My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[MelloYello]

> @nostatic said:

> > @jpdx said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > > @Bigmean said:

> > > > > Since this got into putters....

> > > > >

> > > > > As a bit of a putter collector and putting being the strength of my game, I must say that even blade putters with a back heel (think studio 1, mills style blades, tad etc) have a more generous hitting zone to them

> > > > > Than my heel shafted 8802 style putters. I feel like the “swing path through gate” is mostly altered from weight around shaft, but nsx Guy is 100% correct in his comments.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is beyond answer style vs blade, and putters are really finicky and sometimes you just get along with something you don’t expect etc. On that note, I also feel that modern blades are more like heel weighted high toe blade putters vs answer style in terms of the real differences and not a 8802 vs answer analogy, but this got far past those kind of comments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Anyway, back to whatever happened here....

> > > >

> > > > Hey Bigmean, to get educated as it seems I missed the boat. As ultimately that is what I am really here for anyways.

> > > >

> > > > So is there a Forgiveness rating inherent in putters?

> > > > 1)SGI, GI, Players GI, Players CB and Blades?

> > >

> > > One could argue that face technologies like White Hot/Microhinge (Odyssey) and SweetFace (Evnroll) are somewhat putter equivalents to GI/SGI features in irons. Basically trying to take an off-center hit and make it go straight with similar distance.

> > >

> > > I don't think there is a Maltby equivalent metric for putters, but the Maltby number is arguably not perfect anyway. It is a quantifiable data point though.

> > >

> >

> > so now were to cb putters and blade putters. haha! I have a question....

> >

> > what influences direction on an off center putt more? face tech or face angle at impact?

> >

> > I agree that these face techs _could_ help with keeping similar distance on off-center hits, but make them directionally straighter? I disagree - I just can't figure out how it would make the putt straighter. please enlighten me.

>

> To quote my attorney ex-wife, "it depends." There are a lot of variables in stroke path, roll, etc. This is what Evnroll claims:

>

> https://evnroll.com/technology.html

>

> Feel free to discuss with them ;-)

 

Dang bro....his demonstration video is pretty impressive!

[Nessism]

> @kiwihacker said:

> > @"A.Princey" said:

> > I'm a 3-5hcp and G25 irons work for this cat, played blades a few times but the effort and ease of GI is too appealing. I really like being able to take tons of spin off GI clubs with 2/3 and 3/4 shots into the wind, and clubbing up(and still get decent traj).

>

> I think your post just sums up that clubs shouldn't be targeted at a certain handicap range. Use whatever suits you. Your handicap is determined by the skill of the player holding the club, not the club itself. ?

 

Counterpoint: a good ball striker can play anything as long as they're heads into it. A lesser player on the other hand will struggle more with an inappropriate choice (whether they know it or not).

[MelloYello]

> @Nessism said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > I'm a 3-5hcp and G25 irons work for this cat, played blades a few times but the effort and ease of GI is too appealing. I really like being able to take tons of spin off GI clubs with 2/3 and 3/4 shots into the wind, and clubbing up(and still get decent traj).

> >

> > I think your post just sums up that clubs shouldn't be targeted at a certain handicap range. Use whatever suits you. Your handicap is determined by the skill of the player holding the club, not the club itself. ?

>

> Counterpoint: a good ball striker can play anything as long as they're heads into it. A lesser player on the other hand will struggle more with an inappropriate choice (whether they know it or not).

 

Haha...there's probably a lot of truth to that!

 

The funny thing about all this is that it probably doesn't matter that much what the hell someone plays until they get to a certain level of proficiency at which point they have the ability to get dialed in with anything they choose. After all, no one would take the position that blades are going to "de-scratch" a scratch golfer, lol.

 

I think the discussion of CB vs MB and all that is really just about which is (in theory) more practical and about the philosophy of obsessing over equipment (which the blade guys seem to do more of).

 

If someone reports that they find no difference during a round of golf then what are you going to do? You can't do anything! To me, I fall back on, _'okay, if you can't tell a difference (or you don't care) that says something about you.'_ But it might be the case that this stuff is so minuscule that it's beyond most people's ability to sense? Maybe iron forgiveness only really emerges over the long run as a _slight_ benefit in proximity to target? That could be.

 

I really don't like having conversations where we link handicap and equipment, however it's very important to recognize that if you are indeed a high handicap golfer, worrying about whether or not to play blades is kind of a waste. If someone is a high-handicap, they should be worried about fixing their driver swing, grooving better fundamentals, getting better around the green and improving their putting.

 

That's what I try to get across. I don't think anyone will mind what you play if you go with this or that, but they will feel compelled to suggest a smarter strategy if/when a person appears to be getting bogged down in stuff that's peripheral to the game as a whole.

 

The over-arching message we continually get from low-handicaps is that it feels way better to be good at golf than it does really anything else that lies within the game (big drives, flushed irons, etc.). I agree that should be the aim and that anything besides shooting your best is really a mistake. That's not to say we can't relax and enjoy golf at the same time. Finding that balance is key. It just seems to me that many of the blade guys err too much on the side of emotion, often getting too caught up in looks & feel.

[bodhi555]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > > @kiwihacker said:

> > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > I'm a 3-5hcp and G25 irons work for this cat, played blades a few times but the effort and ease of GI is too appealing. I really like being able to take tons of spin off GI clubs with 2/3 and 3/4 shots into the wind, and clubbing up(and still get decent traj).

> > >

> > > I think your post just sums up that clubs shouldn't be targeted at a certain handicap range. Use whatever suits you. Your handicap is determined by the skill of the player holding the club, not the club itself. ?

> >

> > Counterpoint: a good ball striker can play anything as long as they're heads into it. A lesser player on the other hand will struggle more with an inappropriate choice (whether they know it or not).

>

> Haha...there's probably a lot of truth to that!

>

> The funny thing about all this is that it probably doesn't matter that much what the **** someone plays until they get to a certain level of proficiency at which point they have the ability to get dialed in with anything they choose. After all, no one would take the position that blades are going to "de-scratch" a scratch golfer, lol.

>

> I think the discussion of CB vs MB and all that is really just about which is (in theory) more practical and about the philosophy of obsessing over equipment (which the blade guys seem to do more of).

>

> If someone reports that they find no difference during a round of golf then what are you going to do? You can't do anything! To me, I fall back on, _'okay, if you can't tell a difference (or you don't care) that says something about you.'_ But it might be the case that this stuff is so minuscule that it's beyond most people's ability to sense? Maybe iron forgiveness only really emerges over the long run as a _slight_ benefit in proximity to target? That could be.

>

> I really don't like having conversations where we link handicap and equipment, however it's very important to recognize that if you are indeed a high handicap golfer, worrying about whether or not to play blades is kind of a waste. If someone is a high-handicap, they should be worried about fixing their driver swing, grooving better fundamentals, getting better around the green and improving their putting.

>

> That's what I try to get across. I don't think anyone will mind what you play if you go with this or that, but they will feel compelled to suggest a smarter strategy if/when a person appears to be getting bogged down in stuff that's peripheral to the game as a whole.

>

> The over-arching message we continually get from low-handicaps is that it feels way better to be good at golf than it does really anything else that lies within the game (big drives, flushed irons, etc.). I agree that should be the aim and that anything besides shooting your best is really a mistake. That's not to say we can't relax and enjoy golf at the same time. Finding that balance is key. It just seems to me that many of the blade guys err too much on the side of emotion, often getting too caught up in looks & feel.

 

See I was nodding along in agreement to this post until you started with the "the blade guys...." nonsense, as to me there aren't really CB guys and MB guys out in the real world - they are all just gear heads, picking equipment which suits their game and they feel comfortable with. Most of these gear heads will inevitably try a set of blades over their golfing careers - some will have their mishits punished and would be better to move back to cavities, however others will not. You went back to CB's because you tend to miss out of the toe, and I am certainly not going to sit here and argue that is in any way wrong - in fact that sounds entirely sensible as a CB will help more with that kind of shot, demonstrably saving you strokes. However I tend to miss out towards the heel where I find blades and cavities to provide pretty similar results overall, meaning they don't cost me anything on a typical round. If anything they do save me shots with some of the ball flight options they give me on the courses I play - being able to draw the ball round a tree or keep it under branches is vital.

 

I don;t think either of us have obsessed over our gear more than the other in all honesty, we just know our games and what tools work. We just use different tools (that use different approaches to get remarkably similar MPF ratings...), that's all.

 

I entirely agree you can't match irons to handicap level however, as just because someone plays off 8 they don't always have the iron game of an 8 handicapper. They could have the short game of an 8 handicapper and the iron game of someone off scratch, but if they spray the ball around off the tee like an 18 handicapper they will struggle to get lower than 8. Ask me how I know :smiley:

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @Nessism said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > I'm a 3-5hcp and G25 irons work for this cat, played blades a few times but the effort and ease of GI is too appealing. I really like being able to take tons of spin off GI clubs with 2/3 and 3/4 shots into the wind, and clubbing up(and still get decent traj).

> >

> > I think your post just sums up that clubs shouldn't be targeted at a certain handicap range. Use whatever suits you. Your handicap is determined by the skill of the player holding the club, not the club itself. ?

>

> Counterpoint: a good ball striker can play anything as long as they're heads into it. A lesser player on the other hand will struggle more with an inappropriate choice (whether they know it or not).

 

Agree. There's some video on YouTube where the presenter/scratch golfer pretty much hit everything from an extra stiff flex to a ladies flex and the results were pretty much the same while the mid handicapper couldn't venture out from the shaft flex that he was comfortable with. I think the results will be pretty much the same with iron heads.

[nsxguy]

> @Nessism said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > I'm a 3-5hcp and G25 irons work for this cat, played blades a few times but the effort and ease of GI is too appealing. I really like being able to take tons of spin off GI clubs with 2/3 and 3/4 shots into the wind, and clubbing up(and still get decent traj).

> >

> > I think your post just sums up that clubs shouldn't be targeted at a certain handicap range. Use whatever suits you. **Your handicap is determined by the skill of the player holding the club, not the club itself**. ?

>

> Counterpoint: a good ball striker can play anything as long as they're heads into it. A lesser player on the other hand will struggle more with an inappropriate choice (whether they know it or not).

 

Half a story often works, no ? LOL

[bladehunter]

What the actual blank is this thread even about ? I’ve read it all and do not know.

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> What the actual blank is this thread even about ? I’ve read it all and do not know.

 

It's about 15 pages. LOL

[dciccoritti]

Wait what?

 

Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @dciccoritti said:

> Wait what?

>

> Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

>

>

 

I find what is said from about 28:00 to about 29:00 very interesting.

[MelloYello]

> @dciccoritti said:

> Wait what?

>

> Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

>

>

 

If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

 

I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

 

Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

 

There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

 

But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

 

After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

 

Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

 

Is _that_ news?

 

 

[jpdx]

spoiler alerts? firewall is preventing me from seeing what you guys are seeing/watching?

[dciccoritti]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > Wait what?

> >

> > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> >

> >

>

> If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

>

> I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

>

> Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

>

> There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

>

> But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

>

> After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

>

> Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

>

> Is _that_ news?

>

>

 

Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

 

[dciccoritti]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > Wait what?

> >

> > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> >

> >

>

> I find what is said from about 28:00 to about 29:00 very interesting.

 

 

Thank you. I missed that. There you have it folks :-)

[nsxguy]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > Wait what?

> >

> > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> >

> >

>

> I find what is said from about 28:00 to about 29:00 very interesting.

 

What did he say ? (I can't get it to play)

[nostatic]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > Wait what?

> >

> > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> >

> >

>

> I find what is said from about 28:00 to about 29:00 very interesting.

 

tl;dl

 

If you measure your game by the good shots you hit, play blades. If you measure your game by the bad shots you get away with, play GI irons.

 

No mention of what to do if you measure yourself against other golfers by height...

[dciccoritti]

> @nostatic said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > Wait what?

> > >

> > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I find what is said from about 28:00 to about 29:00 very interesting.

>

> tl;dl

>

> If you measure your game by the good shots you hit, play blades. If you measure your game by the bad shots you get away with, play GI irons.

>

> No mention of what to do if you measure yourself against other golfers by height...

 

LOL :-) That is soooo not what he said. He basically said if you want more precision..blades. If you want more help with off centre hits and are willing to lose a little precision...GI. Paraphrased of course :-)

 

[pinestreetgolf]

I think there are two things being overlooked in this thread (and others like it).

 

First, I don't think enough credit is being given to what a player learned on / grew up playing. That player will almost always feel more comfortable there and that comfort will almost always trump small forgiveness or small work-ability advantages. Tiger learned on blades. A lot of the younger guys on tour are young enough to have learned on thin-line small CBs. In a huge surprise, one plays one and the other plays the other. I learned on cavity backs, and if there was a significant tournament tomorrow my j40s on s300s would be in the bag. Could I play x100s? I don't know, probably. Would it bring my flight down a bit and help me in the wind? Maybe. But I learned on s300s. x100s feel wrong. Just how it is, for me. I think its this way for a lot of people.

 

Second, stop saying "high handicap". It doesn't actually mean anything. People have different handicaps for tons of reasons. If you can't get off the tee you're a 12 at best no matter how good you are off the ground. Attempting to correlate handicap to irons is like trying to correlate weight to running ability. Is there a rough correlation? Sure. But not all skinny people can run a marathon. Not all low caps can hit irons great, and not all high caps are useless with irons. When you use handicap to guide the discussion it becomes worthless. You have to describe specifically someone's ability to generate an ideal impact condition.

 

I would bet Mr. Koehler a lot of cash that if Tiger grew up with a CB every day for ten years he'd have to invent another reason why Tiger plays blades other than comfort. Tiger plays blades because Tiger has always played blades.

 

One thing that is odd though - there was a 3 hybrid in his bag at Augusta.

[nostatic]

The verbatim quote:

 

"if you measure your golf by how good are your best shots, then you should play more of a blade-type golf club. If you measure your golf by what did I get away with today on sloppy shots that turned out okay, then you should play a game improvement club."

 

That was in the context of his argument that perimeter-weighted, thin face clubs do provide a benefit for off-center hits, but extract a penalty for center strikes (increased dispersion compared to blades).

 

I have plenty of off-center hits, so apparently I'm playing the right club :-)

[kiwihacker]

> @nostatic said:

> The verbatim quote:

>

> "if you measure your golf by how good are your best shots, then you should play more of a blade-type golf club. If you measure your golf by what did I get away with today on sloppy shots that turned out okay, then you should play a game improvement club."

>

> That was in the context of his argument that perimeter-weighted, thin face clubs do provide a benefit for off-center hits, but extract a penalty for center strikes (increased dispersion compared to blades).

>

> **I have plenty of off-center hits, so apparently I'm playing the right club** :-)

 

LOL yeah me too. I remember years ago I was about to buy my first hybrid (Cleveland Halo) and the young pro showed me his. The club face had scratches in the dead centre of the club face in a perfectly symmetrical circle the shape of a golf ball. After a few weeks of use mine also had scratches but they were in no discernible shape all over the club face.

[nostatic]

> @kiwihacker said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > The verbatim quote:

> >

> > "if you measure your golf by how good are your best shots, then you should play more of a blade-type golf club. If you measure your golf by what did I get away with today on sloppy shots that turned out okay, then you should play a game improvement club."

> >

> > That was in the context of his argument that perimeter-weighted, thin face clubs do provide a benefit for off-center hits, but extract a penalty for center strikes (increased dispersion compared to blades).

> >

> > **I have plenty of off-center hits, so apparently I'm playing the right club** :-)

>

> LOL yeah me too. I remember years ago I was about to buy my first hybrid (Cleveland Halo) and the young pro showed me his. The club face had scratches in the dead centre of the club face in a perfectly symmetrical circle the shape of a golf ball. After a few weeks of use mine also had scratches but they were in no discernible shape all over the club face.

 

Look, I paid for the whole club face - I'm going to put all of it to use!

[dciccoritti]

> @nostatic said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > The verbatim quote:

> > >

> > > "if you measure your golf by how good are your best shots, then you should play more of a blade-type golf club. If you measure your golf by what did I get away with today on sloppy shots that turned out okay, then you should play a game improvement club."

> > >

> > > That was in the context of his argument that perimeter-weighted, thin face clubs do provide a benefit for off-center hits, but extract a penalty for center strikes (increased dispersion compared to blades).

> > >

> > > **I have plenty of off-center hits, so apparently I'm playing the right club** :-)

> >

> > LOL yeah me too. I remember years ago I was about to buy my first hybrid (Cleveland Halo) and the young pro showed me his. The club face had scratches in the dead centre of the club face in a perfectly symmetrical circle the shape of a golf ball. After a few weeks of use mine also had scratches but they were in no discernible shape all over the club face.

>

> Look, I paid for the whole club face - I'm going to put all of it to use!

 

:-)

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > Wait what?

> > >

> > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> >

> > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> >

> > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> >

> > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> >

> > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> >

> > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> >

> > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> >

> > Is _that_ news?

> >

> >

>

> Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

>

 

That's exactly what I was responding to.

 

He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

 

How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

[nostatic]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > Wait what?

> > > >

> > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > >

> > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > >

> > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > >

> > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > >

> > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > >

> > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > >

> > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > >

> > > Is _that_ news?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> >

>

> That's exactly what I was responding to.

>

> He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

>

> How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

 

I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

[dciccoritti]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > Wait what?

> > > >

> > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > >

> > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > >

> > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > >

> > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > >

> > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > >

> > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > >

> > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > >

> > > Is _that_ news?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> >

>

> That's exactly what I was responding to.

>

> He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

>

> How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

 

He's not saying that. He's saying GI's are less precise and have a greater increase in dispersion due to their design. Do you agree with him?

 

 

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > Wait what?

> > > >

> > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > >

> > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > >

> > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > >

> > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > >

> > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > >

> > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > >

> > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > >

> > > Is _that_ news?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> >

>

> That's exactly what I was responding to.

>

> He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

>

> How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

 

Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

 

They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

[dciccoritti]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > Wait what?

> > > > >

> > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > >

> > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > >

> > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > >

> > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > >

> > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > >

> > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > >

> > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > >

> > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > >

> >

> > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> >

> > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> >

> > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

>

> Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

>

> They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

 

'The Wedge Guy' with over 25 years of experience building and marketing who's 'seen' testing said that Tiger 'who pretty much always hits it out of the middle' wouldn't have been as precise with 'thin faced cavity backs'.

 

So the real question is who am I laughing at, him or you? Hmmm....that's a tough one :-)

 

 

[dpb5031]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > Wait what?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > > >

> > > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > > >

> > > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > > >

> > > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > > >

> > > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > > >

> > >

> > > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> > >

> > > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> > >

> > > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

> >

> > Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

> >

> > They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

>

> 'The Wedge Guy' with over 25 years of experience building and marketing who's 'seen' testing said that Tiger 'who pretty much always hits it out of the middle' wouldn't have been as precise with 'thin faced cavity backs'.

>

> So the real question is who am I laughing at, him or you? Hmmm....that's a tough one :-)

>

>

 

Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

[Exactice808]

> @dpb5031 said:

 

> Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

 

So here we go back to the discussion if GI's get a High handcapper closer to the hole.

 

Lets use a dime size strike as a quantifier as I am assuming thats the goal. If Iron Byron put 10 swings varying though in a dime size strike on an MB and a CB

Would the precision be better with the MB over the CB. would the dispersion be tighter with all things being equal?

 

So CB opens the sweet spot. creating forgiveness. But with the design of a focused weight MB, if a repeatable swing is applied is the Accuracy tighter? Because of the focused weight at the center? Were again the CB weight is generous rather than focused?

 

As I dont recall any club that there is a club that has both? "Having your caking and eating it too" gotta give up one thing for something thing?

 

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @nostatic said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > Wait what?

> > > > >

> > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > >

> > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > >

> > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > >

> > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > >

> > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > >

> > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > >

> > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > >

> > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > >

> >

> > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> >

> > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> >

> > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

>

> I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

 

Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the clubheads themselves are the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not _bending and flexing_ during impact, is it?

 

So I would not be surprised if we saw some fractional variation in ball-speed but anything that really created noticeable dispersion? I would be surprised.

 

I think what he's trying to say is that blades offer a guy of Tiger's ilk the kind of control that a GI just can't because the GI is going to be biased towards one shape (usually a draw) and one flight (high).

 

Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

 

Seems a lame way to make ones case.

 

If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?