Back to life, back to reality (blades for me)

[Chuck_22046]

I read something a while back (and gosh right now I wish I could find the article) that stated that physics dictate that the true "sweetspot" on an iron head will always be about the size of a pin-head. What sets cavitiy backs, and GI/SGI clubs apart, is seemingly that the "evident" sweetspot is either enlarged (which is to say the face reacts in a way SIMILAR to the sweetspot over a wider area and/or that particular sweetspot is moved in the direction that the target handicap tend to miss (usually the toe). Physics lesson over...

First...I hope all that drivel in my first paragraph made sense, and

Second...it represents my theory of the nuked iron shot. In most cases, a well struck iron shot will behave as the golfer intended. However, in those rare times with you absolutely nail one...and actually HIT that sweetspot, the nuclear reaction (if you will) occurs.

Smarter people that me will probably chime in on this, but that's the fantasy I am currently operating under.

[DevilDog]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

In Ping clubs, those little pieces of plastic are factored in to the overall weight of the club and affect swing weight as well. Indeed, before the i20s came out, the big Ping logo in the back was used to swingweight their clubs. Now, they use a smaller piece located in the back. But, yes, it does have an effect if it comes off.

The blade-cb debate will never end. Never. Play with what you like is the end solution. CBs do what they are designed for. Most of them, not all, have more offset designed to keep the hands ahead at impact, some have a slightly closed face to help with slicing, all have lower and deeper CGs to make it easier to get the ball into the air, all have perimeter weighting to make toe hits (85% of mishits by amateurs are on the toe) fly farther, and all have larger heads for the most part to "expand" the sweetspot. Depending on your level of play, it will or won't make much difference. Why? The ball could care less what you hit it with if you can hit the center of the face or very close to it more times than not. CBs are designed to help your worst shots in my view while blades are designed to enhance your better shots and this simple fact should help you decide what would work best for you.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414089723' post='10339713']
I read something a while back (and gosh right now I wish I could find the article) that stated that physics dictate that the true "sweetspot" on an iron head will always be about the size of a pin-head. What sets cavitiy backs, and GI/SGI clubs apart, is seemingly that the "evident" sweetspot is either enlarged (which is to say the face reacts in a way SIMILAR to the sweetspot over a wider area and/or that particular sweetspot is moved in the direction that the target handicap tend to miss (usually the toe). Physics lesson over...

First...I hope all that drivel in my first paragraph made sense, and

Second...it represents my theory of the nuked iron shot. In most cases, a well struck iron shot will behave as the golfer intended. However, in those rare times with you absolutely nail one...and actually HIT that sweetspot, the nuclear reaction (if you will) occurs.

Smarter people that me will probably chime in on this, but that's the fantasy I am currently operating under.
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense....it is known as the COP (Center of Percussion) and it is tiny....and it may not even be located in the dead center of the head.

In tennis I came to coin the term 'sweetzone' rather than 'sweetspot'.....the area of the racquet bed where you get a solid strike w. a predictable response....certainly a very small area on a blade

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414111365' post='10341543']
Makes perfect sense....it is known as the COP (Center of Percussion) and it is tiny....and it may not even be located in the dead center of the head.

In tennis I came to coin the term 'sweetzone' rather than 'sweetspot'.....the area of the racquet bed where you get a solid strike w. a predictable response....certainly a very small area on a blade
[/quote]

Thanks for this! That particular article had a graphic which interestingly compared the relative sizes of the "sweetzone" as you called it between a golf club and a tennis racket. Good info, and thanks for chiming in!

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414112038' post='10341607']
[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414111365' post='10341543']
Makes perfect sense....it is known as the COP (Center of Percussion) and it is tiny....and it may not even be located in the dead center of the head.

In tennis I came to coin the term 'sweetzone' rather than 'sweetspot'.....the area of the racquet bed where you get a solid strike w. a predictable response....certainly a very small area on a blade
[/quote]

Thanks for this! That particular article had a graphic which interestingly compared the relative sizes of the "sweetzone" as you called it between a golf club and a tennis racket. Good info, and thanks for chiming in!
[/quote]

I'd be interested in knowing the mathematical definition of this and then the specific "size", with full disclosure of the calculation or measurement, for all clubs. For both the COP and the sweetzone.

There will be a theoretical point in space on any clubface (or racket face), the COP, where you get the maximum efficiency of the strike. The point at which the most energy from the swing is transferred into the ball. There is only one point for this for any club, however there may be an area around this point where the % energy loss is not that much less than that of the COP. Sure it is small for a blade, but what is the size for the CBs and all irons? Is it vastly different, as surmised by a lot of people? Also, how does this compare to the wear patterns of various golfers? Is it a small point within the wear pattern or does it envelop the wear pattern? My contention is there is a point on a clubface where the shot is "good enough". It is not perfect like the COP, but it is good enough such that the result is not punishing. This has never been defined specifically, but to understand it would allow us to put some statistical significance on any differences between blade and CB. To me it would tremendously further the learning on this topic.

Remember, as put by bladehunter, we are arguing about only a few mid to long iron strikes per round. We then could apply the statistics of a miss, relative to the sweetzone and/or COP, to these few strokes and then begin to understand whether or not a forgiving club is [i]significantly[/i] helpful or not.

I also think that this is why a pro will benefit more from a forgiving club (as mentioned by T.Beau), relative to his skill level, as compared to the hack. They have a statistically relevant chance of hitting a forgiving club in the sweetzone more so than if they were to use a blade for the same shot. A hack on the other hand may have the same (or nearly the same) chances regardless of club, and then when you consider it may be over only 3 shots per round, then it explains why the iron type never impacts the final score of a hack, over the long haul over numerous rounds. It was certainly the case for me between a 7.5 and 16 index. I shot the same scores regardless of whether or not I used my blades or CBs. If the technology of forgiveness was so (statistically) helpful, then it should have eventually been evident as my handicap was changing. But instead it wasn't.

Anyhow, I would really like to see the math and theory behind this COP and sweetzone, but it seems to be something the club manufacturers do not want to divulge. Instead we get MOI of a clubhead, which is again meaningless when the head is attached to the shaft, and also it is typically assumed to be an elliptical MOI, which is flawed because a clubface is triangular. If they developed the math and definitions of this in tennis, then it should be applicable to a golf clubface.

[bladehunter]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1414088328' post='10339595']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1414085832' post='10339363']
[quote name='bladehunter' timestamp='1414084740' post='10339245']
[quote name='BCULAW' timestamp='1414075437' post='10338245']
My experience with the AP2s is EXACTLY the same. In fact, I did a detailed review of the AP2 710s back in the day (too lazy to look for the link), and, while I found the AP2s to be one of the longest, straightest player's set around, I struggled with the nuked short irons. When I tried to get that extra 5 yards, I got an extra 35. 9 irons 30 yards over the green are DEAD. I found that the distance control issues could be resolved by simply swinging at a relaxed pace and letting the club provide the distance, but that is just not my game. They are GREAT clubs - best in class in my opinion - just not for me.
[/quote]

absolutely my experience too.... I will not post how far I nuked a couple 8 and 9 irons with them...ill get flamed for sure for "bragging" ......But you simply cant control the distance... You get used to a solid strike that may be a 1/4 inch one way or another on the face and then boom you go after one trying to make it spin and hold a tight pin and boom pure strike nuke bomb that goes like you said....20 yards over the green ..... I mean really? now I have toyed with carrying one of the 714 ap2 3 irons..bent strong as a driving iron....but haven't done it YET....
[/quote]

I just want to point out, in case someone tries to play the "ability card," what's listed just under your avatar:[list]
[*]Handicap:2.3
[/list]
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't known too many 2 hdcps who weren't able to control their distance to where they don't hit the occasional 30 yds over the green shot with a 9 iron.
[/quote]
[quote name='bladehunter' timestamp='1414086943' post='10339479']
LMao... theres 2 caps who swing 89mph with driver and then theres 2 caps who have hit 120mph.... I never said I couldn't 'control my distance" When I swing normal in rhythm with an 8 9 iron etc I have an exact yardage in my head... when I "go after one" im looking to hit it same distance or 5 yards longer but higher and land softer with some spin.... what I said was that you could go after the Ap2 and easily catch a "jumper" or hot one a whole lot easier with the ap2 than with say my mp68..This would be the shot that just inexplicably went 10-20 yards farther.... That's not an issue with distance control... that's a hotter springy face... the Ap2 almost seemed to penalize you on a pure strike... Now that being said I could easily get used to it and play them well... But why??? much easier to just stick with what works... No other way to say this than to say it....The average player doesn't have a second gear so to speak... he/she cant "go after it" in control to change the flight and or landing characteristics.... Most players who are in between clubs will pull the longer iron everytime.... but some players can control a harder hit shorter iron to get a few more yards out of it and land it softer...instead of having to hit the longer club and hope you can slow it up on the green... Its all about hitting "shots" not distance control...if you can hit the shots you have the distance control... With a MB I have the shots... with most GI clubs distance BECOMES an issue...an issue that is never there any other time... no explanation for that other than the hot spot face irons..
[/quote]

When I was reading your post, I was thinking "I just know someone's going to chime in and say he should learn to play, or learn to control his distances."

So I thought I'd point out the obvious.
[/quote]




I guess I might have been a bit harsh in replying.... I didn't mean to be....just hard to get the point from my head to the keyboard I guess... I tend to ramble on .....so ill stop now......

[NRJyzr]

No worries

[DeNinny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414085781' post='10339343']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1413998497' post='10333341']
[quote name='bladehunter' timestamp='1413997235' post='10333211']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1413986088' post='10331949']
[quote name='bladehunter' timestamp='1413984640' post='10331819']
that is thanks to the misdirection with 80s/90s song speak....its scrambled their minds EYE2 if you know what I mean?!
[/quote]
I "liked" that...but I didn't want to. Issues....lol
[/quote]

AHAAAA!!! my Jedi mind control has finally kicked in! been working on that for weeks!
[/quote]



The only jedi mind control used is from the guys that say you can't play a blade because of your handicap and they have zero (or limited) experience from which to base this.

Not all, but many players that have tried multiple types of irons typically understand that it is not the iron type that defines the scores and skill of the golfer.
[/quote]

People can play whatever gear they like which doesnt mean they have made the best choice.

Lots of us speak from experience playing blades. I'm one of them. When I learned golf, blades were the only choice. Presently I'm a low handicapper, and I would never consider playing blades and i'm considered a good ball striker. Even good golfers misshit, and I sure wouldnt want to misshit my blade on a forced carry over water where there is very little space between water and green..<as one example>.other irons are so much more forgiving. .its senseless to throw away strokes just to play blades. Many of the pros dont play blades. When you are a lower handicapper, each mistake costs you more. Doesnt matter so much for higher handicaps because they are gonna shoot a big number anyway.
I also have related experiences having given thousands of tennis lessons over the years..the similarity is that there are players racquets, game improvement, and SGI..to a person the lessons i've had to give to players wielding 'players racquets' turned out to be the hardest people to teach and the ones who improved the most slowly..or not at all.
Blades dont improve your accuracy on a left right basis, and make your accuracy worse because even a slight misshit results in a ball short of target...or in the rare case when you hit the tiny COP of the muscleback you get a jumper.
This post is not directed at anyone in particular and people are sure welcome to use whatever gear they like for whatever reasons they like...
[/quote]

T.Beau I don't dispute what you've stated except a couple of issues: 1) who's to judge what is the best choice for a golfer and 2) you cannot assume using a blade is always wasted strokes.

For determining a golfer's "best choice" of iron type, unless you do a side by side and statistically relevant comparison, this cannot be determined by anybody. I think that the best choice is ultimately up to the golfer, and any outside observer, whether teacher or fitter or friend or not, may not be the best for advice on the decision. Ultimately my point is that the "best choice" is definitely an individual thing. I proved to myself after 8 years that neither a blade or a CB was a best choice in terms of score, so ultimately I chose the irons that feel the best and give me the best chance to hit it as accurately as possible. I choose not to play for miss, but for control. That said, I do like to play my CBs when my ball striking isn't the best. However, there isn't anyone that can convince me that I should play one of my sets over the other. Again this is because I have already proven that neither makes a difference to my score (over 8 years of switching back and forth).

In terms of wasting strokes with a blade and your short miss example, I don't think it is a good assumption that a short miss equals a stroke lost. Just like a CB player learns to work the ball a little harder to get the same result as a blade, a blade player learns to manage their shorter miss, so over water they may not necessarily use the same club between a blade or a CB. Any golfer simply learns to manage their miss and so this negates or minimizes the potential for a lost stroke. You could make the same argument for a hazard that is long to the right. A miss with a CB may put you right in that hazard, but with a blade the miss was short and still in play. Furthermore, one could argue that a good strike with a blade puts you that much closer to the hole, which increases your chances of gaining a stroke.

In terms of pros playing either type, I have mentioned that they may have a much better statistical chance of reaping the benefits of a forgiving club. Also they are playing with margins of error so small that that one stroke gained from a CB made it worthwhile for them to play it. But even at the pro level, there is not an absolute on this. To me even the pros are making a risk/reward and pro/con decision and they could go either way between a blade or CB. If a CB were always beneficial, I'm pretty sure all pros would use them because of the statistical advantage. Just like all drivers on tour are nearly all big head/high MOI clubs. The technology advancement in this regard was so evident that nearly all pros converted to it. The entire industry converted to it. By contrast, in the case of irons, I don't see the CB being so revolutionary that it makes it an absolute decision to play them. If I were playing for millions of dollars over a one stroke difference, then I may be inclined to take every advantage of technology. I think the pros know this and know that when they choose that CB, they have weighed this against the benefit of the blade and deem the CB more beneficial. This isn't an absolute with all pros or with hacks.

I don't contest that you have experience playing blades and that you choose not to play them, but to assume this logic applies to all golfers is precisely my point. It doesn't apply as an absolute. My other point was the golfers that judge and make an absolute call when they[i] don't have experience[/i]. You definitely [i]are not [/i]who I was getting at!

Again, I have proven to myself that neither a blade or a CB impacts my score. I have done this for about 8 years now at varying skill level. That is my experience (and FYI I also have experience that yes a blade is better for working the ball better left/right...it's definitely easier than a CB...that I know for sure). I have read posts from golfers that shot better with blades. I have read the opposite as well. That's ultimately my point: no absolutes.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

Can you go into more detail about the difference with and without the plastic bit? How did the feel change and also was there any difference in performance that you could tell?

I'm trying to see if the plastic piece was strictly for feel. The advertisements for these types of clubs state that the reinforcement allows even more weight to be distributed to the club perimeter. This allows them to market an even bigger clubhead MOI...but does it really do anything? Did you hit enough with it to tell any differences besides feel?

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414118564' post='10342187']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

Can you go into more detail about the difference with and without the plastic bit? How did the feel change and also was there any difference in performance that you could tell?

I'm trying to see if the plastic piece was strictly for feel. The advertisements for these types of clubs state that the reinforcement allows even more weight to be distributed to the club perimeter. This allows them to market an even bigger clubhead MOI...but does it really do anything? Did you hit enough with it to tell any differences besides feel?
[/quote]

I mention smarter people and DeNinny beams down from the International Space Station! (kidding) I will dig the club out in the morning, but it was a Ping S-58 6 Iron. The bit that fell out was called the "Stabilizing Bar" if I remember. As I tap-dance whilst writing this post, I am poking around to see if I can find an image which shows the bit.

So...again, [s]smrtr[/s] smarter people than I [s]are[/s] am, can I am sure give input as I am attempting to put into (very) basic technical terms what I am certain probably represents some mildly serious science.

The part if I remember the marketing mumbo-jumbo was actually designed to reduce MOI to improve the workability of the club. One of the differences (I think) between the S56 and the S58 was that the S56 had Tungsten weighting out toward the toe which I think was designed to move the "sweet spot" closer to the toe. The S58, I don't think had the benefit of the aforementioned weighting. This is where things begin to get interesting!

The part that broke out was the stabilizing bar which is supposed to enhance feel and stability. In my experience, the S58's were stupid forgiving on toe hits (my miss). When that part broke on the 6 iron....the club felt much more harsh than before and quite "clicky"...certainly more so than before. What felt like a flush hit, was now closer to the heel. I got the bit to fit back in and glued it, but it never felt the same. It remained clicky, stiff and almost as if the sweet spot was no longer consistent. I don't know if I spilled out the magic pixie dust when that part fell out or not....but I can say with courtroom certainty that club was never the same. I had reshafted the set myself (which utterly voids the Ping warranty I was told) so there was no joy in getting the iron repaired. I could have probably gotten a replacement iron from Ping, but by then the TS-202's were in the bag and the problem largely forgotten. They are safely in the "do not sell" section of my clubs.

It's incredibly difficult to put feel into words....and I apologize to everyone for these banal attempts to do so. I was kidding about the "smarter people" comment, but the fact is, I would fail miserably in a brain pan measuring contest.

I shall now return to reading "My First Big Book of Engineering Geometry"

[T.Beau]

A response to DeNinny

1) Not for me to judge, but suggest to you that a qualified teaching pro is qualified to advise people on what kind of gear might be best. I dont care what other golfers use, but gotta snicker when you hear a bad golfer pontificate about how they can only play w blades and how only a pro v1 will do as they proceed to barely break 100....ditto for the lessons i;ve had to give to horrible players using players racquets who tried to school me on how to play or teach tennis...

2) as you said there are no absolutes. i was speaking in generalities. there can always be the occasional exception. I was merely offering up experiences from tennis which i thought applied and which were true 100% of the time from a sampling size in the hundreds. I also originally played blades because that was all there was at the time. and persimmon woods. why dont people who say demanding blades makes them focus better play a persimmon driver? talk about punishing a small miss hit.....

the problem with using gear which is too demanding for someones skillset is that it promotes negative reinforcement...what you strive to do is consistently flush hit a tennis ball or golf ball using decent technique....easier done w. gear well matched to a persons skillset....negative reinforcement erodes confidence. Also when 'many' golfers experience a misshit, they dont know what the cause of their misshit was so they can not fix the faults..only that it was a misshit, didnt feel good, and didnt produce a good result...all negatives...so they 'often' try and force the too demanding club to work and thats not so good either.

[Chuck_22046]

If I may stick my beak in this for a moment....

Unless my brain was muddled by a brief musical interlude forced upon me by some judicious mind control, this thread is a discussion amongst people who enjoy the use of blades, not a debate or discussion on which is better for all golfers, some golfers or frankly anyone other than those of like mind. While some of the science being discussed only serves to show that my knowledge on this subject is but a drop in the comprehensive ocean of knowledge that exists on this board...the thoughts and inputs of those who feel the same way, regardless of their level of expertise is greatly appreciated.

On that note, and since I was pickled for most of the 80's and 90's, I am going to go watch music videos and see what I missed.

[Mitchell]

"Certain profiles allow players to readily control delivery of clubface to ball to produce the intended result. A club that does not match a player's visual preference to align to intended target and/or preferred delivery method to obtain a certain shape and/or trajectory, will result in less than desirable result.
Whether a blade-like profile or certain game-improvement features are present matters only to the fact that the ball either reaches intended target in acceptable manner to allow best possible score, or it does not." - John Jacobs

[DeNinny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414125816' post='10342733']
A response to DeNinny

1) Not for me to judge, but suggest to you that a qualified teaching pro is qualified to advise people on what kind of gear might be best. I dont care what other golfers use, but gotta snicker when you hear a bad golfer pontificate about how they can only play w blades and how only a pro v1 will do as they proceed to barely break 100....ditto for the lessons i;ve had to give to horrible players using players racquets who tried to school me on how to play or teach tennis...

2) as you said there are no absolutes. i was speaking in generalities. there can always be the occasional exception. I was merely offering up experiences from tennis which i thought applied and which were true 100% of the time from a sampling size in the hundreds. I also originally played blades because that was all there was at the time. and persimmon woods. why dont people who say demanding blades makes them focus better play a persimmon driver? talk about punishing a small miss hit.....

the problem with using gear which is too demanding for someones skillset is that it promotes negative reinforcement...what you strive to do is consistently flush hit a tennis ball or golf ball using decent technique....easier done w. gear well matched to a persons skillset....negative reinforcement erodes confidence. Also when 'many' golfers experience a misshit, they dont know what the cause of their misshit was so they can not fix the faults..only that it was a misshit, didnt feel good, and didnt produce a good result...all negatives...so they 'often' try and force the too demanding club to work and thats not so good either.
[/quote]

T.Beau, thank you so much for the discussion and clarification. I completely agree with #1. When you mention a golfer at that skill level, barely able to break 100, I completely agree a blade is too much club and that yes a qualified professional *might* (<- operative word...thank you for phrasing it that way!) help them make a club choice. From my own experience, I can attest that I struggled for a while at a 16 index and I went through a phase where I could not, for the life of me, hit a 3i or 4i blade with any sort of consistency. I even bought a 3i and 4i MP-Fli Hi and played those for half a season (FYI the very wide sole did not help my sweeper swing and I didn't hit them any better than the blades). You definitely have to work on your game more with a blade, but that struggle period can be overcome and you can play that blade as decent as any other club...but you need to work at it. And to me there is no question you will struggle when you play a blade. This is something that not everyone learning the game wants to go through.

To your point #2. I see two reasons why a blade player doesn't hit the persimmon woods and drivers...

1) With a blade there is a tangible benefit to hitting it well, in particular if you are trying to work the ball as compared to a CB. By contrast, it's not so beneficial with persimmon drivers and woods where the physics of the design isn't the same. You get a real tangible benefit on distance and forgiveness with metal and large head woods vs their persimmon equivalent. With a blade vs CB iron, the benefits also have drawbacks and there is a balance always being played between forgiveness and workability.

2) Driver is a scoring club, statistically it is beneficial to use the most forgiving club in this regard. Most of the time you aren't going to work the ball as precisely with a driver (as compared to an iron) and you really just want to go long and straight with it. It makes sense to use the large metal head driver over the persimmon equivalent. Whenever someone recommends what clubs you need to "master" in order to improve your game the fastest and score the lowest, it is always putter, wedge, and driver. Mid to long irons are never in the discussion, why? Because they won't put a huge risk on scoring any worse.

To be clear, I don't think any blade player wants to punish himself and is suggesting as such. They just view it that the blade can help them score the lowest as much as a CB can, for different reasons. With persimmon equipment it is an entirely different situation.

And to your last point, I say the blade gives you a lot of positive reinforcement as well as the negative. It certainly did for me. I can tell you without a doubt there is no better feeling in golf, to me, than hitting a well struck blade. That has been so much positive reinforcement towards my learning the game over the years. I will take that over all the negatives provided in a heartbeat. And although I can get that "better" negative reinforcement with my MP-60's, they just don't compare to my MP-67s on the positive end. I say, why look at the swing negatively and focus on avoiding the negative? Why not go for the [i]most positive [/i]and reinforce that?

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414124055' post='10342623']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414118564' post='10342187']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

Can you go into more detail about the difference with and without the plastic bit? How did the feel change and also was there any difference in performance that you could tell?

I'm trying to see if the plastic piece was strictly for feel. The advertisements for these types of clubs state that the reinforcement allows even more weight to be distributed to the club perimeter. This allows them to market an even bigger clubhead MOI...but does it really do anything? Did you hit enough with it to tell any differences besides feel?
[/quote]

I mention smarter people and DeNinny beams down from the International Space Station! (kidding) I will dig the club out in the morning, but it was a Ping S-58 6 Iron. The bit that fell out was called the "Stabilizing Bar" if I remember. As I tap-dance whilst writing this post, I am poking around to see if I can find an image which shows the bit.

So...again, [s]smrtr[/s] smarter people than I [s]are[/s] am, can I am sure give input as I am attempting to put into (very) basic technical terms what I am certain probably represents some mildly serious science.

The part if I remember the marketing mumbo-jumbo was actually designed to reduce MOI to improve the workability of the club. One of the differences (I think) between the S56 and the S58 was that the S56 had Tungsten weighting out toward the toe which I think was designed to move the "sweet spot" closer to the toe. The S58, I don't think had the benefit of the aforementioned weighting. This is where things begin to get interesting!

The part that broke out was the stabilizing bar which is supposed to enhance feel and stability. In my experience, the S58's were stupid forgiving on toe hits (my miss). When that part broke on the 6 iron....the club felt much more harsh than before and quite "clicky"...certainly more so than before. What felt like a flush hit, was now closer to the heel. I got the bit to fit back in and glued it, but it never felt the same. It remained clicky, stiff and almost as if the sweet spot was no longer consistent. I don't know if I spilled out the magic pixie dust when that part fell out or not....but I can say with courtroom certainty that club was never the same. I had reshafted the set myself (which utterly voids the Ping warranty I was told) so there was no joy in getting the iron repaired. I could have probably gotten a replacement iron from Ping, but by then the TS-202's were in the bag and the problem largely forgotten. They are safely in the "do not sell" section of my clubs.

It's incredibly difficult to put feel into words....and I apologize to everyone for these banal attempts to do so. I was kidding about the "smarter people" comment, but the fact is, I would fail miserably in a brain pan measuring contest.

I shall now return to reading "My First Big Book of Engineering Geometry"
[/quote]

Well if you look at it from a structural (for which I am not - I am a chemical engineer) engineering perspective, that bar or plastic is serving to support the face at impact, which goes back to my earlier point. The question is [i]why[/i] is there support? Here are some options:

1) The support will prevent the face from permanently deforming because the metal is too thin now. The plastic will support the backside of the metal at impact and so prevent it from permanently deforming. This may not be apparent right away, but over time you may notice the face actually deform if you hit enough balls over and over.

2) The support will prevent the face from compressing like it normally would have without support. Again, this is to simulate blade like performance. The face does not flex as much which is the same as what a blade does vs a CB club.

3) The support just changes the way the club sounds.

4) The support just changes the way the club feels at impact.

I'm just trying to see if we can figure out which of the four, or which of any combination, is what is going on.

In any case, since the structure itself changed by losing that plastic piece, then most definitely the feel and sound will change. A different harmonic is going through the club and into the hands. At impact, there is a pulse of energy that essentially compresses the molecules of the clubface closer together at the point of impact. Since these molecules don't like to be close to each other, they immediately repel their neighbors, and this repel is propagated throughout the club like a chain reaction (because it really is at the molecular level) and up the shaft and into the hands. When there is a different material involved at impact, or there is a change in the physical structure, the feel of impact will be different. That impulse is going through a different media or through a different path, so there is no question the feel will be different.

BTW Chuck, I'm sorry if you don't really want to get into this in this thread. I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity, so no issue if you don't want to discuss.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414124055' post='10342623']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414118564' post='10342187']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

Can you go into more detail about the difference with and without the plastic bit? How did the feel change and also was there any difference in performance that you could tell?

I'm trying to see if the plastic piece was strictly for feel. The advertisements for these types of clubs state that the reinforcement allows even more weight to be distributed to the club perimeter. This allows them to market an even bigger clubhead MOI...but does it really do anything? Did you hit enough with it to tell any differences besides feel?
[/quote]

I mention smarter people and DeNinny beams down from the International Space Station! (kidding) I will dig the club out in the morning, but it was a Ping S-58 6 Iron. The bit that fell out was called the "Stabilizing Bar" if I remember. As I tap-dance whilst writing this post, I am poking around to see if I can find an image which shows the bit.

So...again, [s]smrtr[/s] smarter people than I [s]are[/s] am, can I am sure give input as I am attempting to put into (very) basic technical terms what I am certain probably represents some mildly serious science.

The part if I remember the marketing mumbo-jumbo was actually designed to reduce MOI to improve the workability of the club. One of the differences (I think) between the S56 and the S58 was that the S56 had Tungsten weighting out toward the toe which I think was designed to move the "sweet spot" closer to the toe. The S58, I don't think had the benefit of the aforementioned weighting. This is where things begin to get interesting!

The part that broke out was the stabilizing bar which is supposed to enhance feel and stability. In my experience, the S58's were stupid forgiving on toe hits (my miss). When that part broke on the 6 iron....the club felt much more harsh than before and quite "clicky"...certainly more so than before. What felt like a flush hit, was now closer to the heel. I got the bit to fit back in and glued it, but it never felt the same. It remained clicky, stiff and almost as if the sweet spot was no longer consistent. I don't know if I spilled out the magic pixie dust when that part fell out or not....but I can say with courtroom certainty that club was never the same. I had reshafted the set myself (which utterly voids the Ping warranty I was told) so there was no joy in getting the iron repaired. I could have probably gotten a replacement iron from Ping, but by then the TS-202's were in the bag and the problem largely forgotten. They are safely in the "do not sell" section of my clubs.

It's incredibly difficult to put feel into words....and I apologize to everyone for these banal attempts to do so. I was kidding about the "smarter people" comment, but the fact is, I would fail miserably in a brain pan measuring contest.

I shall now return to reading "My First Big Book of Engineering Geometry"
[/quote]

The S58s were nice irons. I played with them for a few years. The 4-6
irons looked like they would be hard to hit but they weren't. I scratched
them all up playing in the desert and they got ugly and I sold them.

I bought some S56s but didn't like them as much and sold them, too.

Maybe I'll get some real blades, or MBs and play them for a swan
song, lol. I'm getting old and probably should just buy some Karstens
or something and forget about it, lol.

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414130087' post='10342877']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414124055' post='10342623']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414118564' post='10342187']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414059633' post='10337327']
Golf marketing can and generally does make me nuts. Mostly because while one side of my brain wants to call shenanigans....the other side of my brain pulls out the credit card.

For me (and it would seem several others) the feel and precision outweighs the forgiveness. I hadn't considered that whole idea of attempting to turn a cavity back into a "blade like" club concept. I can say from experience, that some of those plastic bits on the backs have some kind of value. I lost a piece off the back of one of my Ping S-58's, and it never felt the same. I don't know if it was technology or the placebo effect in reverse....but that club never felt the same.
[/quote]

Can you go into more detail about the difference with and without the plastic bit? How did the feel change and also was there any difference in performance that you could tell?

I'm trying to see if the plastic piece was strictly for feel. The advertisements for these types of clubs state that the reinforcement allows even more weight to be distributed to the club perimeter. This allows them to market an even bigger clubhead MOI...but does it really do anything? Did you hit enough with it to tell any differences besides feel?
[/quote]

I mention smarter people and DeNinny beams down from the International Space Station! (kidding) I will dig the club out in the morning, but it was a Ping S-58 6 Iron. The bit that fell out was called the "Stabilizing Bar" if I remember. As I tap-dance whilst writing this post, I am poking around to see if I can find an image which shows the bit.

So...again, [s]smrtr[/s] smarter people than I [s]are[/s] am, can I am sure give input as I am attempting to put into (very) basic technical terms what I am certain probably represents some mildly serious science.

The part if I remember the marketing mumbo-jumbo was actually designed to reduce MOI to improve the workability of the club. One of the differences (I think) between the S56 and the S58 was that the S56 had Tungsten weighting out toward the toe which I think was designed to move the "sweet spot" closer to the toe. The S58, I don't think had the benefit of the aforementioned weighting. This is where things begin to get interesting!

The part that broke out was the stabilizing bar which is supposed to enhance feel and stability. In my experience, the S58's were stupid forgiving on toe hits (my miss). When that part broke on the 6 iron....the club felt much more harsh than before and quite "clicky"...certainly more so than before. What felt like a flush hit, was now closer to the heel. I got the bit to fit back in and glued it, but it never felt the same. It remained clicky, stiff and almost as if the sweet spot was no longer consistent. I don't know if I spilled out the magic pixie dust when that part fell out or not....but I can say with courtroom certainty that club was never the same. I had reshafted the set myself (which utterly voids the Ping warranty I was told) so there was no joy in getting the iron repaired. I could have probably gotten a replacement iron from Ping, but by then the TS-202's were in the bag and the problem largely forgotten. They are safely in the "do not sell" section of my clubs.

It's incredibly difficult to put feel into words....and I apologize to everyone for these banal attempts to do so. I was kidding about the "smarter people" comment, but the fact is, I would fail miserably in a brain pan measuring contest.

I shall now return to reading "My First Big Book of Engineering Geometry"
[/quote]

Well if you look at it from a structural (for which I am not - I am a chemical engineer) engineering perspective, that bar or plastic is serving to support the face at impact, which goes back to my earlier point. The question is [i]why[/i] is there support? Here are some options:

1) The support will prevent the face from permanently deforming because the metal is too thin now. The plastic will support the backside of the metal at impact and so prevent it from permanently deforming. This may not be apparent right away, but over time you may notice the face actually deform if you hit enough balls over and over.

2) The support will prevent the face from compressing like it normally would have without support. Again, this is to simulate blade like performance. The face does not flex as much which is the same as what a blade does vs a CB club.

3) The support just changes the way the club sounds.

4) The support just changes the way the club feels at impact.

I'm just trying to see if we can figure out which of the four, or which of any combination, is what is going on.

In any case, since the structure itself changed by losing that plastic piece, then most definitely the feel and sound will change. A different harmonic is going through the club and into the hands. At impact, there is a pulse of energy that essentially compresses the molecules of the clubface closer together at the point of impact. Since these molecules don't like to be close to each other, they immediately repel their neighbors, and this repel is propagated throughout the club like a chain reaction (because it really is at the molecular level) and up the shaft and into the hands. When there is a different material involved at impact, or there is a change in the physical structure, the feel of impact will be different. That impulse is going through a different media or through a different path, so there is no question the feel will be different.

BTW Chuck, I'm sorry if you don't really want to get into this in this thread. I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity, so no issue if you don't want to discuss.
[/quote]
Oh no...I am totally into this thread. I am going to re-read this once I have the benefit of come coffee and take a crack at which...or perhaps all of these are the "culprit". I am seriously enjoying this...AND learning something

And...my sincere apologies if I came across like I was poopooing something...or most importantly someone in my "beak" post. I probably over-reacted to a whiff of fear that one of those blankenty blank blank argh <insert chest pounding> BvCB arguments was going to ensue. I didn't mean to offend....

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1414130498' post='10342891']
The S58s were nice irons. I played with them for a few years. The 4-6
irons looked like they would be hard to hit but they weren't. I scratched
them all up playing in the desert and they got ugly and I sold them.

I bought some S56s but didn't like them as much and sold them, too.

Maybe I'll get some real blades, or MBs and play them for a swan
song, lol. I'm getting old and probably should just buy some Karstens
or something and forget about it, lol.
[/quote]

I enjoyed the S58's...no doubt. Till I spilled the pixie dust and the magic was gone. The mojo, compared to a blade was however quite weak. They are very forgiving...fairly workable, and not bad on the eyes at all. Just don't have that...feeling

[playa]

[quote name='Startzel' timestamp='1413734574' post='10314407']
[quote name='teckneeklyperfect' timestamp='1413733769' post='10314337']
My translation to that is if you need to shape a shot or whatever then cavity backs are gonna hinder that ability, right? wrong?
[/quote]

Could you explain what you mean by shaping your shot?

I read a lot of these posts and it comes across that some folks believe that CB clubs just fly dead straight. I played CB irons and I hit a draw on most shots. But if I need to hit a fade it's just a minor adjustment and I get the left to right shot shape.
[/quote]
Disagree. I use GI irons and they are definitely harder to work, especially left to right. I am a low single digit so I have the ability to work the ball but imo GI irons are designed to be straight or anti slice. I can hit controlled draws and hooks with my irons, but I have no control with left to right shots and actually find it hard to make it go left to right. I have had blades in the past and could hit high and low controlled cuts like shelling peas so it is definitely the clubs. But having said that I find the forgiveness advantages of GI irons outweigh the lack of workability.

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414130087' post='10342877']
Well if you look at it from a structural (for which I am not - I am a chemical engineer) engineering perspective, that bar or plastic is serving to support the face at impact, which goes back to my earlier point. The question is [i]why[/i] is there support? Here are some options:

1) The support will prevent the face from permanently deforming because the metal is too thin now. The plastic will support the backside of the metal at impact and so prevent it from permanently deforming. This may not be apparent right away, but over time you may notice the face actually deform if you hit enough balls over and over.

2) The support will prevent the face from compressing like it normally would have without support. Again, this is to simulate blade like performance. The face does not flex as much which is the same as what a blade does vs a CB club.

3) The support just changes the way the club sounds.

4) The support just changes the way the club feels at impact.

I'm just trying to see if we can figure out which of the four, or which of any combination, is what is going on.

In any case, since the structure itself changed by losing that plastic piece, then most definitely the feel and sound will change. A different harmonic is going through the club and into the hands. At impact, there is a pulse of energy that essentially compresses the molecules of the clubface closer together at the point of impact. Since these molecules don't like to be close to each other, they immediately repel their neighbors, and this repel is propagated throughout the club like a chain reaction (because it really is at the molecular level) and up the shaft and into the hands. When there is a different material involved at impact, or there is a change in the physical structure, the feel of impact will be different. That impulse is going through a different media or through a different path, so there is no question the feel will be different.

BTW Chuck, I'm sorry if you don't really want to get into this in this thread. I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity, so no issue if you don't want to discuss.
[/quote]

In Turn:
1)Not sure...the heads are cast stainless, which I am lead to believe is as hard as Chinese Algebra. I don't know how much deformation could occur over time.
2)Possibly, or perhaps allow the face to deflect in a predetermined (by the nature of the bit) and controlled manner.
3)Very Likely, given the removal did exactly that
4) Again very likely for the same reason as #3

Sorry again if I offended anyone or marginalized anyone's opinions...from the science standpoint, I am a total hack. I just know I hit them better. This is a good thread.

[BMC]

Solution: everyone should play a forged CB with little offset. Best of all worlds. Next topic.....

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='playa' timestamp='1414138519' post='10343017']
...I use GI irons and they are definitely harder to work, especially left to right. I am a low single digit so I have the ability to work the ball but imo GI irons are designed to be straight or anti slice. I can hit controlled draws and hooks with my irons, but I have no control with left to right shots and actually find it hard to make it go left to right. I have had blades in the past and could hit high and low controlled cuts like shelling peas so it is definitely the clubs. But having said that I find the forgiveness advantages of GI irons outweigh the lack of workability.
[/quote]

I'm probably repeating myself, but here goes anyway.

Another aspect of this party: most GI irons are designed to get the ball in the air. That's great if you hit a low ball, but for those of us who already hit the ball fairly high, it's not the winning aspect it might seem.

[DNice26]

Here is my suggestion.....have a backup set of blades for the driving range, but play golf with your CBs. This way you get the benefits of refining your swing when practicing, while still getting a tad more help on miss hits when out playing. I currently own three sets of mizunos, all ranging in "forgiveness" (MP68s with C-Taper S+, MP64s with C-Taper S hs, 850 forged with X100). I played my blades full time about 3 years ago. Then played the 64s for a few years and only recently purchased the 850s (only played one time with them so far). During those years, my handicap has not changed much. With the blades I was a 1 handi and with the CBs, I got down to a 0. To be honest, I would attribute the drop solely to my wedge/short game. I started chipping around the greens with lower loft and it has helped a fair amount. I can see the allure of this debate, as the pure feel of a blade is simply unmatched when you are swinging well. And when you are not swinging well, the blades seem to provide that level of feedback that almost forces you into making a better pass at the ball. I can see why guys have commented that their swings seem to be improved with the blades, as they do seemingly force you into a certain focus and rythm that seems to slightly dissipate when a CB or larger club head is behind the ball. When I played my blades full time, I would agree that my swing somehow felt "better," but it didn't necessarily result in better scores. The few things I've noticed about blades that set them apart are: 1. Solid feel (obviously). 2. Ability to hit certain types of shots (e.g. low), easier. 2. Turf interaction and ability to get them through tough lies.

As many have said already.....play what you are comfortable with. This game is not easy, so if you are confident in your sticks (blades, CBs, GI etc.), that is what matters.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414112038' post='10341607']
[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414111365' post='10341543']
Makes perfect sense....it is known as the COP (Center of Percussion) and it is tiny....and it may not even be located in the dead center of the head.

In tennis I came to coin the term 'sweetzone' rather than 'sweetspot'.....the area of the racquet bed where you get a solid strike w. a predictable response....certainly a very small area on a blade
[/quote]

Thanks for this! That particular article had a graphic which interestingly compared the relative sizes of the "sweetzone" as you called it between a golf club and a tennis racket. Good info, and thanks for chiming in!
[/quote]

oh sure...you're very welcome. there are many similarities between the two games...other than the swing

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='BMC' timestamp='1414149693' post='10343217']
Solution: everyone should play a forged CB with little offset. Best of all worlds. Next topic.....
[/quote]

I really shouldn't comment, but I can't help myself. So at the risk of opening Pandora's Box...

The important aspect here is not the process used to create the club to which the OP is returning, it's the club head design. He's coming back to "blades," he's not coming back to a "forged club."

A forged CB is still a CB. A cast blade is still a blade. There is nothing about forging a club that will make a CB offer the performance the OP seeks.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414127964' post='10342813']
[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414125816' post='10342733']
A response to DeNinny

1) Not for me to judge, but suggest to you that a qualified teaching pro is qualified to advise people on what kind of gear might be best. I dont care what other golfers use, but gotta snicker when you hear a bad golfer pontificate about how they can only play w blades and how only a pro v1 will do as they proceed to barely break 100....ditto for the lessons i;ve had to give to horrible players using players racquets who tried to school me on how to play or teach tennis...

2) as you said there are no absolutes. i was speaking in generalities. there can always be the occasional exception. I was merely offering up experiences from tennis which i thought applied and which were true 100% of the time from a sampling size in the hundreds. I also originally played blades because that was all there was at the time. and persimmon woods. why dont people who say demanding blades makes them focus better play a persimmon driver? talk about punishing a small miss hit.....

the problem with using gear which is too demanding for someones skillset is that it promotes negative reinforcement...what you strive to do is consistently flush hit a tennis ball or golf ball using decent technique....easier done w. gear well matched to a persons skillset....negative reinforcement erodes confidence. Also when 'many' golfers experience a misshit, they dont know what the cause of their misshit was so they can not fix the faults..only that it was a misshit, didnt feel good, and didnt produce a good result...all negatives...so they 'often' try and force the too demanding club to work and thats not so good either.
[/quote]

T.Beau, thank you so much for the discussion and clarification. I completely agree with #1. When you mention a golfer at that skill level, barely able to break 100, I completely agree a blade is too much club and that yes a qualified professional *might* (<- operative word...thank you for phrasing it that way!) help them make a club choice. From my own experience, I can attest that I struggled for a while at a 16 index and I went through a phase where I could not, for the life of me, hit a 3i or 4i blade with any sort of consistency. I even bought a 3i and 4i MP-Fli Hi and played those for half a season (FYI the very wide sole did not help my sweeper swing and I didn't hit them any better than the blades). You definitely have to work on your game more with a blade, but that struggle period can be overcome and you can play that blade as decent as any other club...but you need to work at it. And to me there is no question you will struggle when you play a blade. This is something that not everyone learning the game wants to go through.

To your point #2. I see two reasons why a blade player doesn't hit the persimmon woods and drivers...

1) With a blade there is a tangible benefit to hitting it well, in particular if you are trying to work the ball as compared to a CB. By contrast, it's not so beneficial with persimmon drivers and woods where the physics of the design isn't the same. You get a real tangible benefit on distance and forgiveness with metal and large head woods vs their persimmon equivalent. With a blade vs CB iron, the benefits also have drawbacks and there is a balance always being played between forgiveness and workability.

2) Driver is a scoring club, statistically it is beneficial to use the most forgiving club in this regard. Most of the time you aren't going to work the ball as precisely with a driver (as compared to an iron) and you really just want to go long and straight with it. It makes sense to use the large metal head driver over the persimmon equivalent. Whenever someone recommends what clubs you need to "master" in order to improve your game the fastest and score the lowest, it is always putter, wedge, and driver. Mid to long irons are never in the discussion, why? Because they won't put a huge risk on scoring any worse.

To be clear, I don't think any blade player wants to punish himself and is suggesting as such. They just view it that the blade can help them score the lowest as much as a CB can, for different reasons. With persimmon equipment it is an entirely different situation.

And to your last point, I say the blade gives you a lot of positive reinforcement as well as the negative. It certainly did for me. I can tell you without a doubt there is no better feeling in golf, to me, than hitting a well struck blade. That has been so much positive reinforcement towards my learning the game over the years. I will take that over all the negatives provided in a heartbeat. And although I can get that "better" negative reinforcement with my MP-60's, they just don't compare to my MP-67s on the positive end. I say, why look at the swing negatively and focus on avoiding the negative? Why not go for the [i]most positive [/i]and reinforce that?
[/quote]

so we disagree. i'm definitely in the game in large part for the feel of a well struck shot and learned on blades. the forgings i play now feel every bit as good as any blade ive ever played on a well struck shot, and produce much better results and feel better on miss hits...yes, i miss hit. its more about how they are manufactured and the quality of the forging...and it certainly is better to have more flush hits than less. as reference i learned with Wilson Staff blades and Walter Hagen blades (which I think were made by Wilson).

as to driver designs..the basic design has remained the same. persimmon drivers have bulge and roll and loft just like a modern driver..its just that the heads were so small.. so much easier to hit the ball crooked, and the balls then were much more subject to side spin.

so i think if players wish to get better based upon the theories on this forum, they should play with persimmon drivers and tennis players should play with squash racquets .....and wear heavy workboots when they play, because that will really improve their footwork......;>

[Chuck_22046]

Yikes!

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1414151917' post='10343271']
[quote name='playa' timestamp='1414138519' post='10343017']
...I use GI irons and they are definitely harder to work, especially left to right. I am a low single digit so I have the ability to work the ball but imo GI irons are designed to be straight or anti slice. I can hit controlled draws and hooks with my irons, but I have no control with left to right shots and actually find it hard to make it go left to right. I have had blades in the past and could hit high and low controlled cuts like shelling peas so it is definitely the clubs. But having said that I find the forgiveness advantages of GI irons outweigh the lack of workability.
[/quote]

I'm probably repeating myself, but here goes anyway.

Another aspect of this party: most GI irons are designed to get the ball in the air. That's great if you hit a low ball, but for those of us who already hit the ball fairly high, it's not the winning aspect it might seem.
[/quote]
An excellent point. I had a brief affair with some Nike Covert Forged. Not bad irons...and I couldn't flight the ball to save my life. High...and Higher was all I could get. Exceedingly difficult to control distance with trajectory with those puppies...

[cb24]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1414156552' post='10343569']
[quote name='BMC' timestamp='1414149693' post='10343217']
Solution: everyone should play a forged CB with little offset. Best of all worlds. Next topic.....
[/quote]

I really shouldn't comment, but I can't help myself. So at the risk of opening Pandora's Box...

The important aspect here is not the process used to create the club to which the OP is returning, it's the club head design. He's coming back to "blades," he's not coming back to a "forged club."

A forged CB is still a CB. A cast blade is still a blade. There is nothing about forging a club that will make a CB offer the performance the OP seeks.
[/quote]

I figure just give the benefit of the doubt he doesn't know ap2 are forged... Or that he didn't even read the thread

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='cb24' timestamp='1414166907' post='10344425']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1414156552' post='10343569']
[quote name='BMC' timestamp='1414149693' post='10343217']
Solution: everyone should play a forged CB with little offset. Best of all worlds. Next topic.....
[/quote]

I really shouldn't comment, but I can't help myself. So at the risk of opening Pandora's Box...

The important aspect here is not the process used to create the club to which the OP is returning, it's the club head design. He's coming back to "blades," he's not coming back to a "forged club."

A forged CB is still a CB. A cast blade is still a blade. There is nothing about forging a club that will make a CB offer the performance the OP seeks.
[/quote]

I figure just give the benefit of the doubt he doesn't know ap2 are forged... Or that he didn't even read the thread
[/quote]

It's more for anyone else reading, who might take that comment and think forged CB = forged blade.