Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

Dear blade,


366 replies to this topic

#61 tobiasjd

tobiasjd

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 311799
  • Joined: 04/28/2014
  • Location:Houston, TX
GolfWRX Likes : 150

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:19 PM

View Postgbartko, on 03 May 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

View Posttobiasjd, on 03 May 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

View PostBye, on 03 May 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

When I was looking to change my clubs last time round I came across this quote.


"I've always wanted to go to a blade iron, to a smaller iron," said Jim Furyk earlier this year at the Travelers Championship. "The problem is when that blade is a lot smaller, the center of gravity gets kicked in toward the heel a little bit more and the club becomes much easier to draw. So shots that I was hitting...at times I'd look up and feel like I made a good shot, but it was always a touch left of where I thought it should be. I didn't want to change my swing or change my approach [so I went back] to my cavity-backs."

I always found my blades really hard to fade. This made sense to me, and making the switch to CB's has really helped.

The only set of cast clubs I have used was the Callaway X14 pro series, what a great set of clubs they were.

So clearly Jim's swing is too inside out producing a touch more draw than it should, and the cavity back is actually helping to create an altered result.

Instead of correcting his swing, he uses a club that masks his swing flaw and makes him believe he actually hit a good shot.

Not sure if serious..... he probably believes that 58 a few years back was a good score w/ his GI colored glasses!

Tou che!   No, not so serious.  But it seemed like the proper blade purist argument to make.

Personally I don't know if "forgiveness" is a real thing.  All I know is some clubs I can hit well and other clubs I can not hit well.  So I just try to play the ones I can hit well.

Cobra King LTD Black
Titleist 910FD 15° 3w
Callaway Apex 3-4 hybrid
PING i200 5
PING iBlade 6 - PW
PING Glide 50° SS, 54° SS
PING Glide 2.0 Stealth  60° SS
Bettinardi BB1

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#62 wmblake2000

wmblake2000

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 33930
  • Joined: 07/07/2007
  • Location:Los Angeles
GolfWRX Likes : 2947

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:37 PM

I like to play blades because I usually have at least one ace a round with them and then the cart girl takes me home with her.
Callaway Epic 10.5 TPT LKP 45.5"
Callaway Epic Hybrid 2h
Callway xhot 3 h
RomaRo Pro 3-W Modus 105 R
Fourteen mt28v3 50, 54
Cameron Futura 5W

2

#63 justasgood

justasgood

    Without Tempo, you are just a hacker.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,222 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 212517
  • Joined: 11/22/2012
  • Location:Covington country club, Mandeville Louisiana
  • Handicap:I.Q.
  • Ebay ID:klccsam
GolfWRX Likes : 1688

Posted 03 May 2018 - 06:24 PM

View Postwmblake2000, on 03 May 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

I like to play blades because I usually have at least one ace a round with them and then the cart girl takes me home with her.

You too?

3

#64 wmblake2000

wmblake2000

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 33930
  • Joined: 07/07/2007
  • Location:Los Angeles
GolfWRX Likes : 2947

Posted 03 May 2018 - 06:36 PM

View Postjustasgood, on 03 May 2018 - 06:24 PM, said:

View Postwmblake2000, on 03 May 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

I like to play blades because I usually have at least one ace a round with them and then the cart girl takes me home with her.

You too?

I think it’s science - physics and whatnot.
Callaway Epic 10.5 TPT LKP 45.5"
Callaway Epic Hybrid 2h
Callway xhot 3 h
RomaRo Pro 3-W Modus 105 R
Fourteen mt28v3 50, 54
Cameron Futura 5W

4

#65 farmer

farmer

    Hall of Fame

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 7,186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 70095
  • Joined: 12/02/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3028

Posted 03 May 2018 - 07:04 PM

I wish we had cart girls ...


5

#66 DeNinny

DeNinny

    Major Wiener

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,347 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21391
  • Joined: 11/05/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 18644

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:51 PM

View Postrawdog, on 03 May 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

Realizing this will derail the thread, I have to ask...

"In theory, forgiveness is a carney sham."

What's your definition of "forgiveness?"

And what is this "false assumption" of which you speak?

If I'm going to "bank on it," I gotta know!

Ok so before I get into detail I want to state up front that I understand the possibility of there not being much statistical significance to what I'm saying.  My bigger point is that there is really zero technical benefit of a "forgiving" iron design "feature".  While there is no technical benefit, please realize that I understand that there might not be much of a detriment.  Again, main point being is that there is ZERO technical benefit to the supposed claim.

The other thing I'm going to state up front is that the analysis is always going to be a relative difference between a blade and a "forgiving" club design, where one feature or variable will be compared between the two designs while all other variables are set equal.  This is the only way to break down a multivariable math system and understand the impact of one variable.  Again, just want to state this up front.

Also one more thing to note is that I was fully on board with golf club "forgiveness" and I have bought and tried my share of forgiving clubs and in summary they NEVER helped my game in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, for 9 years straight I played a set of mp60 CBs and mp67 MBs with the exact same shafts and specs and not once did the mp60 set give me any amount of "forgiveness".  My best rounds were ALWAYS with my mp67s but on average it really didn't matter what clubs I played.  I also tried a few SGI mpFliHi clubs for supposed "forgiveness" for two seasons and in short they were horrible clubs.  I hit them worse than their equivalent mp60 and mp67.  I've also played Mizuno Altron CBs and CG2 and CG4 Clevelands for "forgiveness" and again they had ZERO benefit to me over blades.  And finally when I started playing Miura baby blades is when I finally found even more forgiveness than any other club that I've ever played in my life.  It has amounted to me shooting as low as 75 and 76 a few times which is better than with any other set that I've ever played.  So anyway, to answer the OP first post, I don't ever see a need to play any iron except for a blade design.  The blade design is simply the best and it is true every time I try the alternative.  So I've quit trying because the science also supports everything I'm saying.  A

nd lastly before I really get into things please note that this is my last post and the last time I will read this thread.  If anybody wants to debate any of this with me feel free to PM me.  But if you do I would first suggest that you read these two books (or the technical equivalent of them by other professors and authors) and also have a complete understanding of the mathematics within them.  Meaning, be able to solve the actual example problems within them.

- Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Giancoli
- Introduction to Materials Science Engineering by Shackelford

Everything that I am summarizing with words is already justitified with mathematics from these books, and I really feel that unless you can understand this math, then there is no point in getting into a debate with me about it.  Plus I don't want to derail the thread.

Ok so now let me start by stating my definition of forgiveness:

Forgiveness is a design feature that, when compared to an alternative design, results in a tangible benefit to a golfer based on him miss hitting the same shot with both clubs.  It also is a feature that doesn't have detriments in addition to the benefits or at least the benefits have a tangible and quantifiable benefit over the detriments.  Also the actual science behind the feature is sound and is based on true science and without any false assumptions.

This is about as succinct as I can make my definition of forgiveness.  I'm glad that you asked because it is important to understand that it is under this context that I'm claiming that just about every current "forgiving" feature on a "forgiving" iron design is that it is a technical carney sham(e).  It's a sham because as stated the supposed features are based on science that requires the ignorant golfer to make a false assumption which makes it completely untrue to begin with.  It's a shame because if the lead golf design engineers that are supposedly well educated on the science behind their designs, then they have not addressed all the real world detriments that also come about from the very same feature that they are claiming as "forgiving".

Carney Sham(e) #1 - That perimeter weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates as a free body around its center is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits.

This is probably the #1 sham(e) in all of "forgiveness" because it is simply the one I've read that is most claimed by players of "forgiving" clubs.  One of the false assumptions behind it is that the clubhead will NEVER rotate freely as a free body around the ball independently of its connection to the shaft.  The shaft is ALWAYS the resistance point for keeping the clubhead square at impact and so therefore any force on the clubface is going to cause the clubhead to always twist based on rotation about the shaft and never the center of the clubhead itself.  Basically, every single impact with the golf ball based on it being offset with the shaft is going to put torque on the shaft to try and make the face twist open.  This physics is universal.  It won't matter if you hit the face near the hosel or at the toe in both of these locations, the way the physics works is that it will put torque on the clubface with the shaft as the fulcrum of rotation.  That "forgiveness" is based on assuming otherwise than this is completely false and completely a sham(e).

The other issue and false assumption with perimeter weighting being "forgiving" is that it also makes the sole surface are of the clubhead literally bigger than a MB which is a complete DETRIMENT!  That "forgiving" club designers assume that making the sole of clubhead so big in order to achieve perimeter weighting (and a lower clubhead CG) does not have any detrimental issue with making clean ball contact boggles my mind.  The technical 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 an obvious issue but LOL just in case 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.  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 on the sole and they too create the issue of increased chance for contacting the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.)

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 absense of the 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 it 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.  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 blade design is clearly superior to a more "forgiving" design from perimeter weighting (and lowering the CG).

And furthermore, let's look at the muscle thickness or more specifically the part of the clubhead that will literally come into contact with the ball in the context of having perimeter weighting or not.  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 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 ball compresses against it.  This will serve to damp the spin on the ball but 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 part 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 formula.  I learned about all this from two books I mentioned earlier, but you can also just Google "Young's modulus" and the other moduli and wikipedia has pretty good mathematical details on all of it.

The beauty of the muscleback/blade design really 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 (false assumption) 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 blade design over "forgiving" alternatives by virtue of having a
thicker face wall behind the ball at impact.

Carney Sham(e) #2 - That clubhead toe weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates around the shaft is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits out at the toe.

The false assumption behind this claim is that the added torque that a higher MOI clubhead has compared to a blade is not a detriment.  With blades, the short clubhead length or less toe weighting is an advantage because it puts less torque on your hands as you swing the club itself and during impact itself.  By the simple equation for torque and under the same exact swing, as a golfer accelerates the clubhead in the downswing, the added toe weighting literally makes the clubhead twist open relative to the shaft more than a lower MOI clubhead with less toe weighting.length.  Ultimately what all this means is that it is easier to control the face position of a lower MOI clubhead as compared to a higher MOI one (as it twists around the shaft).  And it is easier both during the downswing and during impact itself.  Lower MOI = less torque on your hands.

Carney Sham(e) #3 - That lowering the CG of the clubhead is somehow "forgiving" for a golfer.

The problem with this "feature" is that it the same issue as with perimeter weighting.  Everything that I said earlier about issues with perimeter weighting apply to lowering the clubhead CG.  In summary it makes the face wall thickness and thus spin more inconsistent and it increases the sole surface area which is unequivocally detrimental (all other things equal).  The sham(e) is that there is some created need to "forgive" a golf shot by claiming the lower CG will be "forgiving".  Not when it comes with so many detriments.

So once again, advantage goes to the blade design with respect to CG location.

Carney Sham(e) #4 - That higher bounce is somehow helping a golfer by making the clubhead "dig less" on a slightly fat miss hit.

The false assumptions in this "feature" are that there isn't a detriment to bounce and that it is enough to reroute the path of the clubhead over the distance of the miss hit from ideal impact such that it improves the hit as compared to using a low bounce club.  The reality with a higher bounce club is that it simply creates a higher drag force on the clubhead through ANY media, therefore slowing the clubhead down more as compared to a low bounce club.  

The other reality is that it literally lowers the true "bottom" of the sole relative to the low bounce club and thus per what I already stated about a high sole surface area club this will increase the chances of the club rubbing the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.  This is ALWAYS bad!

So once again, advantage goes to blade design (in general...I recognize there are "forgiving" clubs
with low bounce) in terms of bounce.

Carney Sham(e) #5 - That offset is somehow helping a golfer.

The first problem with offset is that it literally offsets the clubhead CG from the shaft, and the problem with this is that when centripetal force takes over in the swing, which it WILL, this offset will cause the clubhead CG to want to orient itself to be in the axial shaft line which will then cause the clubhead to go to a closed position relative to a less offset club.  This is why offset clubs cause hooks or mitigate slicing the ball.  Now, one could claim that this is helpful, but the problem is that it is a dynamic issue.  In order for that clubface closing to be consistently beneficial to a golfer with a slice miss hit is that the golfer's swing and tempo must also be consistent to cause the offset clubhead to close consistently.  This is just simply adding variability to a clubhead design where it is not needed.

The second problem with offset is that it literally moves the CG and contact position of the clubhead more out of position when the golfer does not square the clubhead at impact relative to the less offset club.  Meaning, as the golfer uses an offset club and he has the face coming into impact either open or closed, the position of that clubface is more "off" than the position of the less offset club with the same open or closed face position.

To understand this more clearly let's look at a baseball bat analogy.  A standard bat has zero offset.  You can twist the handle and the fat part of the bat stays in the same position.  Now add offset to the baseball bat fat part relative to the handle.  Now consider what happens when you twist the offset bat handle, the fat part of the bat then rotates and goes up and down in literal space because of the offset itself.  The fat part of the bat position is exacerbated with offset which is bad.  Same issue applies to an offset clubhead.

So once again, advantage goes to the less offset club which is typically the complete opposite of
"SGI" "forgiving" irons.

Carney Sham(e) #6 - That there is any scientific correlation between "forgiveness" and skill level.

If you notice, nothing in what I said above makes a distinction as to the golfer's skill level.  The reason is because all of the science is universal as to the benefits of a blade whether or not how often the golfer hits the miss hit or whether or not how bad the miss hit was.  Also as mentioned you can look at the entire length of a blade muscle like the fat part of a baseball bat where you can hit the "home run" with contact along any part that is fat behind the ball (and still on the grooves and FLAT!!!).  Compared to a variable flexing thinner face CB, this is much more forgiving.

Ok so that about covers everything from an LOL high level.  As mentioned there is deeper math in everything I've stated.

Also I just want to mention that the "forgiving" designs simply damp the feel of a miss hit and if there is any "detriment" to a blade design is that the same exact miss hit simply feels worse on the hands and moreover the subtleties of all different qualities of strike are more distinct with a blade.  I think some golfers associate this issue with a blade being more demanding on the golfer and that miss hits are more penal on him, but to me that is demanding in only his mind (because there is no true science to support it) and just because the feedback is so precise.  To me this is where the mind f*ck comes into play with those that use a "forgiving" club and think that the miss hit that they just it was somehow "saved".  In my experience the same miss hit just feels worse with a blade.  Also in my experience a blade design is simply more forgiving even on miss hits.

I'm done here.  PM me if you want to discuss further.
TEE CB4 10* Driver, Fujikura Speeder 652 R-flex
TEE CB2 13* 3w, 57g Fujikura Motore F1 X-flex
TEE CB2 15* 3w, 18* 5w, 21* 7w, 65g Fujikura Motore F1 R-flex
Miura Black Boron 1957 Small Blades 2i-PW, Nippon NS Pro 850 GH S-flex
Miura Black Wedges 53* and 60*, Nippon NS Pro 850 GH S-flex
GripMaster Club Maker's Stitchback Grips
34" Piretti Bosa, Iomic Absolute X

Registered Bladeocrat
Outlaw Golf Association Member #7

6

#67 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:09 PM

View PostDeNinny, on 03 May 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

View Postrawdog, on 03 May 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

Realizing this will derail the thread, I have to ask...

"In theory, forgiveness is a carney sham."

What's your definition of "forgiveness?"

And what is this "false assumption" of which you speak?

If I'm going to "bank on it," I gotta know!

Ok so before I get into detail I want to state up front that I understand the possibility of there not being much statistical significance to what I'm saying.  My bigger point is that there is really zero technical benefit of a "forgiving" iron design "feature".  While there is no technical benefit, please realize that I understand that there might not be much of a detriment.  Again, main point being is that there is ZERO technical benefit to the supposed claim.

The other thing I'm going to state up front is that the analysis is always going to be a relative difference between a blade and a "forgiving" club design, where one feature or variable will be compared between the two designs while all other variables are set equal.  This is the only way to break down a multivariable math system and understand the impact of one variable.  Again, just want to state this up front.

Also one more thing to note is that I was fully on board with golf club "forgiveness" and I have bought and tried my share of forgiving clubs and in summary they NEVER helped my game in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, for 9 years straight I played a set of mp60 CBs and mp67 MBs with the exact same shafts and specs and not once did the mp60 set give me any amount of "forgiveness".  My best rounds were ALWAYS with my mp67s but on average it really didn't matter what clubs I played.  I also tried a few SGI mpFliHi clubs for supposed "forgiveness" for two seasons and in short they were horrible clubs.  I hit them worse than their equivalent mp60 and mp67.  I've also played Mizuno Altron CBs and CG2 and CG4 Clevelands for "forgiveness" and again they had ZERO benefit to me over blades.  And finally when I started playing Miura baby blades is when I finally found even more forgiveness than any other club that I've ever played in my life.  It has amounted to me shooting as low as 75 and 76 a few times which is better than with any other set that I've ever played.  So anyway, to answer the OP first post, I don't ever see a need to play any iron except for a blade design.  The blade design is simply the best and it is true every time I try the alternative.  So I've quit trying because the science also supports everything I'm saying.  A

nd lastly before I really get into things please note that this is my last post and the last time I will read this thread.  If anybody wants to debate any of this with me feel free to PM me.  But if you do I would first suggest that you read these two books (or the technical equivalent of them by other professors and authors) and also have a complete understanding of the mathematics within them.  Meaning, be able to solve the actual example problems within them.

- Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Giancoli
- Introduction to Materials Science Engineering by Shackelford

Everything that I am summarizing with words is already justitified with mathematics from these books, and I really feel that unless you can understand this math, then there is no point in getting into a debate with me about it.  Plus I don't want to derail the thread.

Ok so now let me start by stating my definition of forgiveness:

Forgiveness is a design feature that, when compared to an alternative design, results in a tangible benefit to a golfer based on him miss hitting the same shot with both clubs.  It also is a feature that doesn't have detriments in addition to the benefits or at least the benefits have a tangible and quantifiable benefit over the detriments.  Also the actual science behind the feature is sound and is based on true science and without any false assumptions.

This is about as succinct as I can make my definition of forgiveness.  I'm glad that you asked because it is important to understand that it is under this context that I'm claiming that just about every current "forgiving" feature on a "forgiving" iron design is that it is a technical carney sham(e).  It's a sham because as stated the supposed features are based on science that requires the ignorant golfer to make a false assumption which makes it completely untrue to begin with.  It's a shame because if the lead golf design engineers that are supposedly well educated on the science behind their designs, then they have not addressed all the real world detriments that also come about from the very same feature that they are claiming as "forgiving".

Carney Sham(e) #1 - That perimeter weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates as a free body around its center is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits.

This is probably the #1 sham(e) in all of "forgiveness" because it is simply the one I've read that is most claimed by players of "forgiving" clubs.  One of the false assumptions behind it is that the clubhead will NEVER rotate freely as a free body around the ball independently of its connection to the shaft.  The shaft is ALWAYS the resistance point for keeping the clubhead square at impact and so therefore any force on the clubface is going to cause the clubhead to always twist based on rotation about the shaft and never the center of the clubhead itself.  Basically, every single impact with the golf ball based on it being offset with the shaft is going to put torque on the shaft to try and make the face twist open.  This physics is universal.  It won't matter if you hit the face near the hosel or at the toe in both of these locations, the way the physics works is that it will put torque on the clubface with the shaft as the fulcrum of rotation.  That "forgiveness" is based on assuming otherwise than this is completely false and completely a sham(e).

The other issue and false assumption with perimeter weighting being "forgiving" is that it also makes the sole surface are of the clubhead literally bigger than a MB which is a complete DETRIMENT!  That "forgiving" club designers assume that making the sole of clubhead so big in order to achieve perimeter weighting (and a lower clubhead CG) does not have any detrimental issue with making clean ball contact boggles my mind.  The technical 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 an obvious issue but LOL just in case 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.  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 on the sole and they too create the issue of increased chance for contacting the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.)

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 absense of the 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 it 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.  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 blade design is clearly superior to a more "forgiving" design from perimeter weighting (and lowering the CG).

And furthermore, let's look at the muscle thickness or more specifically the part of the clubhead that will literally come into contact with the ball in the context of having perimeter weighting or not.  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 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 ball compresses against it.  This will serve to damp the spin on the ball but 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 part 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 formula.  I learned about all this from two books I mentioned earlier, but you can also just Google "Young's modulus" and the other moduli and wikipedia has pretty good mathematical details on all of it.

The beauty of the muscleback/blade design really 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 (false assumption) 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 blade design over "forgiving" alternatives by virtue of having a
thicker face wall behind the ball at impact.

Carney Sham(e) #2 - That clubhead toe weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates around the shaft is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits out at the toe.

The false assumption behind this claim is that the added torque that a higher MOI clubhead has compared to a blade is not a detriment.  With blades, the short clubhead length or less toe weighting is an advantage because it puts less torque on your hands as you swing the club itself and during impact itself.  By the simple equation for torque and under the same exact swing, as a golfer accelerates the clubhead in the downswing, the added toe weighting literally makes the clubhead twist open relative to the shaft more than a lower MOI clubhead with less toe weighting.length.  Ultimately what all this means is that it is easier to control the face position of a lower MOI clubhead as compared to a higher MOI one (as it twists around the shaft).  And it is easier both during the downswing and during impact itself.  Lower MOI = less torque on your hands.

Carney Sham(e) #3 - That lowering the CG of the clubhead is somehow "forgiving" for a golfer.

The problem with this "feature" is that it the same issue as with perimeter weighting.  Everything that I said earlier about issues with perimeter weighting apply to lowering the clubhead CG.  In summary it makes the face wall thickness and thus spin more inconsistent and it increases the sole surface area which is unequivocally detrimental (all other things equal).  The sham(e) is that there is some created need to "forgive" a golf shot by claiming the lower CG will be "forgiving".  Not when it comes with so many detriments.

So once again, advantage goes to the blade design with respect to CG location.

Carney Sham(e) #4 - That higher bounce is somehow helping a golfer by making the clubhead "dig less" on a slightly fat miss hit.

The false assumptions in this "feature" are that there isn't a detriment to bounce and that it is enough to reroute the path of the clubhead over the distance of the miss hit from ideal impact such that it improves the hit as compared to using a low bounce club.  The reality with a higher bounce club is that it simply creates a higher drag force on the clubhead through ANY media, therefore slowing the clubhead down more as compared to a low bounce club.  

The other reality is that it literally lowers the true "bottom" of the sole relative to the low bounce club and thus per what I already stated about a high sole surface area club this will increase the chances of the club rubbing the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.  This is ALWAYS bad!

So once again, advantage goes to blade design (in general...I recognize there are "forgiving" clubs
with low bounce) in terms of bounce.

Carney Sham(e) #5 - That offset is somehow helping a golfer.

The first problem with offset is that it literally offsets the clubhead CG from the shaft, and the problem with this is that when centripetal force takes over in the swing, which it WILL, this offset will cause the clubhead CG to want to orient itself to be in the axial shaft line which will then cause the clubhead to go to a closed position relative to a less offset club.  This is why offset clubs cause hooks or mitigate slicing the ball.  Now, one could claim that this is helpful, but the problem is that it is a dynamic issue.  In order for that clubface closing to be consistently beneficial to a golfer with a slice miss hit is that the golfer's swing and tempo must also be consistent to cause the offset clubhead to close consistently.  This is just simply adding variability to a clubhead design where it is not needed.

The second problem with offset is that it literally moves the CG and contact position of the clubhead more out of position when the golfer does not square the clubhead at impact relative to the less offset club.  Meaning, as the golfer uses an offset club and he has the face coming into impact either open or closed, the position of that clubface is more "off" than the position of the less offset club with the same open or closed face position.

To understand this more clearly let's look at a baseball bat analogy.  A standard bat has zero offset.  You can twist the handle and the fat part of the bat stays in the same position.  Now add offset to the baseball bat fat part relative to the handle.  Now consider what happens when you twist the offset bat handle, the fat part of the bat then rotates and goes up and down in literal space because of the offset itself.  The fat part of the bat position is exacerbated with offset which is bad.  Same issue applies to an offset clubhead.

So once again, advantage goes to the less offset club which is typically the complete opposite of
"SGI" "forgiving" irons.

Carney Sham(e) #6 - That there is any scientific correlation between "forgiveness" and skill level.

If you notice, nothing in what I said above makes a distinction as to the golfer's skill level.  The reason is because all of the science is universal as to the benefits of a blade whether or not how often the golfer hits the miss hit or whether or not how bad the miss hit was.  Also as mentioned you can look at the entire length of a blade muscle like the fat part of a baseball bat where you can hit the "home run" with contact along any part that is fat behind the ball (and still on the grooves and FLAT!!!).  Compared to a variable flexing thinner face CB, this is much more forgiving.

Ok so that about covers everything from an LOL high level.  As mentioned there is deeper math in everything I've stated.

Also I just want to mention that the "forgiving" designs simply damp the feel of a miss hit and if there is any "detriment" to a blade design is that the same exact miss hit simply feels worse on the hands and moreover the subtleties of all different qualities of strike are more distinct with a blade.  I think some golfers associate this issue with a blade being more demanding on the golfer and that miss hits are more penal on him, but to me that is demanding in only his mind (because there is no true science to support it) and just because the feedback is so precise.  To me this is where the mind f*ck comes into play with those that use a "forgiving" club and think that the miss hit that they just it was somehow "saved".  In my experience the same miss hit just feels worse with a blade.  Also in my experience a blade design is simply more forgiving even on miss hits.

I'm done here.  PM me if you want to discuss further.

I just want to make clear up front that this is not a burner account of mine.
king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

7

#68 Nine Miler

Nine Miler

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 178778
  • Joined: 05/03/2012
  • Location:SE Mi
  • Handicap:+3.1
GolfWRX Likes : 3049

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:24 PM

DeNinny, you’re back! How long has it been? Long enough for me to try out the other side of my old argument, at least.

Have a good day.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 40912904-9E7B-49A8-B1C2-1E50C291EA9B.jpeg


8

#69 gators78

gators78

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,790 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 121638
  • Joined: 02/03/2011
  • Location:City of Champions
  • Handicap:2.3
GolfWRX Likes : 863

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:36 PM

View PostSir Slicealot, on 03 May 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

View Postjustasgood, on 03 May 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

View PostSir Slicealot, on 03 May 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

View Postgators78, on 03 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

205 yard par 3 over water, here's a blade 4 iron and 10 balls, lets see whatcha got.
Can we!?! Can we!?! That's one of my favorite clubs! Is this going to be a 205 to the pin or a carry over water?
I am in on this as well. May be a Hard 5.
That's what I'm thinking. That four onto the green just isn't going to stop as well as that five, but the man said, "here's a blade four iron and ten balls, let's see whatcha got." So you take five and I take five? Or you want me to enjoy all ten? I'm bringing my MP-4 DgS300. "Whatcha got?" Or is it a surprise supplied blade. Fair warning: If you bring an iblade, I'm throwing it and you in the water and saving the balls for when you try to come out.

Ha I just meant on a shot with minimal room to miss there isn’t any hiding with blades, so if you hit 10 what’s the average of those 10.

iBlade? Please, I’ve been brainwashed from this site so obviously I’m dumb enough to have 2-PW in Miura 1957 blades, Modus 120 TX. Heard from a source they used the Eye2s mold for the iBlades.
G400 Max
M2 3W, Hybrid
1957 Blades (I blame you, WRX)
RTX3s
Cameron

9

#70 denvergolf

denvergolf

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 5424
  • Joined: 08/23/2005
  • Location:Castle Pines, CO
  • Handicap:0.8
  • Ebay ID:jackson888
GolfWRX Likes : 563

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:40 PM

View Postgators78, on 03 May 2018 - 09:36 PM, said:

View PostSir Slicealot, on 03 May 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

View Postjustasgood, on 03 May 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

View PostSir Slicealot, on 03 May 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

View Postgators78, on 03 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

205 yard par 3 over water, here's a blade 4 iron and 10 balls, lets see whatcha got.
Can we!?! Can we!?! That's one of my favorite clubs! Is this going to be a 205 to the pin or a carry over water?
I am in on this as well. May be a Hard 5.
That's what I'm thinking. That four onto the green just isn't going to stop as well as that five, but the man said, "here's a blade four iron and ten balls, let's see whatcha got." So you take five and I take five? Or you want me to enjoy all ten? I'm bringing my MP-4 DgS300. "Whatcha got?" Or is it a surprise supplied blade. Fair warning: If you bring an iblade, I'm throwing it and you in the water and saving the balls for when you try to come out.

Ha I just meant on a shot with minimal room to miss there isn’t any hiding with blades, so if you hit 10 what’s the average of those 10.

iBlade? Please, I’ve been brainwashed from this site so obviously I’m dumb enough to have 2-PW in Miura 1957 blades, Modus 120 TX. Heard from a source they used the Eye2s mold for the iBlades.
Now if they only made them in BeCu :)

TaylorMade M3, 10.5 (set 8.5), MRC Tensei Pro Orange 70TX
TaylorMade M3 3HL (set 15), MRC Tensei Pro Orange 80TX
TaylorMade M3 21* Hybrid, MRC Kuro Kage Silver Tini, 90HY-TX
TaylorMade P790 UDI, 17*,Project X Hzrdus Black 85 - 6.5
Titleist 718 AP2, 5-W, KBS C-Taper S+
Titleist Vokey SM7 Raw 52-F, 56-S, DG TIS400
TaylorMade Milled Grind 60 - Low Bounce, DG TIS400
TaylorMade Spider Tour Black - T Line
Pro V1X and TM TP5x

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#71 gbartko

gbartko

    Whooooo!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 136284
  • Joined: 08/13/2011
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA
  • Ebay ID:gbartko79
GolfWRX Likes : 424

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:05 PM

View PostDeNinny, on 03 May 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

View Postrawdog, on 03 May 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

Realizing this will derail the thread, I have to ask...

"In theory, forgiveness is a carney sham."

What's your definition of "forgiveness?"

And what is this "false assumption" of which you speak?

If I'm going to "bank on it," I gotta know!

Ok so before I get into detail I want to state up front that I understand the possibility of there not being much statistical significance to what I'm saying.  My bigger point is that there is really zero technical benefit of a "forgiving" iron design "feature".  While there is no technical benefit, please realize that I understand that there might not be much of a detriment.  Again, main point being is that there is ZERO technical benefit to the supposed claim.

The other thing I'm going to state up front is that the analysis is always going to be a relative difference between a blade and a "forgiving" club design, where one feature or variable will be compared between the two designs while all other variables are set equal.  This is the only way to break down a multivariable math system and understand the impact of one variable.  Again, just want to state this up front.

Also one more thing to note is that I was fully on board with golf club "forgiveness" and I have bought and tried my share of forgiving clubs and in summary they NEVER helped my game in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, for 9 years straight I played a set of mp60 CBs and mp67 MBs with the exact same shafts and specs and not once did the mp60 set give me any amount of "forgiveness".  My best rounds were ALWAYS with my mp67s but on average it really didn't matter what clubs I played.  I also tried a few SGI mpFliHi clubs for supposed "forgiveness" for two seasons and in short they were horrible clubs.  I hit them worse than their equivalent mp60 and mp67.  I've also played Mizuno Altron CBs and CG2 and CG4 Clevelands for "forgiveness" and again they had ZERO benefit to me over blades.  And finally when I started playing Miura baby blades is when I finally found even more forgiveness than any other club that I've ever played in my life.  It has amounted to me shooting as low as 75 and 76 a few times which is better than with any other set that I've ever played.  So anyway, to answer the OP first post, I don't ever see a need to play any iron except for a blade design.  The blade design is simply the best and it is true every time I try the alternative.  So I've quit trying because the science also supports everything I'm saying.  A

nd lastly before I really get into things please note that this is my last post and the last time I will read this thread.  If anybody wants to debate any of this with me feel free to PM me.  But if you do I would first suggest that you read these two books (or the technical equivalent of them by other professors and authors) and also have a complete understanding of the mathematics within them.  Meaning, be able to solve the actual example problems within them.

- Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Giancoli
- Introduction to Materials Science Engineering by Shackelford

Everything that I am summarizing with words is already justitified with mathematics from these books, and I really feel that unless you can understand this math, then there is no point in getting into a debate with me about it.  Plus I don't want to derail the thread.

Ok so now let me start by stating my definition of forgiveness:

Forgiveness is a design feature that, when compared to an alternative design, results in a tangible benefit to a golfer based on him miss hitting the same shot with both clubs.  It also is a feature that doesn't have detriments in addition to the benefits or at least the benefits have a tangible and quantifiable benefit over the detriments.  Also the actual science behind the feature is sound and is based on true science and without any false assumptions.

This is about as succinct as I can make my definition of forgiveness.  I'm glad that you asked because it is important to understand that it is under this context that I'm claiming that just about every current "forgiving" feature on a "forgiving" iron design is that it is a technical carney sham(e).  It's a sham because as stated the supposed features are based on science that requires the ignorant golfer to make a false assumption which makes it completely untrue to begin with.  It's a shame because if the lead golf design engineers that are supposedly well educated on the science behind their designs, then they have not addressed all the real world detriments that also come about from the very same feature that they are claiming as "forgiving".

Carney Sham(e) #1 - That perimeter weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates as a free body around its center is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits.

This is probably the #1 sham(e) in all of "forgiveness" because it is simply the one I've read that is most claimed by players of "forgiving" clubs.  One of the false assumptions behind it is that the clubhead will NEVER rotate freely as a free body around the ball independently of its connection to the shaft.  The shaft is ALWAYS the resistance point for keeping the clubhead square at impact and so therefore any force on the clubface is going to cause the clubhead to always twist based on rotation about the shaft and never the center of the clubhead itself.  Basically, every single impact with the golf ball based on it being offset with the shaft is going to put torque on the shaft to try and make the face twist open.  This physics is universal.  It won't matter if you hit the face near the hosel or at the toe in both of these locations, the way the physics works is that it will put torque on the clubface with the shaft as the fulcrum of rotation.  That "forgiveness" is based on assuming otherwise than this is completely false and completely a sham(e).

The other issue and false assumption with perimeter weighting being "forgiving" is that it also makes the sole surface are of the clubhead literally bigger than a MB which is a complete DETRIMENT!  That "forgiving" club designers assume that making the sole of clubhead so big in order to achieve perimeter weighting (and a lower clubhead CG) does not have any detrimental issue with making clean ball contact boggles my mind.  The technical 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 an obvious issue but LOL just in case 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.  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 on the sole and they too create the issue of increased chance for contacting the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.)

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 absense of the 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 it 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.  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 blade design is clearly superior to a more "forgiving" design from perimeter weighting (and lowering the CG).

And furthermore, let's look at the muscle thickness or more specifically the part of the clubhead that will literally come into contact with the ball in the context of having perimeter weighting or not.  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 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 ball compresses against it.  This will serve to damp the spin on the ball but 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 part 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 formula.  I learned about all this from two books I mentioned earlier, but you can also just Google "Young's modulus" and the other moduli and wikipedia has pretty good mathematical details on all of it.

The beauty of the muscleback/blade design really 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 (false assumption) 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 blade design over "forgiving" alternatives by virtue of having a
thicker face wall behind the ball at impact.

Carney Sham(e) #2 - That clubhead toe weighting and thus increasing the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates around the shaft is somehow helping the clubhead to "twist less" on off center hits out at the toe.

The false assumption behind this claim is that the added torque that a higher MOI clubhead has compared to a blade is not a detriment.  With blades, the short clubhead length or less toe weighting is an advantage because it puts less torque on your hands as you swing the club itself and during impact itself.  By the simple equation for torque and under the same exact swing, as a golfer accelerates the clubhead in the downswing, the added toe weighting literally makes the clubhead twist open relative to the shaft more than a lower MOI clubhead with less toe weighting.length.  Ultimately what all this means is that it is easier to control the face position of a lower MOI clubhead as compared to a higher MOI one (as it twists around the shaft).  And it is easier both during the downswing and during impact itself.  Lower MOI = less torque on your hands.

Carney Sham(e) #3 - That lowering the CG of the clubhead is somehow "forgiving" for a golfer.

The problem with this "feature" is that it the same issue as with perimeter weighting.  Everything that I said earlier about issues with perimeter weighting apply to lowering the clubhead CG.  In summary it makes the face wall thickness and thus spin more inconsistent and it increases the sole surface area which is unequivocally detrimental (all other things equal).  The sham(e) is that there is some created need to "forgive" a golf shot by claiming the lower CG will be "forgiving".  Not when it comes with so many detriments.

So once again, advantage goes to the blade design with respect to CG location.

Carney Sham(e) #4 - That higher bounce is somehow helping a golfer by making the clubhead "dig less" on a slightly fat miss hit.

The false assumptions in this "feature" are that there isn't a detriment to bounce and that it is enough to reroute the path of the clubhead over the distance of the miss hit from ideal impact such that it improves the hit as compared to using a low bounce club.  The reality with a higher bounce club is that it simply creates a higher drag force on the clubhead through ANY media, therefore slowing the clubhead down more as compared to a low bounce club.  

The other reality is that it literally lowers the true "bottom" of the sole relative to the low bounce club and thus per what I already stated about a high sole surface area club this will increase the chances of the club rubbing the ground before the clubface contacts the ball.  This is ALWAYS bad!

So once again, advantage goes to blade design (in general...I recognize there are "forgiving" clubs
with low bounce) in terms of bounce.

Carney Sham(e) #5 - That offset is somehow helping a golfer.

The first problem with offset is that it literally offsets the clubhead CG from the shaft, and the problem with this is that when centripetal force takes over in the swing, which it WILL, this offset will cause the clubhead CG to want to orient itself to be in the axial shaft line which will then cause the clubhead to go to a closed position relative to a less offset club.  This is why offset clubs cause hooks or mitigate slicing the ball.  Now, one could claim that this is helpful, but the problem is that it is a dynamic issue.  In order for that clubface closing to be consistently beneficial to a golfer with a slice miss hit is that the golfer's swing and tempo must also be consistent to cause the offset clubhead to close consistently.  This is just simply adding variability to a clubhead design where it is not needed.

The second problem with offset is that it literally moves the CG and contact position of the clubhead more out of position when the golfer does not square the clubhead at impact relative to the less offset club.  Meaning, as the golfer uses an offset club and he has the face coming into impact either open or closed, the position of that clubface is more "off" than the position of the less offset club with the same open or closed face position.

To understand this more clearly let's look at a baseball bat analogy.  A standard bat has zero offset.  You can twist the handle and the fat part of the bat stays in the same position.  Now add offset to the baseball bat fat part relative to the handle.  Now consider what happens when you twist the offset bat handle, the fat part of the bat then rotates and goes up and down in literal space because of the offset itself.  The fat part of the bat position is exacerbated with offset which is bad.  Same issue applies to an offset clubhead.

So once again, advantage goes to the less offset club which is typically the complete opposite of
"SGI" "forgiving" irons.

Carney Sham(e) #6 - That there is any scientific correlation between "forgiveness" and skill level.

If you notice, nothing in what I said above makes a distinction as to the golfer's skill level.  The reason is because all of the science is universal as to the benefits of a blade whether or not how often the golfer hits the miss hit or whether or not how bad the miss hit was.  Also as mentioned you can look at the entire length of a blade muscle like the fat part of a baseball bat where you can hit the "home run" with contact along any part that is fat behind the ball (and still on the grooves and FLAT!!!).  Compared to a variable flexing thinner face CB, this is much more forgiving.

Ok so that about covers everything from an LOL high level.  As mentioned there is deeper math in everything I've stated.

Also I just want to mention that the "forgiving" designs simply damp the feel of a miss hit and if there is any "detriment" to a blade design is that the same exact miss hit simply feels worse on the hands and moreover the subtleties of all different qualities of strike are more distinct with a blade.  I think some golfers associate this issue with a blade being more demanding on the golfer and that miss hits are more penal on him, but to me that is demanding in only his mind (because there is no true science to support it) and just because the feedback is so precise.  To me this is where the mind f*ck comes into play with those that use a "forgiving" club and think that the miss hit that they just it was somehow "saved".  In my experience the same miss hit just feels worse with a blade.  Also in my experience a blade design is simply more forgiving even on miss hits.

I'm done here.  PM me if you want to discuss further.

It’s like going to a concert and hearing your favorite band play their biggest hit for the encore.
TaylorMade R510 TP 9.5° [Fujikura Speeder 757 S]
Ping 2014 Rapture 12.5° [Fujikura Speeder 757 S]
Tour Edge Exotics CB4 Tour 16.5° [UST ProForce V2 75 S]
Callaway x2Hot Pro 20° / 23° Hybrid [KBS Hybrid S]
Mizuno 2016 EZ Forged 5-G [TT XP95 S300]
Ping Glide 54.5° ES / 60° ES [Nippon N.S. Pro Modus3 125 Wedge S]
Ping Anser "0" Milled [Pingman Blackout @ 33.25"]
Lamkin UTx [Standard]
Bridgestone B330

11

#72 Petunia Sprinkle

Petunia Sprinkle

    Future King of France

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,407 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 397380
  • Joined: 09/25/2015
GolfWRX Likes : 4581

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:06 PM

How can you not fade a blade?

12

#73 rawdog

rawdog

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,580 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424320
  • Joined: 05/08/2016
  • Location:Cleveland, OH
  • Handicap:8.6
  • Ebay ID:staghornsandmore
GolfWRX Likes : 2119

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:13 PM

View PostPetunia Sprinkle, on 03 May 2018 - 10:06 PM, said:

How can you not fade a blade?

It's almost like blades come with a different set of ball flight laws...
Cobra LTD Driver
Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
Cobra F7 One Length Irons
Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
6I = 24*   7I = 29*   8I = 34*   9I = 39*   PW = 44*   GW = 49*   SW = 54*   LW = 59*
Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
Maxfli SoftFli

13

#74 Chuck905

Chuck905

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 400908
  • Joined: 10/27/2015
  • Location:Niagara Falls
  • Handicap:7
GolfWRX Likes : 256

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:24 PM

I was so close to pulling the trigger on the S18 but the 900T was best suited for me.

It really comes down to optimizing your equipment to match your swing.



View PostNine Miler, on 03 May 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

DeNinny, you’re back! How long has it been? Long enough for me to try out the other side of my old argument, at least.

Have a good day.

Epic SZ 10*, Tensei White 75
Epic SZ Strong 3 Wood, 13.5*
U45 17*, Recoil 110
3-PW Mizuno MP18 Blades
Mizuno T7s 54-8 SW and 58-12 LW
Odyssey RX9

14

#75 Petunia Sprinkle

Petunia Sprinkle

    Future King of France

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,407 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 397380
  • Joined: 09/25/2015
GolfWRX Likes : 4581

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:36 PM

View Postrawdog, on 03 May 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

View PostPetunia Sprinkle, on 03 May 2018 - 10:06 PM, said:

How can you not fade a blade?

It's almost like blades come with a different set of ball flight laws...

Nicklaus and Hogan must've played with early GIs.


15

#76 Kingcat990

Kingcat990

    European Tailored Golf Socks

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291815
  • Joined: 01/14/2014
  • Location:Orange County
GolfWRX Likes : 2430

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:41 PM

My golf bag got sexier with blades. My score card got obese and is suffering from debilitating diabetes. I do prefer the looks and feel of a blade. The penalized shots are hurtful when you're not trapping that ball properly.
Wyoming Cowboys

WITB
PRGR Nabla RS02M43S
PRGR Nabla 18° M43S
RC BBD V7 UT Ti 20° & 23°GS200
Masda Fast Blades 5-P Nippon 120S
EON TW15 52°/58° Nippon Wedge S
Piretti Matera
MacGregor VIP Heads 2-P Welded/Copper Finish
Royal Collection BBD V7 5-P S200
Miura Baby Blades 1-P

16

#77 TCZ

TCZ

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 273973
  • Joined: 09/01/2013
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Handicap:3
GolfWRX Likes : 209

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:58 PM

I occasionally switch back and forth between my Apex Pros and my combo set in my signature.  The switch has zero impact on my scores.  I feel full confidence over the MBs, although I only play them from 7-P! The thin soles on the MBs is where i notice the most difference--love the turf interaction.

Edited by TCZ, 03 May 2018 - 10:59 PM.

Driver (9.5):  Taylormade M4 (Tour AD DI 6s)
4 Wood (16.5): Titleist 917 F2 (Tour AD DI 7s)
Hybrid (21):  Titleist 816H1 (Tour AD DI 85s)

4 -5 Iron:  PXG 0311 (KBS C-Taper Lite 110 S)
6-P:  PXG 0311T (KBS C-Taper Lite 110 S)
Wedges (50F/54S/58M):  Titleist Vokey SM7 (Jet Black)
Putter:  Taylormade TP Balboa/Miura KM-006/Scotty Cameron Monterey

17

#78 Jasonic

Jasonic

    Gamer

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,567 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 277815
  • Joined: 09/25/2013
  • Location:Queens NY
  • Handicap:5.2
GolfWRX Likes : 2574

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:10 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 03 May 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

I just want to make clear up front that this is not a burner account of mine.

Thanks. Whew I was really on the edge of my seat there.
2017 M1 440 9.5* - Tensei Pro Orange 70TX
TM M3 3 wood - 14.25* - Tensei Pro White 80TX
Srixon u45 DI - 19* - Tensei Pro White Hybrid 100TX
Mizuno mp18 4-PW - Nippon Modus3 120x
Hogan TK wedges - 50*, 54*, 58* - Nippon Modus3 120x
Ping Anser OG
Snell MTB Black

18

#79 IIvudooII

IIvudooII

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 423590
  • Joined: 05/03/2016
  • Location:Boyle Heights
  • Handicap:14
GolfWRX Likes : 137

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:20 PM

I appreciate the replies. I guess I should have explained to some of you that everything I expressed in my initial post was written with the upmost consideration for the game itself. I think it was implied that my swing is good enough to get enjoyment out of a blade but I am a little torn between what this new decision will bring. I played the Miura CB57 today in Palm Springs and I had such a great time. Hit a very hard 87 but I got so much enjoyment out of feeling out shots I intended to hit into certain areas around the course. I can’t wait to hit my Mc 501’s.

19

#80 wmblake2000

wmblake2000

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 33930
  • Joined: 07/07/2007
  • Location:Los Angeles
GolfWRX Likes : 2947

Posted 04 May 2018 - 12:25 AM

Play what you enjoy. There aren’t any rules — we play for fun. You’re swing is good enough for blades if you decide it is.

I keep two sets - one easy to hit, one blades. I play whichever I’m in the mood for.

Callaway Epic 10.5 TPT LKP 45.5"
Callaway Epic Hybrid 2h
Callway xhot 3 h
RomaRo Pro 3-W Modus 105 R
Fourteen mt28v3 50, 54
Cameron Futura 5W

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#81 IIvudooII

IIvudooII

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 423590
  • Joined: 05/03/2016
  • Location:Boyle Heights
  • Handicap:14
GolfWRX Likes : 137

Posted 04 May 2018 - 12:27 AM

View Postwmblake2000, on 04 May 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:

Play what you enjoy. There aren’t any rules — we play for fun. You’re swing is good enough for blades if you decide it is.

I keep two sets - one easy to hit, one blades. I play whichever I’m in the mood for.
that is reasonable.

21

#82 Bye

Bye

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,250 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 295315
  • Joined: 02/05/2014
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:1.3
GolfWRX Likes : 642

Posted 04 May 2018 - 03:20 AM

View Postrawdog, on 03 May 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

View PostPetunia Sprinkle, on 03 May 2018 - 10:06 PM, said:

How can you not fade a blade?

It's almost like blades come with a different set of ball flight laws...

Another extract from the same article and the link to it.

Furyk's comments also point to another reason why muscle-backs are not for everyone. Some say it takes a certain type of swing to be effective with them. According to several tour reps, the primary attribute that differentiates a blade from a cavity-back is how the center line of the face is positioned as it relates to the center line of the shaft. In a blade, the center line of the face is much closer. In a cavity back the head is larger so the center line of the face is farther out. The farther out, the longer a player can hold the release. A player such as Furyk is a holder of the release. As such, the cavity-back design works for him. Players who really release the hands -- pros such as Mickelson and Els -- are players who have an easier time getting a blade to square up at impact.

https://www.golfdige...-equipment-0815

I thought I was going mad at the time. It wasn't not being able to hit a fade, it just was really hard for me to do.

Anyway it helped me, even if it was just a placebo effect.
Taylormade 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
Titleist 716CB 3-9 - X100
Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
Scotty Cameron Select Fastback
Titleist Pro V1

22

#83 Bye

Bye

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,250 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 295315
  • Joined: 02/05/2014
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:1.3
GolfWRX Likes : 642

Posted 04 May 2018 - 03:22 AM

View Posttobiasjd, on 03 May 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

View PostBye, on 03 May 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

When I was looking to change my clubs last time round I came across this quote.


"I've always wanted to go to a blade iron, to a smaller iron," said Jim Furyk earlier this year at the Travelers Championship. "The problem is when that blade is a lot smaller, the center of gravity gets kicked in toward the heel a little bit more and the club becomes much easier to draw. So shots that I was hitting...at times I'd look up and feel like I made a good shot, but it was always a touch left of where I thought it should be. I didn't want to change my swing or change my approach [so I went back] to my cavity-backs."

I always found my blades really hard to fade. This made sense to me, and making the switch to CB's has really helped.

The only set of cast clubs I have used was the Callaway X14 pro series, what a great set of clubs they were.

So clearly Jim's swing is too inside out producing a touch more draw than it should, and the cavity back is actually helping to create an altered result.

Instead of correcting his swing, he uses a club that masks his swing flaw and makes him believe he actually hit a good shot.

I would quite happily swap impact positions with him, and bank accounts.
Taylormade 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
Titleist 716CB 3-9 - X100
Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
Scotty Cameron Select Fastback
Titleist Pro V1

23

#84 granata10

granata10

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 86688
  • Joined: 06/25/2009
  • Location:Michigan
  • Handicap:0
GolfWRX Likes : 44

Posted 04 May 2018 - 07:50 AM

Take it for what its worth to you, but I have played Ping S59s and S56s as well as i5s and the iEs over the last 13 years and while I have played well with all of them my most consistent golf has been played with the I Series of irons.

I know a lot of you are going to say the S series are not true blade but they are slightly less forgiving than the I series.
Ping G30 LST 10.5* <br />Callaway XR Pro 16*<br />G 19*<br />Ping G400 Crossover<br />Ping I 5-Pw, Uw<br />Glide 2.0 54* & 58*<br />Odyssey 2 Ball

24

#85 bcsquare

bcsquare

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486266
  • Joined: 11/07/2017
  • Handicap:7.5
  • Ebay ID:tangray06
GolfWRX Likes : 26

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:08 AM

View PostPetunia Sprinkle, on 03 May 2018 - 10:06 PM, said:

How can you not fade a blade?

I'm thinking if you have an inside to out swing like me. Draws are a stock shot. I find that if I'm not paying close attention to the swing path, a fade becomes a straight block to the right.

Ping G400 SFT, Alta B
Ping G400 3w, Tour 75
Ping G400 22* hybrid, Alta CB
Titleist 716 T-MB 4i, DG AMT
Titleist 716 AP2 5-PW, KBS Tour V
Titleist SM7 50*, 56*, KBS Tour V
Toulon Madison

25

#86 PGATourDriven

PGATourDriven

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 365567
  • Joined: 03/08/2015
  • Location:Plymouth Massachusetts
  • Handicap:12
GolfWRX Likes : 114

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:32 AM

I have played many different types of irons both left handed, along with right handed. my opinion is this if you have confidence or enjoy what you are looking down at you will play better golf, or at least have more fun. Ive played players CB's GI SGI blades and I feel like my swing gets sloppy with anything other than a players cb or blade. So I play blades because for me it inspires confidence and I enjoy looking down at a super thin top line. Along with there is nothing better than hitting a blade flush. My scores are lower when I play blades I feel simply due to the fact that I am having more fun and focusing more on my golf shots. So long story short; play what you like and what inspires confidence for your golf game. If you want to play blades go ahead and do it who cares what anyone else thinks, if they say "oh only XX handicap should be hitting blades" tell them to take that nonsense elsewhere. Just have fun and enjoy this great game!
Taylormade SLDR 430
Taylormade P790 UDI 2 iron
Pinhawk SL 4 hybrid
1 iron golf pro line 5-pw
Six Bowtie SS red faced 44in
Pinnacle Gold Ball
Ping Hoofer Carry Bag

26

#87 Caddykev

Caddykev

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 454164
  • Joined: 02/05/2017
  • Location:Long Island, NY
  • Handicap:0
  • Ebay ID:kevin4722
GolfWRX Likes : 142

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:42 AM

As others have stated OP, play whatever you want. Golf is a game of confidence, and that plays into the clubs we choose to play first and foremost. Cavity backs do not produce lazy ball striking, and MBs don't magically make anyone a better ball striker by placing them in the bag. The furyk take is something that I was told back when I started playing college golf, and noticed for myself. I have a hold off release as well, and my natural shot is a little draw. I went from MP 33s, to i3 blades and played some of the best golf of my life. I tended to over draw shots, and struggled with fading the ball with my MP 33s even when they were flushed. With the i3 blades, I found that I was able to control my draw better, and started to really utilize a fade better. It's all about playing what works best for you at the end of the day, not what looks best in the bag.

27

#88 dciccoritti

dciccoritti

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 173476
  • Joined: 04/06/2012
  • Location:Toronto, Canada
GolfWRX Likes : 1493

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:43 AM

View PostDeNinny, on 03 May 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:


I think some golfers associate this issue with a blade being more demanding on the golfer and that miss hits are more penal on him, but to me that is demanding in only his mind (because there is no true science to support it) and just because the feedback is so precise. To me this is where the mind f*ck comes into play with those that use a "forgiving" club and think that the miss hit that they just it was somehow "saved".  In my experience the same miss hit just feels worse with a blade.  Also in my experience a blade design is simply more forgiving even on miss hits.


Very interesting thought/point. I mean we're human and have the ability to look at all things both ways if we so choose. You hit a blade or players CB off the toe and because it feels like poop, you think "boy these clubs are demanding". Ball is sitting 5 yards short of the green. You hit a GI or SGI off the toe that doesn't feel like poop and you think "thank goodness I'm playing a forgiving club, that could have been worse". Ball is 5 yards short of the green.
917 D2 Driver | 718 MB Irons | Milled Grind Wedges | HI-TOE Wedge | TR 1966 Anser 2 Putter | ProV1x

28

#89 Nessism

Nessism

    To measure is to know...

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,548 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 131490
  • Joined: 06/23/2011
  • Location:Torrance, CA
GolfWRX Likes : 8465

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:49 AM

It goes without saying that each person should play whatever clubs make them happiest.  I'm of the belief that many players make that decision based on appearance though, not on what clubs will provide the best result.  They make their decision based on static visuals and then justify thereafter.  Just like the guys that say "I don't want a club that masks my swing flaws"  and "I want feedback so I know when I mishit the shot."  Regarding confidence, I agree that it's important but it's not the end all be all.  Results will build confidence.

When I was younger I played blades for more than a decade.  Hated CB's, especially those ugly offset Eye2's! ;)  As time went on I caved and went players CB and now full on GI CB and my ball striking results are better than ever (other than old age catching up with me and my aching back.)  Yes yes, play what you want.  Just don't be delusional like our "carney sham" member above.

Edited by Nessism, 04 May 2018 - 08:53 AM.

Ping G400 driver w/Adila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
TEE XCG6 3 & 5 fairway woods & E8 hybrid
Mizuno Hot Metal irons w/Recoil 95's
Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110's
Ping Anser putter - the "real deal!"

29

#90 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    Certified Blade Chump

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,680 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 5143

Posted 04 May 2018 - 09:41 AM

View PostNessism, on 04 May 2018 - 08:49 AM, said:

It goes without saying that each person should play whatever clubs make them happiest.  I'm of the belief that many players make that decision based on appearance though, not on what clubs will provide the best result.  They make their decision based on static visuals and then justify thereafter.  Just like the guys that say "I don't want a club that masks my swing flaws"  and "I want feedback so I know when I mishit the shot."  Regarding confidence, I agree that it's important but it's not the end all be all.  Results will build confidence.

When I was younger I played blades for more than a decade.  Hated CB's, especially those ugly offset Eye2's! ;)  As time went on I caved and went players CB and now full on GI CB and my ball striking results are better than ever (other than old age catching up with me and my aching back.)  Yes yes, play what you want.  Just don't be delusional like our "carney sham" member above.


I generally believe as you do, "play what you want" has always been one of my mantras.  There are a couple others that apply as well, such as "one size does not fit all" as well as "the only way you'll know if it works is to try."

Obligatory Yoda reference on the "try" in the previous sentence.  It *is* May the Fourth, after all.   :pimp:

Where I depart from your line of thinking is my own experience.  When I bought my first set of Golden Rams, no one thought I should even think about playing them.  Yet my scores came down.  I tried a LOT of non-blades, sets I really wanted to work.  My first year with the Rams, I switched to a set of Peerless Tours for two months, I thought they were the absolute truth.  And my scores went up.  Back to the Rams, scores came down.

Ironically, the only set of CBs that has given me roughly the same scores as my various bladeyblades are the Ping Eye2+ that you mentioned in your post.  They have their own set of issues for me, which is one reason I don't play them any longer.

A lot of drivel above, which can be boiled down to this:  I play what I play because I score better with those clubs in my bag.  In spite of the generally accepted truisms about forgiving clubs.

Hell, my hdcp dropped to single digits for the first time when I switched to playing persimmons for three months, back in 2008.  LOL  That's not supposed to happen, either.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  Cobra King LTD, Rogue Black 70 (3w shaft), 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
2h:  TM Stage2 Tour, NV105 S
2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
Testing:  4-SW Pinhawk SL irons, DGS400, 37" (oh my!)
SW:  Acer XB 58*, DGS300 tipped
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
(Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV
   will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
Shoes by True Linkswear

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors