an updated version of a ~20 year old Hogan design.

PS: If TM had come out with the Yamaha design, called it "ChannelBladez", and someone posted comparison pics, all Hell would break loose. But since its Yamaha...OhNoYouDi'int!!!!

Actually, I think the biggest advancements in blade (or MB) design has come from the turf interaction (i.e. sole grind).

[chiromikey]

The Hogan has a muscle at the bottom, then a channel (recess) and then sticks back out at the top. The Yamaha has a muscle, then an indent and a further indent. It never comes back out, which means it's NOT a channel. Don't see it.

well i certainly see a channel on the yamis...

[gus]

These Yamaha blades are literally the best looking irons I've EVER seen in my life, I want a set so bad, I'm lobbying my Wife big time...BB

[pk923]

I think my point was missed entirely and my wording taken out of context.

The Yamaha almost certainly is an upgrade in both playability and feel over the Hogan, even though they are very similar in design characteristics in the way they distributed the weight in the head by use of the channel. Said improvements almost certainly come from more precise discretionary weight placement, CG placement, and physical dimensions of the head that modern technology allows.

But when everyone is working with the same type of steel, similar head weights, computer design software, expert forging, etc., there can only be so much discretionary weight to be placed around the head, in so many combinations when dealing with a blade type iron. Computer analysis has been out long enough that iron heads have been optimized for MOI, CG, and feel for some time. The tweaks being made on blades especially may fit some players' swing profile or perception of better than the same company's previous models....but are hardly revolutionary. Even the aesthetics seem to be getting rehashed on certain levels. And it is ok to admit it.

It's almost as if sales of JDM products rely on some notion that there is voodoo magic involved that allows manufacturers to somehow bend the rules of physics. Sorry kids, there is no Easter Bunny and Santa is your weird uncle John in a fat suit and a fake beard. No one wants to hear it but it's true. It's okay to acknowledge basic truths, be honest about the state of the art in our discussions, and still embrace the new offerings as incredible works of art that have been tweaked enough from year to year to keep us trying them in search of our "Holy Grail(s)."

Everyone knows JDM is top notch stuff and the people here--myself included--are junkies for it. I was considering ordering a set and I'm a bit disappointed that they essentially look like an updated version of a ~20 year old Hogan design.

PS: If TM had come out with the Yamaha design, called it "ChannelBladez", and someone posted comparison pics, all Hell would break loose. But since its Yamaha...OhNoYouDi'int!!!!

Have to disagree with u here sir : ) I have had the opportunity to hit both the hogan apex and the personals and they are not the same beast. They look similar but play really different. At the end of the day, looks is only one part of the equation, I am willing to pay the asking price only if the gear perform. Like Chris said, u just have to try them : )

[chiromikey]

i don't think anyone would argue they play differently... but as has been alluded to, this might have more to do with sole grind/turf interaction and maybe shaft choice more than anything else.