PopIt&DropIt, on 03 April 2018 - 04:24 PM, said:
DeNinny, on 03 April 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:
The baby blade is the best design for all players and all golf clubs. I have two sets of BBs and a set of Retro TBs (which are the same design, minus conforming grooves, as the standard TBs) and the BB sets are superior in all ways.
I could get into a lot more detail than this but the smaller head is what makes the BBs better. Because of that design difference, they have a better chance of making clean ball contact and there is less torque put on the hands from the force of impact.
I for one would support you going into a lot more detail if you decided you wanted to. I'll read it and appreciate it
With that said you are preaching to the choir. I never realized how many negative situations thicker soles can create until playing these. As a sweeper these are extremely forgiving in that context.
Details? LOL you say you want some details? Oooookaaaay...
Let's tackle the bigger sole issue first. And again, as I do this, it is important to note that we must assume or set all other variables equal as we analyze just the one variable which in this case is the sole surface area of the club. I like to state this up front because it is a very important assumption when evaluating multivariable math systems.
So anyway, the issue with a club with a bigger surface area sole (regardless of whether or not it is from length or width) as compared to one with a smaller surface area is that it literally will increase the chances of some part of that sole contacting the ground before the face of the club contacts the ball. This would constitute a fat miss hit. The big ball was hit before the little ball.
I hope this is obvious but LOL since you want detail let's look at a specific example. Let's say we have a longer clubhead and a shorter clubhead (again with all other things being equal). The longer club naturally has the bigger surface area sole. Now with a perfect swing, the issue with the sole is not an issue. The sole of each club stays above the ground and does not contact it before the face hits the ball.
Now let's add a specific miss hit to this. Now let's say the clubhead is coming into the ball with the heel at the same height with both clubs but the lie angle of the clubhead is tilting such that the toe is angled more downward than the heel. Now clearly the toe is going to contact the ground first in this example, and, furthermore and unequivocally, the longer clubhead toe is going to hang lower relative to the heel than the shorter clubhead toe by virtue of the fact that it is longer. Therefore the longer clubhead toe is the more unforgiving clubhead based on sole surface area.
This is just a simple specific example of the issue with a longer clubhead than a shorter one but it also works the same way with clubhead sole widths. The thicker clubhead sole width will also have a higher chance of rubbing the ground before the clubface contacts the ball as compared to a thinner clubhead sole (all other things equal). Also bounce has the same issue. Higher bounce clubs have a higher surface area sole and so they too have the same issue of increased chance for contacting the ground before the clubface contacts the ball. (When the leading edge is at the same height, the higher bounce clubhead hangs lower at the literal bottom.)
To put it another way more simply: with a bigger sole surface area there is literal mass to hit the ground with whereas there is the absence of that same mass with the smaller sole surface area.
And beyond just ground contact, a smaller surface area sole will also cut through all media (grass, dirt, sand, water, etc) better. The sole will rub against any media that has to pass under it, and so when there is more surface area there will be a greater force of friction on that surface area which will slow the clubhead down more. So therefore if you want the least friction as a clubhead passes over any media, then the you need the smallest sole surface area club.
So with respect to sole surface area, the baby blade design is virtually the best out there. (Maybe the Wilson FG-59 blade comes close to it.)
Now let's look at the muscle thickness or more specifically the part of the clubhead that will literally come into contact with the ball. This part of a clubhead design is important for creating consistent spin. And the reason is because temporary deformation of any material (including the carbon steel clubhead) has a mathematical relation (or rather relations) that make the material thickness directly proportional to the magnitude of deformation under a given force. What this means in layman's terms is that the thicker the material, the less it deform under a force. And so when you consider the force of the ball pushing into the face of the clubhead at impact, it will be unequivocally true that the thicker face wall will deform the least amount. And so a ball that compresses (which ultimately creates the spin on the ball) against a thick walled face will more consistently compress and thus spin.
By contrast, when the face wall gets thinner and is supported by thick perimeter walls, then that clubface will flex inward more when the round ball compresses against it. Because the face flexes inwards more, then the ball compresses less, which in turn serves to damp the spin on the ball. But beyond this, the real issue with this type of face and clubhead design is that it will make the spin inconsistent in addition to damping it. By analogy, the face will behave much like a trampoline where the flex is the greatest at the middle, but then, as you approach the edges, that side of the ball will not flex as much as the other side that is closer to the middle. When you jump up and down on a trampoline, you will bounce straight up and down if you do it at the very middle. But if you start jumping up and down closer to the edge, you will notice the trampoline will tend to bounce you back towards the middle. And so for a trampoline like clubface, this makes for a varying face angle depending on how close to the edges of that face that you hit it. Net result: more inconsistent spin than the thicker face walled club (which again does not flex as much, so it is more consistent).
Now if you really want to get into more details on this, you have to understand the Young's (or modulus of elasticity), bulk, and shear moduli for all materials and the math behind them. If you study the math, you will always see that there is a length or thickness dimension in the formulas relating the force and amount of deformation (as compared to that base length or thickness). I learned about all this from two books from college: 1) Introduction to Materials Science Engineering by Shackleford and 2) Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Giancoli. These wiki links will suffice, though:
The beauty of the muscleback/blade design is that thick muscle. As long as you don't hit the hosel or out on the non grooved section of the toe, you can hit a muscle back club anywhere along it and it will be fine or at the very least better than the exact same miss hit with an inconsistent and thin face walled clubface. The muscle is a lot like the thick part of a baseball bat. As long as you use that part to contact the ball, it will impart consistent spin and much of the clubhead's kinetic energy into the ball. The notion that a muscle back or blade clubhead design having the "sweetspot" of a dime is hogwash. There is no law in all of physics that supports this notion. The reality of design is that the whole muscle itself is the "sweetspot"!
So once again advantage goes to the baby blade design. And just to add to it as compared to other blades, the short clubhead length is an advantage because it puts less torque on your hands as you swing the club itself and during impact itself. The short clubhead literally makes the clubhead MOI as it rotates around the shaft as low as possible as compared to a higher MOI clubhead due to its length. Ultimately what all this means is that it is easier to control the face position of a shorter clubhead as compared to a longer one. And it is easier both during the downswing and during impact itself. Lower MOI clubhead as it rotates around the shaft = less torque on your hands.
I'm probably missing some further details and will post more if I think of them. But I hope this is enough to convince you that you have science completely on your side by using your baby blades. There is nothing in the physics of them that make them harder to play than any other club design out
there. And moreover there is a lot of physics that support that they are the easiest!