Yah, I saw it this morning, good data!
Crossfield's video is a far better than average attempt at quantifying this. Certainly better than 99% of what is out there from other YT-ers who hit 5 or 10 shots, not controlling for loft/length/lie, hitting all one club, then hitting all another, and calling that "good". And definitely better than anecdotes on a forum.
Sure, even more scientific rigor could be applied here, and I would highly encourage Mark Crossfield (or others) to do so, but this was a pretty reasonably executed test. As with any experiment, it's difficult to control for bias, but given that Crossfield has played both CBs, MBs, and I think he's now back on CBs, I don't think he has any particular axe to grind in this department.
What's funny (or maybe not so funny), is that Crossfield did in 20 minutes what virtually nobody else has really done - publicly. So a more rigorous, more scientific test is certainly within the realm of possibility. I would wager that the club companies do, in fact, have this data in spades. Where is it?
You will never get the data from the OEMs. They don't want you to have it. Valid experimental performance data or even design data is anathema to a marketting driven process. They don't want buying decisions made based on real data. They want to shape your perceptions and desires with rhetoric. They make more money that way.
I'm bullish on blades as anyone & I'm surprised by the data. Crossfield is no slouch with his swing. A test with more average swings would be highly interesting and would probably tilt results somewhat. But he confirms what I've pretty much felt about it for 20 years.
seems like Crossfield was onto this a few years ago when he started playing blades after testing EVERYTHING. I mean who has more capacity to pick whatever they want than guys like Crossfield, Shiels, even James Robinson plays blades right (MP-20s maybe)? Shiels (Ping blueprint I think) shot like a 95 or something in an Open qualifier - is he a tour level ball striker? Or is he just too vain and can't understand he should be playing perimeter weighted clubs. I hardly get that vibe from his videos but maybe that's the case. All these guys hit every club on the market and end up in bladed mid, short irons eventually. MC just put some numbers behind what most discerning players have already learned thru experience.
M1 440 (TI) | Synergy Green Proto 80tx
M5 3w | Synergy Green Proto 80tx
Titleist 913 5w | Diamana B 80x
Srixon Z745 4, 5i | DG120 X100, DG X100
Srixon Z945 6-p | DG X100
Vokey SM7/8 50F, 54S, 58S | DG S400
Odyssey Stroke Lab Double Wide Flow
Oh, I completely agree. My question about "where's the data?" was rhetorical. It'd be sorta funny if an enterprising golf company out there did a spoof on the the old Wendy's "Where's the beef?" campaign.
But it is sad. I work in an industry where if you have good, valid, rigorous data, you can take that to the bank, and the marketing guys will exploit that. Industries where the data is not available says a lot about what that data might or might not include.
If I won a big lottery, one thing I might be inclined to do would be to start a boutique irons company where all the design and performance info was disclosed on the website. Let the discerning golfer choose wisely. Maybe run it as a low profit biz because money wouldn't be an issue. Marketting would be solely data based with no BS. Everyone needs a dream...
It would be nice if we could go out and find a swing robot, and get the blade and players cb and sgi cb of anyone's choosing, calibrate the robot to swing the club, and then manipulate ball position and club delivery angles to affect strike. Start with a swing that is square square, and then move the ball 3mm toe side, then 3mm heel side, then a swing thats 2 extra degrees in to out. Etc. I would love to see the portfolio of data one could build by simply adjusting those parameters across hundreds if not thousands of shots. With automated tees like some ranges have you could probably preprogram the test protocol and not even have to do anything except change the clubs.
Until something like that occurs I don't think we will ever be able to make a determination.
It is inconceivable to me that the OEMs do not have this very data. They're the ones with the swing robots, access to paid human testers (pros and ams), engineers and data scientists to crunch the numbers. But, as stated above, they're not going to share. We can speculate why they won't share - some explanations might be more nefarious than others - but the lack of data being made public is interesting in and of itself. Like I said, other industries make it standard practice to tout data when it shows that the benefits are there. Even something as simple as a car's 0-60 time. In golf, we get crickets.
That would be a great project. The hard part is getting the swing robot. Once you have that, you could solicit folks here on GolfWRX for all the clubs. For the donation of shipping, a table gets produced with all the data for any clubs folks submit. The OEMs would go insane once that data got published.
I don't think it would last very long. Once the OEMS discovered that these results were being published, they'd lean on WRX to make them go away. Just like with photos of pre-releases, the OEM's do have a bit of leverage I would imagine. But if I ever win a few lotteries, I will definitely look into a swing robot.
H E L L F I R E!!!! Thanks to Crossfield, I can go ahead and give these JPX EZ clubs to my son today and go back to my MP5s! Did anyone notice the times when he commented on the FEEL of the shots? I would go out on a limb and say that the Mavrick FELT better on all hits than the Top Flight. Even though the results were worse. Remember, when someone feels like they put a good strike on the ball and the distance isn't right, their confidence wells that they hit it well and the discrepancy is just pawned off as inability of the player to hit it the exact right distance. When in reality, the good strike wasn't really that good, and it's the CLUBS fault the ball didn't land where it should have. I'm in the MB club and I am even surprised by that data!
"Scientifically impossible" haha. I guess he failed science class then.
Agreed regarding the "forgiveness" thing. A mishit is a mishit. I have yet to experience the elusive "short by 30+ yards" on a mishit between a CB and a blade. I've mishit on the toe, high on the face, near the heal, thin, fat, you name it. I have not once noticed a difference between a MB and a CB. Not once have I said or thought to myself "d a m n, wish I had CB's, maybe my ball would have been straighter or 5 yards longer"... it's all nonsense imho.
Someone should start a thread about Kevin Na.
The most eye opening experience that I have encountered was a period of time a few years ago when I was hitting everything out on the toe. I went to Golf Galaxy to test some more friendly, game improvement style clubs. I continued to hit everything I swung off the toe and everything came up 10 yards short. It didn't matter if I was hitting a blade or a game improvement iron, it was coming up well short of the target.
No club will save poor contact.
the increased size of the sweet spot is pretty small. It's like going from a dime to a quarter... the average golfer is missing it on the face way more than that difference in size. So it's true, it's more forgiving but it's all relative.
Havent watched the video (lazy, I know). What was his conclusion? Doesn’t seem like he picked a club with much cavity, though.
You have to do your own homework dude.😁
The old blade was more consistent and dispersion was tighter in every category- carry, ball speed, spin, height- on mishits and good strikes. The only area where the cavity “outperformed” was it had a fractionally higher launch angle.
Thanks, Red. I wonder how from an engineering / physics perspective that is so.
I agree with these findings in mid irons for sure. I would love to see a blade 3 or 4 iron vs some sort of cavity. I do find that I get more consistent ball speed and launch conditions with a cavity up to around 27 degrees of loft. 6-PW it makes absolutely no difference what iron I play. I'd be interested in seeing a long iron test. They CBs with low CG also take spin off in those long irons so you get better gapping.
My personal opinion is because the sweet spot on modern cavities (some, not all) is much thinner and “hotter”. That is why i think you see such a wide dispersion especially front to back with the cavities. Sweet spot hot, low spin, mishits perform nearly the same as a blade. The blade will be more consistent across the face because it doesnt have such a hot spot. Again, my opinion, id love to know the reasons behind it as well.
That's kind of an odd statement given the small percent of people that plays blades. I don't see my segment as contributing much towards that number. Is your bias showing?
Though some on this board like to think we're all the same, we're not. At 70yrs old I still track a car at 170mph and still "carry" my 2 iron over 205, often 210+, but there are days and fast fairway that get me out there around 228-232 like last week, and driver 265yds. I B happy. Don't know my SS but I am still shooting to card my age. I was four off the pace the other day.
@Red4282 - Thanks for that Crossfield vid. Interesting data but not surprised. I like his point, about OEM's tell folks what to say.
Yep. If what we read on this board and others is any indication, OEM's are doing a helluva job manipulating heads. lol
@dekez - I have 620 CBs and 620 MBs, and a combo set in the bag and my swing is grooved. Watching Crossfield, his swing is grooved as well. A grooved swing IMO as opposed to SS is a big part of MB success.
I agree with the poster above, the sweet spot of CB is thin, (as opposed to MB) plus surrounded by a raised circumference creating more of a spring effect on slightly off-center strikes. Even with Crossfield's consistently grooved swing dispersion was long and short, not so much left or right. Imagine with an swing that is NOT grooved.
In short the reason is because of the difference in mass (less with a cavity club) behind the ball at impact. The flexing face of a "forgiving" iron literally bends more from impact with a round ball than a blade with thicker mass behind the ball. This also causes the ball to literally compress LESS as well. And moreover this bend or flex changes based on the location of impact on that face. What this does is create inconsistent spin on the ball because the compression on it is inconsistent. LMAO with a cavity "forgiving" club, you actually have to be MORE consistent at impact in order to create a consistent spin. With a blade or muscle design, the face flexes much less (and the ball compresses MORE), and it is consistent throughout the length of the entire muscle. End result is that you can hit the ball with any part of the muscle and it will compress and thus spin the ball MORE consistently. LOL and you don't have to be as precise with it as a cavity club. 😂
By analogy, ever jump on a trampoline? If you jump at the edges of it (trying to stay up and down) you always bounce towards the middle. It's only at the very middle that you bounce straight up and down. The same thing is going on with a cavity club and it gets more exacerbated the more "forgiving" the cavity gets. The ball spin always varies more based on the hit location of a cavity face. A muscle design is more like bouncing a basketball on flat pavement. It bounces back the same way because you are bouncing against a flat and unchanging surface.
LOL but you'll never get a "forgiving" club designer to openly acknowledge this. 🤣
Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss in more detail. I can explain the complete physics of golf and why club designs do what they do in full detail. With formulas and down to the molecular level if you so desire. I'm not going to be reading or replying to this thread after this post.
Very interesting and makes sense. I think feel is a big part of the perception. mishit a blade and it feels harsh. Therefore people interpret that as less forgiving, when in reality they didn't base their conclusion on what actually happened with the ball.
i recently hit a very forgiving cavity, and i could feel the mishits but they still felt ok. When i hit it solid, it was almost numb, mushy feeling. Didnt like it at all.
We are the suckers. We are buying marketing nonsense that isn't being proven to work. Notice how all of Rick shields driver reviews the last two years show the same thing? They all still go the same distance, they do NOT even remotely come close to the marketing claims. Irons are no different.
And no, we are not arguing 2 sides that can't be proven. The truth can easily be proven by any manufacturer with a hitting machine.
The fact that they WON'T prove it should give us the complete answer, it doesn't match the marketing.
But again, we are the suckers who keep spending $$
I get all that Jazz, I have an mechanical engineering and management background.
What makes me laugh, and it’s open to everybody, let’s assume you find the sweet spot; what are the advantages and disadvantages with CB vs MB?
Has anybody ever experienced a hole out?
Rich Text Editor.
To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph.
An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu.
Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.