Miura 1957 Small Blade/Baby Blade enthusiasts thread! (Lots of enabling and physics lessons inside)

[DeNinny]

Great post! I love this BB's, I presently play a set of Miura Small Blades just like this. Is there a set of irons out there smaller and as good as the Miura 1957’s. Thanks.

 

I have never found any other iron that compares based on actual experience. Some are close like the Miura TB, Mizzy MP33, Titleist 714MB and Nike original blades, but still "no cigar".

 

But based on just observation that the head sizes are similar and what others have posted from personal experience, I put the Wilson FG59 and Mizuno MP-29 as close as you can get.

 

Note also that the Miura-Giken Miuraism, the smaller version, is the same exact design.

[jwcgolfer]

Nicely done. Do you notice much difference between the KBS and Nippon's?

 

They are very similar, to me it would be more of an aesthetic thing. do you like seeing a smooth matte non-tapered shaft (kbs c-taper) or a shiny tapered shaft (Nippon Modus3).

 

I feel the dispersion and ball flight might be a bit tighter with the Nippon. But both are exceptional shaft with smooth feeling. I never liked DG S300, they always felt to harsh to me, and to hard to load.

[Nessism]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

[jwcgolfer]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

Hmm, you played a similar set, what did you play? I would consider the baby blades more forgiving then any blade I have played :)

[DeNinny]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

Instead of making an anecdotal observation, feel free to refute anything that I've posted using actual laws of physics...

 

...and for sure it will make me chuckle. You claim it is bogus without any technical backing (as usual for you). LOL again, specifically point out what's bogus, even quote me, and we'll have us a good old technical discussion. If you have another version of the physics of "forgiveness", again please post! Otherwise you are making anecdotal observations which is ironic if used as a technical "rebuttal".

 

Also feel free to actually play some baby blades before posting again too. FYI that's the point of this thread...the physics and actual playing of baby blades.

[DeNinny]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

Hmm, you played a similar set, what did you play? I would consider the baby blades more forgiving then any blade I have played :)

 

LOL BBs are more forgiving than any club, period. All based on the laws of physics, as posted already.

[Nessism]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

Instead of making an anecdotal observation, feel free to refute anything that I've posted using actual laws of physics...

 

...and for sure it will make me chuckle. You claim it is bogus without any technical backing (as usual for you). LOL again, specifically point out what's bogus, even quote me, and we'll have us a good old technical discussion. If you have another version of the physics of "forgiveness", again please post! Otherwise you are making anecdotal observations which is ironic if used as a technical "rebuttal".

 

Also feel free to actually play some baby blades before posting again too. FYI that's the point of this thread...the physics and actual playing of baby blades.

 

Your so called views on physics are completely contrary to those employed by every golf club manufacture on the planet. Anyone with a real technical background knows that perimeter weighting increases MOI and that increases off center strike forgiveness and puts the ball closer to the target when the contact strike is away from the CG. I'm not going to get into it with you because you are just going to parade out some faux science and I don't have any interest with getting into it with you again. For anyone reading this all I can say is look at every GI club on the planet and ask yourself why do real engineering based companies such as Ping and Mizuno make large SGI clubs for people that desire forgiveness? Ping doesn't even make real blades (yet anyway) because they know that high MOI is where it's at for all but the best ball strikers.

 

And regarding BB blades being more forgiving that other blades, that's not true either. Again, MOI is where it's at when it comes to forgiveness, and the BB's have a low MOI because the blade length is so short.

 

BTW, the clubs I was referring to earlier are Palmer Peerless blades. Tiny heal to toe. I played a set from 1-SW.

[DeNinny]

Instead of making an anecdotal observation, feel free to refute anything that I've posted using actual laws of physics...

 

...and for sure it will make me chuckle. You claim it is bogus without any technical backing (as usual for you). LOL again, specifically point out what's bogus, even quote me, and we'll have us a good old technical discussion. If you have another version of the physics of "forgiveness", again please post! Otherwise you are making anecdotal observations which is ironic if used as a technical "rebuttal".

 

Also feel free to actually play some baby blades before posting again too. FYI that's the point of this thread...the physics and actual playing of baby blades.

 

Your so called views on physics are completely contrary to those employed by every golf club manufacture on the planet. Anyone with a real technical background knows that perimeter weighting increases MOI and that increases off center strike forgiveness and puts the ball closer to the target when the contact strike is away from the CG. I'm not going to get into it with you because you are just going to parade out some faux science and I don't have any interest with getting into it with you again. For anyone reading this all I can say is look at every GI club on the planet and ask yourself why do real engineering based companies such as Ping and Mizuno make large SGI clubs for people that desire forgiveness? Ping doesn't even make real blades (yet anyway) because they know that high MOI is where it's at for all but the best ball strikers.

 

And regarding BB blades being more forgiving that other blades, that's not true either. Again, MOI is where it's at when it comes to forgiveness, and the BB's have a low MOI because the blade length is so short.

 

BTW, the clubs I was referring to earlier are Palmer Peerless blades. Tiny heal to toe. I played a set from 1-SW.

All you have done (LMAO by your own admission) is parroted the marketed "science" as put forth by carney sham "forgiving" club manufacturers. And the reason you cannot refute anything that I claim and (yet again) avoid getting into the technical specifics because you simply cannot refute what I say using the laws of science. And the real reason is because I myself am using all laws of physics and science in my posts!

 

By contrast you cannot back anything you said further with any detailed laws of physics. And moreover you failed to recognized that on page 2 of this thread I already refuted the carney science of high MOI clubhead is "forgiveness" as you parroted. Here it is again so you can see all the reasons why MOI and many other "forgiving science" features are carney shams that are peddled to the technically ignorant for the profits of "forgiving" club manufacturers.

 

The baby blade is the best design for all players and all golf clubs. I have two sets of BBs and a set of Retro TBs (which are the same design, minus conforming grooves, as the standard TBs) and the BB sets are superior in all ways.

 

I could get into a lot more detail than this but the smaller head is what makes the BBs better. Because of that design difference, they have a better chance of making clean ball contact and there is less torque put on the hands from the force of impact.

 

BBs...FTW!!!

 

I for one would support you going into a lot more detail if you decided you wanted to. I'll read it and appreciate it :) With that said you are preaching to the choir. I never realized how many negative situations thicker soles can create until playing these. As a sweeper these are extremely forgiving in that context.

 

Details? LOL you say you want some details? Oooookaaaay...

 

Let's tackle the bigger sole issue first. And again, as I do this, it is important to note that we must assume or set all other variables equal as we analyze just the one variable which in this case is the sole surface area of the club. I like to state this up front because it is a very important assumption when evaluating multivariable math systems.

 

So anyway, the issue with a club with a bigger surface area sole (regardless of whether or not it is from length or width) as compared to one with a smaller surface area is that it literally will increase the chances of some part of that sole contacting the ground before the face of the club contacts the ball. This would constitute a fat miss hit. The big ball was hit before the little ball.

 

I hope this is obvious but LOL since you want detail let's look at a specific example. Let's say we have a longer clubhead and a shorter clubhead (again with all other things being equal). The longer club naturally has the bigger surface area sole. Now with a perfect swing, the issue with the sole is not an issue. The sole of each club stays above the ground and does not contact it before the face hits the ball.

 

Now let's add a specific miss hit to this. Now let's say the clubhead is coming into the ball with the heel at the same height with both clubs but the lie angle of the clubhead is tilting such that the toe is angled more downward than the heel. Now clearly the toe is going to contact the ground first in this example, and, furthermore and unequivocally, the longer clubhead toe is going to hang lower relative to the heel than the shorter clubhead toe by virtue of the fact that it is longer. Therefore the longer clubhead toe is the more unforgiving clubhead based on sole surface area.

 

This is just a simple specific example of the issue with a longer clubhead than a shorter one but it also works the same way with clubhead sole widths. The thicker clubhead sole width will also have a higher chance of rubbing the ground before the clubface contacts the ball as compared to a thinner clubhead sole (all other things equal). Also bounce has the same issue. Higher bounce clubs have a higher surface area sole and so they too have the same issue of increased chance for contacting the ground before the clubface contacts the ball. (When the leading edge is at the same height, the higher bounce clubhead hangs lower at the literal bottom.)

 

To put it another way more simply: with a bigger sole surface area there is literal mass to hit the ground with whereas there is the absence of that same mass with the smaller sole surface area.

 

And beyond just ground contact, a smaller surface area sole will also cut through all media (grass, dirt, sand, water, etc) better. The sole will rub against any media that has to pass under it, and so when there is more surface area there will be a greater force of friction on that surface area which will slow the clubhead down more. So therefore if you want the least friction as a clubhead passes over any media, then the you need the smallest sole surface area club.

 

So with respect to sole surface area, the baby blade design is virtually the best out there. (Maybe the Wilson FG-59 blade comes close to it.)

 

Now let's look at the muscle thickness or more specifically the part of the clubhead that will literally come into contact with the ball. This part of a clubhead design is important for creating consistent spin. And the reason is because temporary deformation of any material (including the carbon steel clubhead) has a mathematical relation (or rather relations) that make the material thickness directly proportional to the magnitude of deformation under a given force. What this means in layman's terms is that the thicker the material, the less it deform under a force. And so when you consider the force of the ball pushing into the face of the clubhead at impact, it will be unequivocally true that the thicker face wall will deform the least amount. And so a ball that compresses (which ultimately creates the spin on the ball) against a thick walled face will more consistently compress and thus spin.

 

By contrast, when the face wall gets thinner and is supported by thick perimeter walls, then that clubface will flex inward more when the round ball compresses against it. Because the face flexes inwards more, then the ball compresses less, which in turn serves to damp the spin on the ball. But beyond this, the real issue with this type of face and clubhead design is that it will make the spin inconsistent in addition to damping it. By analogy, the face will behave much like a trampoline where the flex is the greatest at the middle, but then, as you approach the edges, that side of the ball will not flex as much as the other side that is closer to the middle. When you jump up and down on a trampoline, you will bounce straight up and down if you do it at the very middle. But if you start jumping up and down closer to the edge, you will notice the trampoline will tend to bounce you back towards the middle. And so for a trampoline like clubface, this makes for a varying face angle depending on how close to the edges of that face that you hit it. Net result: more inconsistent spin than the thicker face walled club (which again does not flex as much, so it is more consistent).

 

Now if you really want to get into more details on this, you have to understand the Young's (or modulus of elasticity), bulk, and shear moduli for all materials and the math behind them. If you study the math, you will always see that there is a length or thickness dimension in the formulas relating the force and amount of deformation (as compared to that base length or thickness). I learned about all this from two books from college: 1) Introduction to Materials Science Engineering by Shackleford and 2) Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Giancoli. These wiki links will suffice, though:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_modulus

 

The beauty of the muscleback/blade design is that thick muscle. As long as you don't hit the hosel or out on the non grooved section of the toe, you can hit a muscle back club anywhere along it and it will be fine or at the very least better than the exact same miss hit with an inconsistent and thin face walled clubface. The muscle is a lot like the thick part of a baseball bat. As long as you use that part to contact the ball, it will impart consistent spin and much of the clubhead's kinetic energy into the ball. The notion that a muscle back or blade clubhead design having the "sweetspot" of a dime is hogwash. There is no law in all of physics that supports this notion. The reality of design is that the whole muscle itself is the "sweetspot"!

 

So once again advantage goes to the baby blade design. And just to add to it as compared to other blades, the short clubhead length is an advantage because it puts less torque on your hands as you swing the club itself and during impact itself. The short clubhead literally makes the clubhead MOI as it rotates around the shaft as low as possible as compared to a higher MOI clubhead due to its length. Ultimately what all this means is that it is easier to control the face position of a shorter clubhead as compared to a longer one. And it is easier both during the downswing and during impact itself. Lower MOI clubhead as it rotates around the shaft = less torque on your hands.

 

I'm probably missing some further details and will post more if I think of them. But I hope this is enough to convince you that you have science completely on your side by using your baby blades. There is nothing in the physics of them that make them harder to play than any other club design out

there. And moreover there is a lot of physics that support that they are the easiest!

 

In short...

 

...BBs...FTW!!!

 

 

[BiggErn]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..... 2nd biggest marketing scam ever.

[Bigmean]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

That is fine and I have admitted I don’t know physics, but my REALITY is that I hit my small blades better than:

 

Wilson staff V4 (sold)

Mp14s (love this set but can’t play as well)

Onoff split back cbs (also miura)

Mac vfoils

Prgr idbl irons (this one I wish I didn’t sell)

Titliest dci 962s (awesome all time set)

Vega raf-cm

 

Those sets I have hit balls with extensively and gamed anywhere from enough to A LOT.

 

So while it is fun to say physics and can’t and this and that, my actual user experience is that the set I have been the

Most consistent with across all those are in fact the Miuras. If I had to hit a green with a 7 iron with my life on the line, and I could hit any club to do that, I would in fact choose my Bb 7 iron. And It would need to be my exact 7 iron with my shaft and my grip and my head chatter and scars to attain my highest level of comfort mind you. So when people say things like they are hard to hit and not forgiving etc, it doesn’t match the last 20 years of my playing golf and gaming the above irons and my personal experience. I definitely think that everyone is different and gets along differently with different things. I have long contended that I think these clubs favor a heel misser, I believe that. Making any blanket claims for any club being best or easiest, even the B.B., is just nonsense in general, physics on all sides be damned.

[z18]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

[BiggErn]

The thread title part that reads "...physics lessons inside" gave me a chuckle. Bogus "physics lessons" would be more like it.

 

I've got nothing bad to say about the clubs. I played a similar set for a decade and loved them. Nothing forgiving about them though, and that's the "real physics".

 

Instead of making an anecdotal observation, feel free to refute anything that I've posted using actual laws of physics...

 

...and for sure it will make me chuckle. You claim it is bogus without any technical backing (as usual for you). LOL again, specifically point out what's bogus, even quote me, and we'll have us a good old technical discussion. If you have another version of the physics of "forgiveness", again please post! Otherwise you are making anecdotal observations which is ironic if used as a technical "rebuttal".

 

Also feel free to actually play some baby blades before posting again too. FYI that's the point of this thread...the physics and actual playing of baby blades.

 

Your so called views on physics are completely contrary to those employed by every golf club manufacture on the planet. Anyone with a real technical background knows that perimeter weighting increases MOI and that increases off center strike forgiveness and puts the ball closer to the target when the contact strike is away from the CG. I'm not going to get into it with you because you are just going to parade out some faux science and I don't have any interest with getting into it with you again. For anyone reading this all I can say is look at every GI club on the planet and ask yourself why do real engineering based companies such as Ping and Mizuno make large SGI clubs for people that desire forgiveness? Ping doesn't even make real blades (yet anyway) because they know that high MOI is where it's at for all but the best ball strikers.

 

And regarding BB blades being more forgiving that other blades, that's not true either. Again, MOI is where it's at when it comes to forgiveness, and the BB's have a low MOI because the blade length is so short.

 

BTW, the clubs I was referring to earlier are Palmer Peerless blades. Tiny heal to toe. I played a set from 1-SW.

 

 

It’s quite comical that someone can blow so much smoke and try to make it seem legit. I suppose someone can want something to be true so much that they have to try and make everyone else believe it to validate it to themselves or something. Sir Isaac Newton is either rolling over in his grave or looking down on these same types of threads laughing his butt off. For the love of god nobody cares what clubs someone plays but stop trying to rewrite physics and convince people blatant lies.

[jwcgolfer]

It’s quite comical that someone can blow so much smoke and try to make it seem legit. I suppose someone can want something to be true so much that they have to try and make everyone else believe it to validate it to themselves or something. Sir Isaac Newton is either rolling over in his grave or looking down on these same types of threads laughing his butt off. For the love of god nobody cares what clubs someone plays but stop trying to rewrite physics and convince people blatant lies.

 

In terms of actually physics (Newtonian and Fluid Dynamics). If I strike something with a more dense and and compact mass. Those mass vectors that the ball absorbs are tighter and more compact. which will certainly yield in greater distance. However where some of these Large GI irons combat that is with the Trampoline effect from the thinner faces of these irons. However if you remove this Trampoline effect the more dense smaller club will hit the ball further everytime.

 

Also in term of Fluid Dynamics. The smaller the club head the less air resistance the club with encounter. This will allow the golfer to swing the small club potentially faster by 1-2 mph 3-7mph ballspeed increase. Not only that it will feel smoother to swing as well, improving the overall sensation of the swing.

 

While there are certainly many other factors that can go into these calculations, however at least at a basic overview, the baby blades should win out in "Pured" and slightly off center ball strikes.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

It’s quite comical that someone can blow so much smoke and try to make it seem legit. I suppose someone can want something to be true so much that they have to try and make everyone else believe it to validate it to themselves or something. Sir Isaac Newton is either rolling over in his grave or looking down on these same types of threads laughing his butt off. For the love of god nobody cares what clubs someone plays but stop trying to rewrite physics and convince people blatant lies.

 

In terms of actually physics (Newtonian and Fluid Dynamics). If I strike something with a more dense and and compact mass. Those mass vectors that the ball absorbs are tighter and more compact. which will certainly yield in greater distance. However where some of these Large GI irons combat that is with the Trampoline effect from the thinner faces of these irons. However if you remove this Trampoline effect the more dense smaller club will hit the ball further everytime.

 

Also in term of Fluid Dynamics. The smaller the club head the less air resistance the club with encounter. This will allow the golfer to swing the small club potentially faster by 1-2 mph 3-7mph ballspeed increase. Not only that it will feel smoother to swing as well, improving the overall sensation of the swing.

 

While there are certainly many other factors that can go into these calculations, however at least at a basic overview, the baby blades should win out in "Pured" and slightly off center ball strikes.

 

Yeah, the BBs go further (and are more forgiving)... if you remove the trampoline effect. i.e. ignore a significant part of the equation (much like the mental gymnastics that have been done elsewhere in this thread). Helps if you ignore MOI as well. I can make pretty much anything come true if I cherry pick which pieces of the puzzle to use.

 

 

Am I the only one that doesn't want to see the same "physics" (yes I used the "" very intentionally) argument come round and round every month? Can we just talk about the other aspects of these clubs in this thread and try to steer clear of peoples different interpretations of math? I enjoy seeing the other users builds, and answering questions for people who don't own the clubs yet. The circular arguments are tiresome, though, to say the least.

[jwcgolfer]

It’s quite comical that someone can blow so much smoke and try to make it seem legit. I suppose someone can want something to be true so much that they have to try and make everyone else believe it to validate it to themselves or something. Sir Isaac Newton is either rolling over in his grave or looking down on these same types of threads laughing his butt off. For the love of god nobody cares what clubs someone plays but stop trying to rewrite physics and convince people blatant lies.

 

In terms of actually physics (Newtonian and Fluid Dynamics). If I strike something with a more dense and and compact mass. Those mass vectors that the ball absorbs are tighter and more compact. which will certainly yield in greater distance. However where some of these Large GI irons combat that is with the Trampoline effect from the thinner faces of these irons. However if you remove this Trampoline effect the more dense smaller club will hit the ball further everytime.

 

Also in term of Fluid Dynamics. The smaller the club head the less air resistance the club with encounter. This will allow the golfer to swing the small club potentially faster by 1-2 mph 3-7mph ballspeed increase. Not only that it will feel smoother to swing as well, improving the overall sensation of the swing.

 

While there are certainly many other factors that can go into these calculations, however at least at a basic overview, the baby blades should win out in "Pured" and slightly off center ball strikes.

 

Yeah, the BBs go further (and are more forgiving)... if you remove the trampoline effect. i.e. ignore a significant part of the equation (much like the mental gymnastics that have been done elsewhere in this thread). Helps if you ignore MOI as well. I can make pretty much anything come true if I cherry pick which pieces of the puzzle to use.

 

 

Am I the only one that doesn't want to see the same "physics" (yes I used the "" very intentionally) argument come round and round every month? Can we just talk about the other aspects of these clubs in this thread and try to steer clear of peoples different interpretations of math? I enjoy seeing the other users builds, and answering questions for people who don't own the clubs yet. The circular arguments are tiresome, though, to say the least.

 

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

[BiggErn]

It’s quite comical that someone can blow so much smoke and try to make it seem legit. I suppose someone can want something to be true so much that they have to try and make everyone else believe it to validate it to themselves or something. Sir Isaac Newton is either rolling over in his grave or looking down on these same types of threads laughing his butt off. For the love of god nobody cares what clubs someone plays but stop trying to rewrite physics and convince people blatant lies.

 

In terms of actually physics (Newtonian and Fluid Dynamics). If I strike something with a more dense and and compact mass. Those mass vectors that the ball absorbs are tighter and more compact. which will certainly yield in greater distance. However where some of these Large GI irons combat that is with the Trampoline effect from the thinner faces of these irons. However if you remove this Trampoline effect the more dense smaller club will hit the ball further everytime.

 

Also in term of Fluid Dynamics. The smaller the club head the less air resistance the club with encounter. This will allow the golfer to swing the small club potentially faster by 1-2 mph 3-7mph ballspeed increase. Not only that it will feel smoother to swing as well, improving the overall sensation of the swing.

 

While there are certainly many other factors that can go into these calculations, however at least at a basic overview, the baby blades should win out in "Pured" and slightly off center ball strikes.

 

Yeah, the BBs go further (and are more forgiving)... if you remove the trampoline effect. i.e. ignore a significant part of the equation (much like the mental gymnastics that have been done elsewhere in this thread). Helps if you ignore MOI as well. I can make pretty much anything come true if I cherry pick which pieces of the puzzle to use.

 

 

Am I the only one that doesn't want to see the same "physics" (yes I used the "" very intentionally) argument come round and round every month? Can we just talk about the other aspects of these clubs in this thread and try to steer clear of peoples different interpretations of math? I enjoy seeing the other users builds, and answering questions for people who don't own the clubs yet. The circular arguments are tiresome, though, to say the least.

 

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

 

Lulz

[jwcgolfer]

Also who is looking at this thread wanting GI irons?? Most likely anyone viewing this thread only plays forged irons. So we can just throw the trampoline effect out the window. Cause forged clubs don't have that effect.

[Nessism]

The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades.

 

MOI has nothing to do with vectors.

 

A vector is a force applied in a discrete direction. MOI relates to the mass distribution around a specific point of reference.

[DeNinny]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

 

My posts make sense because I'm giving the science without any false assumptions an 100% alignment to all laws of physics and materials science.

 

Those that laugh and try to say I'm rewriting it are the ones that need to revisit their understanding. Plus they can clearly quote exactly anything I've posted and make a direct rebuttal with something technical. I've spelled it all out in my posts. LMAO instead they avoid it and go back to mockery and anecdotal and non scientific posts.

 

Trust that everything I've explained is 100% irrefutable. I'd take up the same arguments and issues with any club designer on the planet. LOL because I know I'm 100% on everything.

[BiggErn]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

 

My posts make sense because I'm giving the science without any false assumptions an 100% alignment to all laws of physics and materials science.

 

Those that laugh and try to say I'm rewriting it are the ones that need to revisit their understanding. Plus they can clearly quote exactly anything I've posted and make a direct rebuttal with something technical. I've spelled it all out in my posts. LMAO instead they avoid it and go back to mockery and anecdotal and non scientific posts.

 

Trust that everything I've explained is 100% irrefutable. I'd take up the same arguments and issues with any club designer on the planet. LOL because I know I'm 100% on everything.

 

Lol

[DeNinny]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

 

My posts make sense because I'm giving the science without any false assumptions an 100% alignment to all laws of physics and materials science.

 

Those that laugh and try to say I'm rewriting it are the ones that need to revisit their understanding. Plus they can clearly quote exactly anything I've posted and make a direct rebuttal with something technical. I've spelled it all out in my posts. LMAO instead they avoid it and go back to mockery and anecdotal and non scientific posts.

 

Trust that everything I've explained is 100% irrefutable. I'd take up the same arguments and issues with any club designer on the planet. LOL because I know I'm 100% on everything.

 

Lol

 

Nice "rebuttal".

 

LMAO. It's funny that you can't actually refute anything that I've technically posted using the laws of science.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

 

The MOI doesn't actually favor baby blades over GI irons. And believe it or not, I have a degree in engineering, so I do actually have a basic understanding of physics. I'm not going to blather on and try to prove it to you though, since this isn't the place for it.

 

I'll check back in a week, maybe this will have blown over by then.

[BiggErn]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

 

My posts make sense because I'm giving the science without any false assumptions an 100% alignment to all laws of physics and materials science.

 

Those that laugh and try to say I'm rewriting it are the ones that need to revisit their understanding. Plus they can clearly quote exactly anything I've posted and make a direct rebuttal with something technical. I've spelled it all out in my posts. LMAO instead they avoid it and go back to mockery and anecdotal and non scientific posts.

 

Trust that everything I've explained is 100% irrefutable. I'd take up the same arguments and issues with any club designer on the planet. LOL because I know I'm 100% on everything.

 

Lol

 

Nice "rebuttal".

 

LMAO. It's funny that you can't actually refute anything that I've technically posted using the laws of science.

 

Nothing to rebut I’m just laughing at you. The only person that believes your hot air is you......and I’m not sure you even do. You can’t . 100%

[DeNinny]

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

 

The MOI doesn't actually favor baby blades over GI irons. And believe it or not, I have a degree in engineering, so I do actually have a basic understanding of physics. I'm not going to blather on and try to prove it to you though, since this isn't the place for it.

 

I'll check back in a week, maybe this will have blown over by then.

 

FYI MOI as a clubhead rotates around it's own CG is technically meaningless. A clubhead is attached to a shaft as the golfer swings it. The shaft is what provides all the support on the clubhead and what holds it steady. It also prevents all and any other rotation other than rotation around itself. It prevents rotation around the CG from ever occurring.

 

So besides all the other science I posted about the carney sham of "forgiveness", this is yet another one. It's a complete false assumption that a clubhead can ever rotate around it's own CG.

 

LOL and this ain't no laughing matter.

[sdandrea]

This thread is like a Playboy magazine. I read it just for the pics. Like the Playmates, I couldn't game them, but they are pretty!

 

BTW guys, post some more pics!

[DeNinny]

DeNinny, your physics teaching ability is way above my pay grade but, much of it makes a great deal of sense to me on a more logical level. I love that I don't get the flyers and moon balls I used to get with some of the more "forgiving" clubs. I'm constantly amazed at how easy the BB's are to play. Even though I'm 70 and didn't get to play as much as I have in past years, the 7-PW never left my bag and toward the middle of summer put the 5 and 6 irons back in the bag. If I had to pick any 9 iron for my life my biggest decision would be do I hit the BB with the stitchbacks or the one with the kangaroo grips.

 

My posts make sense because I'm giving the science without any false assumptions an 100% alignment to all laws of physics and materials science.

 

Those that laugh and try to say I'm rewriting it are the ones that need to revisit their understanding. Plus they can clearly quote exactly anything I've posted and make a direct rebuttal with something technical. I've spelled it all out in my posts. LMAO instead they avoid it and go back to mockery and anecdotal and non scientific posts.

 

Trust that everything I've explained is 100% irrefutable. I'd take up the same arguments and issues with any club designer on the planet. LOL because I know I'm 100% on everything.

 

Lol

 

Nice "rebuttal".

 

LMAO. It's funny that you can't actually refute anything that I've technically posted using the laws of science.

 

Nothing to rebut I’m just laughing at you. The only person that believes your hot air is you......and I’m not sure you even do. You can’t . 100%

 

Once again you deflect from making a technical rebuttal.

 

I have a lot of folks that understand and agree with everything I post technical. That you don't is irrelevant to me, but FYI I did mention some good physics and materials science engineering books that back everything I post, so feel free to educate yourself on it.

 

Also feel free to actually post about BBs. That's what this thread is about... actual BB enthusiasm as per the thread title.

[BiggErn]

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

 

The MOI doesn't actually favor baby blades over GI irons. And believe it or not, I have a degree in engineering, so I do actually have a basic understanding of physics. I'm not going to blather on and try to prove it to you though, since this isn't the place for it.

 

I'll check back in a week, maybe this will have blown over by then.

 

FYI MOI as a clubhead rotates around it's own CG is technically meaningless. A clubhead is attached to a shaft as the golfer swings it. The shaft is what provides all the support on the clubhead and what holds it steady. It also prevents all and any other rotation other than rotation around itself. It prevents rotation around the CG from ever occurring.

 

So besides all the other science I posted about the carney sham of "forgiveness", this is yet another one. It's a complete false assumption that a clubhead can ever rotate around it's own CG.

 

LOL and this ain't no laughing matter.

 

This is just random mumbo jumbo.

[DeNinny]

The MOI actually favors the Baby Blades... if you have a basic understand of Newtonian physics. The Moment of Inertia vectors are greater in the Baby Blades. A trampoline effect is not MOI. Unfortunately I only took Newtonian, Electrical & Magnetism, Fluid, and Thermal Dynamic Physics in college. To understand the physics of the Trampoline effect you would need a degree most likely in Mechanical Engineering along with Material Science to better understand the force imparted from the trampoline effect.

 

Personally I do not want the trampoline effect involved in my irons, just more that can go wrong, But I unfortunately I do not know what all that factors are that can cause a good vs a bad trampoline effect.

 

The MOI doesn't actually favor baby blades over GI irons. And believe it or not, I have a degree in engineering, so I do actually have a basic understanding of physics. I'm not going to blather on and try to prove it to you though, since this isn't the place for it.

 

I'll check back in a week, maybe this will have blown over by then.

 

FYI MOI as a clubhead rotates around it's own CG is technically meaningless. A clubhead is attached to a shaft as the golfer swings it. The shaft is what provides all the support on the clubhead and what holds it steady. It also prevents all and any other rotation other than rotation around itself. It prevents rotation around the CG from ever occurring.

 

So besides all the other science I posted about the carney sham of "forgiveness", this is yet another one. It's a complete false assumption that a clubhead can ever rotate around it's own CG.

 

LOL and this ain't no laughing matter.

 

This is just random mumbo jumbo.

 

You may want to read those books I referenced in other posts in this thread.

 

LOL it's 100% as per the laws of physics. Please refute it technically and let me know where the mumbo jumbo is.

[BiggErn]

So have you! You’re just making random and irrelevant points up and calling it physics. If anyone believes anything you’re saying I have to believe they hit the ball terribly and want to play blades. Maybe they hit a CB terrible too and like you the forgiveness marketing sham is now real. Lol.

[DeNinny]

So have you! You’re just making random and irrelevant points up and calling it physics. If anyone believes anything you’re saying I have to believe they hit the ball terribly and want to play blades. Maybe they hit a CB terrible too and like you the forgiveness marketing sham is now real. Lol.

 

All my posts are based on analyzing impact and applying the necessary momentum, force, and energy relationships to the club and ball. You really should read my posts again from page 2 and beyond. Everything I state is derived from scientific first principles. If not, quote exactly where it is not and I will explain better so you have a chance of understanding.

 

If not, then move on because we will never agree.