191 replies to this topic

[jwrogers]

Timanator, on 19 November 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

To the OP, I used to think I was a good ball striker until I saw pro's up close. The definition of a Good ball Striker is:

Hitting every shot solid with the same trajectory. The ball starting on the intended line.

Which is also why there is not a chance any high HCP can really be a good Ball Striker because of simple math.

Good ballstriking has measurable results.   It's not just about how pretty something is.   I think GIR is a fantastic way to measure ballstriking, because the sport is about scoring.   I don't see how anyone could ever claim to be a good ballstriker who misses a lot of greens.

I miss a lot of greens, but that's because my ballstriking is crap.

[kg92lefty]

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

[Sean2]

kg92lefty, on 19 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

I agree with this, along with having a little circular mark on your irons right on the sweet spot. I'm a high single digit HI and I consider myself a poor ball striker.

But that's neither here nor there. The OP made an observation and offered an opinion. Bottom line: he decided that GI's are a better option for him than blades. Not a bad conclusion to come to.

[kg92lefty]

Sean2, on 19 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

kg92lefty, on 19 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

I agree with this, along with having a little circular mark on your irons right on the sweet spot. I'm a high single digit HI and I consider myself a poor ball striker.

But that's neither here nor there. The OP made an observation and offered an opinion. Bottom line: he decided that GI's are a better option for him than blades. Not a bad conclusion to come to.

Yeah, Ive played to a + for the last two years and my ball striking is garbage. My short game is great.
Nothing wrong with a little forgivness, Ive been looking at some cbs lately.

[insightaz]

Bubb, on 18 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Nessism, on 18 November 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

jwrogers, on 18 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I think using distance as the measuring stick is wrong.   I think the better discussion is consistency.

I agree completely.  Distance is hugely over rated, yet first and foremost on most golfers minds.  For me the number one priority is knowing where the ball is going, distance included.  I don't care what number is on the bottom of the club.

I agree that most big hitters who can't score should focus on things other than distance, but I don't think distance is over-rated. I'm usually the shortest hitter in my group and I routinely beat people who hit it longer, but my game is maxed-out. I've gotten down to a 3 hdcp, but I can't squeeze much more out of my game without adding more distance and, at my age, it just isn't going to happen.

Just like how you can't teach height in basketball or speed in football, I'd rather have the advantage of distance in golf and then work to dial in the other aspects. I can break par on occasion, but I can't bring a course to it's knees like some of the long hitters I play with. Distance is a big advantage, in my opinion. Short hitters can't prosper at the highest levels.

isn't Luke Donald a short hitter by wrx standards? He seems to do ok lol

[jwrogers]

Sean2, on 19 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

kg92lefty, on 19 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

I agree with this, along with having a little circular mark on your irons right on the sweet spot. I'm a high single digit HI and I consider myself a poor ball striker.

But that's neither here nor there. The OP made an observation and offered an opinion. Bottom line: he decided that GI's are a better option for him than blades. Not a bad conclusion to come to.

I absolutely agree with the conclusion.   I just questioned the reason.

[fairwaysroverated]

jwrogers, on 19 November 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Sean2, on 19 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

kg92lefty, on 19 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

I agree with this, along with having a little circular mark on your irons right on the sweet spot. I'm a high single digit HI and I consider myself a poor ball striker.

But that's neither here nor there. The OP made an observation and offered an opinion. Bottom line: he decided that GI's are a better option for him than blades. Not a bad conclusion to come to.

I absolutely agree with the conclusion.   I just questioned the reason.

I had said in an earlier post that my idea of good ball striking is not what you guys call it. I don't have the experience that most of you guys seem to have. I was really trying to say that I hit the ball clean, not thin or fat, or towards the toe. That being said I cut across the ball some and have a bad impact position at time. I do hit the irons the proper length sometimes, but no nearly enough. I was really hoping to help someone that might be thinking the same thing I was. That was the whole reason for the post, but like usual these low indexes love to try and make guys feel like idiots. I learned from my mistake, I thought I hit the ball better than I do.

[Sean2]

Fairways, I think some folks just got riled up when you said you were a good ball striker but carry a 16 HI. That just doesn't track. When I think of a good ball striker I think of a scratch or plus handicap golfer. Someone who hits a lot of fairways and a ton of greens. Your main message...that GI's are better for your game than blades...seems to have got lost. Just a bit of miscommunication that maybe some people overreacted to.

[DrInhale]

Sean2, on 19 November 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Fairways, I think some folks just got riled up when you said you were a good ball striker but carry a 16 HI. That just doesn't track. When I think of a good ball striker I think of a scratch or plus handicap golfer. Someone who hits a lot of fairways and a ton of greens. Your main message...that GI's are better for your game than blades...seems to have got lost. Just a bit of miscommunication that maybe some people overreacted to.

OP going about GI are better for high handicappers is not lost.  This advice is silly coming from a highcapper.  It doesn't matter if a highcapper plays blades or GI, play what you want.  It won't change his score without working on his game.  The mistake he is doing is cycling so many different clubs and blaming his distance on equipment and not his swing.  If he likes changing irons he should do it but not tell people the reason for sporatic distances in due to the equipment.  It is the archer instead of the arrow.

[Wknd_Warrior]

I really don't think the OP cares what the wrx or official version of "good ballstriker" means.  I think it's fairly obvious what he meant regardless of what many of the vultures here have decided to read into it.  Just pretend he said he gets the club on the face most of the time and give the guy a break.

The yardages in your first post are kind of all over the place.  There are differences in those clubs, blades tend to bne a bit more lofted, and pings seem to have a bit of a rep for being "long", but going from a 160 yard 9i with one set to a 135 yards with another is insane.  Also 180y or so 6i doesn't line up much with a 160y 9i.

I'm thinking the different offset and lie of the clubs might be playing a role here as well, especially with your old irons and the shorter clubs.  160 is a long 9i, maybe too ong given your general descripituon of your game, I can't help thinking you are delofting those excessivly because of the offset, seeing 150 come up might not be a bad thing.  135 is kinda strange though.  there may be some truth to what people are saying you might not have a feel for the center of the face on the plainer clubs yet.

[Bubb]

insightaz, on 19 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Bubb, on 18 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Nessism, on 18 November 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

jwrogers, on 18 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I think using distance as the measuring stick is wrong.   I think the better discussion is consistency.

I agree completely.  Distance is hugely over rated, yet first and foremost on most golfers minds.  For me the number one priority is knowing where the ball is going, distance included.  I don't care what number is on the bottom of the club.

I agree that most big hitters who can't score should focus on things other than distance, but I don't think distance is over-rated. I'm usually the shortest hitter in my group and I routinely beat people who hit it longer, but my game is maxed-out. I've gotten down to a 3 hdcp, but I can't squeeze much more out of my game without adding more distance and, at my age, it just isn't going to happen.

Just like how you can't teach height in basketball or speed in football, I'd rather have the advantage of distance in golf and then work to dial in the other aspects. I can break par on occasion, but I can't bring a course to it's knees like some of the long hitters I play with. Distance is a big advantage, in my opinion. Short hitters can't prosper at the highest levels.

isn't Luke Donald a short hitter by wrx standards? He seems to do ok lol

If you consider an average driving distance of 280 yards to be "short", we're not speaking the same language. Even the longest on tour average only 30 yards or so more than that. For a truly short hitter (230-240 yards) to prosper on tour, he'd have to average 18 putts a round.

[Rhythm&TempoRenzo]

Before you completely give them up - check the lofts & lie angles - match them to your longest clubs & I'm sure you'll be extremely happy...

[mikpga]

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

[BrianL99]

mikpga, on 19 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

Great question.

Perhaps the adoration of his friends and playing companions?

[fairwaysroverated]

BrianL99, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

mikpga, on 19 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

Great question.

Perhaps the adoration of his friends and playing companions?

It was more about loving the looks, and yeah I still hope to one day be good enough to play them because it is a status thing I guess. Is something wrong with aspiring to do that?

[DrInhale]

fairwaysroverated, on 20 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

BrianL99, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

mikpga, on 19 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

Great question.

Perhaps the adoration of his friends and playing companions?

It was more about loving the looks, and yeah I still hope to one day be good enough to play them because it is a status thing I guess. Is something wrong with aspiring to do that?

I agree play what you want!!!  Just don't blame the equipment...good luck.

[Daniel Eason]

What about workability? could you work one or the other better to shape shots?

[Halebopp]

Guys,

Didn't you read the original post, he gamed S56 and loved them. Those are blades in my opinion - probably the easiest blades but still. He only noted that he hits a CB (I20) further and another type of blade (MP-69) shorter. And from that he came to the conclusion that blades aren't good.

Yes, us hackers shouldn't be gaming blades to get the best scores but the OP said he struck one kind of a blade very well (for his ability). So where did the whole GI thing come here?  (ok, Ping might be stretching the traditional blade and CB standards a bit)

To me, the only real problem in the original post was that irons are better the longer you can hit them.As a lot of people have stated, irons are about consistency and accuracy and when you're good enough, about workability also.

Edited by Halebopp, 20 November 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[somaplr]

Daniel Eason, on 20 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

What about workability? could you work one or the other better to shape shots?

The last thing a 16 hdcp needs to worry about is how to work a ball into a green.

[ej002]

i20s are high lauch low spin designs.   If you hit the other two properly, you will get more spin.   But sometimes these things just happen.   I had similar results going from s58s to 690mbs (same shafts px 6.0).   What was odd is that I gained 5 or so over the s58s and 15 over 690mbs going to 695mbs with x100s.  None of that makes any sense to me, but the bottom line is that some clubs work for a particular player, some clubs dont.   I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt b/c s56 are not going to be a lot easier to hit than any modern forged blade (IMO). A little easier sure, but not night and day. As far as whether he is a "good" ball striker, it is all relative, I am sure he hits the ball better than most (excluding the 1% who hangs out on the wrx).

[fairwaysroverated]

somaplr, on 20 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Daniel Eason, on 20 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

What about workability? could you work one or the other better to shape shots?

The last thing a 16 hdcp needs to worry about is how to work a ball into a green.

Yeah, I more likely to need to know how to work a ball out of the trees. Which I'm pretty good at, hence the name fairways are over rated. lol

[kellygreen]

fairwaysroverated, on 18 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

First, a little history about me and my game. I have been playing golf for 2 years now. My strength is ball striking, tee to green. I'm a 16 cap and if I had any kind of short game I would shot well into the 80's consistently. It's not uncommon for me to be just off the green on a par 4 then chili dip a chip and three put for double boogey. Just thinking about that makes me want to pull my hair out, but onto my expirience.

  I recently switched from S56's to MP 59 and 69 combo set up (I used to hit my S56's great just for refference). I have the full set of both clubs, but mix and match according to how I feel that day. Since Ive switched I've been hitting what look to be beautiful shot's in the air and feel great off the face, but always fall short of the green. I've gone from hitting my I20 9 iron 160 yards, to my S56 9 iron 150 yard, to my MP 69 9 iron 135 yards. Talk about depressing. After this happening consistanly now for about 25 rounds, I realize that even though it feels like I'm hitting the center of the club face I must be just a hair off and it makes a huge difference on the distance.

After I played in a local tournament yesterday and hit only one green with my MP 59 4 iron from 208 yards I went straight from the course to my local golf shop and started comparing my blades to the JPX pro 825's and AP2's. I hit the JPX pro 6 iron consistantly 180 yards with 1 out of every 10 going for 190 plus. Took out my MP 69 6 iron and hit it 170 yards 1 out of every 10, and 1 out of 20 it went 180 yards. The AP2's were about 5 yards shorter than the JPX pro's, but just as consistent.

So I hope this saves someone out there thinking about going to blades and having the question we see on here all to often, "should I play blades" some money. I guess bottom line, if you have to ask wether or not you should play them, you should probably stick with what you have.

The I20 9-iron is made of stainless steel (harder than the carbon steel used in forged clubs), is 41* in loft and 35.75" in length.  The S56 9-iron is also of 17-4 stainless steel, is 42.5* in loft and is 35.75" in length.  The MP-69 9-iron is made of 1025E (a very soft carbon steel), is 42* in loft and is 35.75" in length.    All other things being equal, you should lose a couple of yards just to the difference in loft between the I20 and the MP-69...but you will typically lose about a clubs worth of distance due to lower ball speeds and higher spin because of the softer club.

If you are losing more than that, then its because you have either been improperly fitted...or you are missing the sweetspot.  Blade clubs and cavity-backs typically have their sweetspots in very different places.

Cavity-backs are typically engineered so that their sweetspot is at (or near) the geometric center of the clubface.   Blades, OTOH, because of the more even distribution of weight, will typically have its sweetspot near the HEEL of the clubhead (because of the effect of the weight of the hosel).

At the end of the day, playing blades is about shot control...not distance.  But anyone who is considering blades should have a consistent enough swing that they can hit about a silver-dollar sized area around the sweet spot.    If you can't...play something more forgiving.

[kellygreen]

Big Smooth, on 18 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Basically re-iterating points, and no offense, but no 16 handicap is a "good" ballstriker.  But that is beside the point: irons are all about distance control, not raw distance - I've never understood why some guys like to brag about how far they hit their irons, it's kind of like bragging about having big balls...

Someone who is a mid-handicap is (by definition) not a good ballstriker with all of their clubs.

I playe a set of Nike blades for years---starting as a 15-handicap---and did not struggle with them like the OP.   Because I was a solid ballstriker with my irons.

My woods, however, were a VERY different story.

[mikpga]

He admitted his ball striking had nothing to do with poor scoring.

[1puttwoods]

" I've gone from hitting my I20 9 iron 160 yards, to my S56 9 iron 150 yard, to my MP 69 9 iron 135 yards."

Either Ping makes very average golfers into hero's or you have absolutely no idea how far you hit the ball.

[kellygreen]

1puttwoods, on 20 November 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

" I've gone from hitting my I20 9 iron 160 yards, to my S56 9 iron 150 yard, to my MP 69 9 iron 135 yards."

Either Ping makes very average golfers into hero's or you have absolutely no idea how far you hit the ball.

Or he's a strong swinger who has difficulty finding the sweetspot on a bladed iron.

Give this 44 year-old, former power-hitting infielder a ProV1x, and a contemporary strong-lofted 8-iron (Niker VR Split-cavity, 39*, 36.5", and shafted with a C-taper X) I can carry that shot 160 yds in still, summer conditions on flat terrain.

[BrianL99]

Keep working at it Kelly & perhaps try one downwind, you'll get to GRX distance with that 8 iron

[BrianL99]

fairwaysroverated, on 20 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

BrianL99, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

mikpga, on 19 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

Great question.

Perhaps the adoration of his friends and playing companions?

It was more about loving the looks, and yeah I still hope to one day be good enough to play them because it is a status thing I guess. Is something wrong with aspiring to do that?

Low scores are a status symbol.

Very few low handicappers and even fewer Pros, play blades ... they're generally not conducive to low scoring.

[NRJyzr]

kg92lefty, on 19 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

If you aren't hitting 12+ greens you are not a good ballstriker.

That's a level that only 46 players on the PGA Tour managed in 2012 (66.67%).

Interesting comment.

Edited by NRJyzr, 20 November 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[NRJyzr]

BrianL99, on 20 November 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

fairwaysroverated, on 20 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

BrianL99, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

mikpga, on 19 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

What was the OP expecting from playing blades?

Great question.

Perhaps the adoration of his friends and playing companions?

It was more about loving the looks, and yeah I still hope to one day be good enough to play them because it is a status thing I guess. Is something wrong with aspiring to do that?

Low scores are a status symbol.

Very few low handicappers and even fewer Pros, play blades ... they're generally not conducive to low scoring.

For you, maybe.

They worked for me; shaved a stroke off my index in a month, after switching back to them.

Edited by NRJyzr, 20 November 2012 - 01:26 PM.