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

[thug the bunny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414085781' post='10339343']
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..[b]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.[/b]
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]

The racquet issue is indeed a perfect analogy. Being someone who plays W/S blades, guess what my last racquet purchase was? Wilson ProStaff Midsize 85. Before that, I used a Head Prestige and Babolat PSL. Using those sticks (those are 'players' sticks, for those who aren't familiar) I got to about a 5 rating when I played a lot, although I did play in HS. Go figure.

[Startzel]

[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]

Is there any science to back this up? You're telling me there is something about this particular club that would allow it to go 35 yards more than another club?

[thug the bunny]

Speaking about marketing BS, it has been noted that if one were to add up all the gains in distance of each succeeding generation of driver claimed by the manufacturers, we should easily be driving it 450 with modern drivers.

As a scientist, I also love the (barely) quasi-technical market verbiage. Kind of like the stuff you see on TV for diet supplements, where they explain how their product works by showing a graphic of a pill entering a person's stomach and then blinking red while the person's stomach fat goes away. 'Inverted atomic flow forging', 'thrust power generator design', 'hyperbolic energy technology', 'elastic power weighting'. What a bunch of drivel.

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1414169620' post='10344653']
Speaking about marketing BS, it has been noted that if one were to add up all the gains in distance of each succeeding generation of driver claimed by the manufacturers, we should easily be driving it 450 with modern drivers.

As a scientist, I also love the (barely) quasi-technical market verbiage. Kind of like the stuff you see on TV for diet supplements, where they explain how their product works by showing a graphic of a pill entering a person's stomach and then blinking red while the person's stomach fat goes away. 'Inverted atomic flow forging', 'thrust power generator design', 'hyperbolic energy technology', 'elastic power weighting'. What a bunch of drivel.
[/quote]

To your point there was a thread a while back, and one of the posters described a driver that wasn't hyperbolic...it wasn't even regular bolic.

I fell for the 17 yards fluff and didn't get it. Went back to my original 3 wood, worked on my swing and picked up 20. Go figure

[thug the bunny]

^I still game my 20+ yr old Cally Warbird 3w, and it goes every bit as far as my son's super-megahyperbolic energy transfer 3w. Plus it feels better and makes a beautiful 'tink' on contact.

[playa]

[quote name='Startzel' timestamp='1414169116' post='10344621']
[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]

Is there any science to back this up? You're telling me there is something about this particular club that would allow it to go 35 yards more than another club?
[/quote]
Only way from my experience you would get any unwanted extra yards is with a graphite shaft. I've hit graphite irons in the past and got the chance occasional jumper that flew the green, but it was the shaft not the clubhead which was responsible.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414157284' post='10343617']
[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.

[b]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......;>[/b]
[/quote]

Yes we definitely disagree, but what I like is that you have your personal experience and you [i]are not [/i]taking a position [i]without[/i] a lot of blade experience. That was the main issue I was getting at in my post that you responded to. Regardless, it has been a good discussion and I think it is great that multiple (again not absolute!) experiences are constructively being shared on this topic.

Also, please let me be clear about my position on persimmon clubs: they are generations of technology behind the current metal woods/drivers. They would simply cost me strokes if I were to use them vs my metal woods/driver. The persimmon clubs don't go as far and they are far more difficult to control than their metal counterpart [i]A blade, on the other hand, does not cost me strokes, [/i]and it is really not that unforgiving vs a CB as compared to the persimmon wood vs metal wood. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear. Again this is proven without a doubt with me and my own experience.

So this is why I don't understand your last point in bold. A lot of us don't believe a blade is[i] that [/i]punishing to the point that it costs strokes, and I completely don't see how you can make your conclusion based on the theories of this forum. Based on your point, you are saying we should make the game as difficult as possible in order to get better. No one is saying that. You are assuming that playing a blade automatically makes the game more difficult, which is precisely opposite of the point of this thread, which is to discuss how a blade has equal (or even better) merit to a CB in terms of scoring your best. What I read from a lot of people in this forum is that a blade is not that difficult and also a CB is not really helping that much and it can even hurt some players. I haven't read at all that people play blades because they want to score their worst and just want to make the game difficult for themselves, which is what your point in bold is suggesting.

Your point about CB feel is interesting because I completely know there is a difference in feel between my MP60 and MP67, and also I intentionally do comparison testing with both of these clubs against every new Mizuno MP series of club and don't see an improvement in feel. The [i]blades always feel better on a well struck shot[/i] than the same technology generation CB club. Once again, two very different viewpoints and it is good to share and discuss.

Just one more thought to consider: if you think using a CB club to minimize your (admitted) misses is so important, then I really hope you are playing the most SGI club out there. If you are not, and you are playing a "players CB", but you still miss with those clubs, then by your own logic you really need to keep playing more and more GI club until your misses are negligible and stop costing you strokes. From my perspective it would be [i]highly contradictory [/i]if you are not playing the most forgiving club possible, [i]if misses are so important to avoid[/i]. Now, if you think you are already at the point such that you have adequately managed your misses to the point where more GI club isn't going to help anymore, then I ask: how is that position any different than any blade player's? They are just drawing the line of "acceptable forgiveness" a little differently than you. Who's to say where that line should be drawn? Just because you draw it at your current iron type doesn't mean that anyone else can't draw it differently.

[Chuck_22046]

As always, I enjoy reading your posts DeNinny. From my own experience, and perhaps to amplify...my play with irons essentially went from Blade to SGI, to GI, to Player CB, and finally now (thanks to this thread) back to blades. Maybe I am strange, but from the beginning I didn't have difficultly finding and hitting the ball consistently....at least with my irons.

The woods and wedges are for a different thread.

[b]What happened to me was a gradual realization that whatever forgiveness I was receiving wasn't providing a level of benefit that exceeded what I received by progressing to a (for lack of a better way to express it) a more "challenging" iron.[/b]

To that point, there are certain aspects of blade design I concern myself with that go beyond the "feel" issue. Those would be leading and trailing edge relief (if any) and the relative position of the that sweet spot. And to be completely honest...how it looks. I have a set of Hogan Precisions with the famous under slung hosel where the sweet spot is just dangerously close to the heel for me. When struck well, I receive serviceable shots with unequaled feel. But (for me) I prefer to be hitting the ball more towards the center of the face.

Otherwise put...(and stating the painfully obvious) not ALL blades are the same...

My two cents..

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414170397' post='10344703']
[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1414169620' post='10344653']
Speaking about marketing BS, it has been noted that if one were to add up all the gains in distance of each succeeding generation of driver claimed by the manufacturers, we should easily be driving it 450 with modern drivers.

As a scientist, I also love the (barely) quasi-technical market verbiage. Kind of like the stuff you see on TV for diet supplements, where they explain how their product works by showing a graphic of a pill entering a person's stomach and then blinking red while the person's stomach fat goes away. 'Inverted atomic flow forging', 'thrust power generator design', 'hyperbolic energy technology', 'elastic power weighting'. What a bunch of drivel.
[/quote]

To your point there was a thread a while back, and one of the posters described a driver that wasn't hyperbolic...it wasn't even regular bolic.

I fell for the 17 yards fluff and didn't get it. Went back to my original 3 wood, worked on my swing and picked up 20. Go figure
[/quote]

thug and chuck, being an engineer (I call myself a scientist in engineer's clothing...LOL I love diving into theory), I am so with you on the marketing BS. Check out this add, even from my beloved Mizuno:

[attachment=2472335:realityJPX.jpg]

There are so many quasi-truths to this.

First let's just look at how they define the sweetspot. They use a formula for toe/heel and up/down MOI to define the length and width of an ellipse, then they simply draw the difference of these two areas onto the face of the club to compare their JPX club to the competition. Sorry, but I fail to see the logic of using an elliptical MOI to define the sweetspot of a triangular faced club. I also fail to see the logic of using MOI to begin with. MOI defines the propensity of an object to remain spinning or prevent from spinning with an applied force. It has nothing to do with the actual performance of the cavity face itself. Furthermore, with the head attached to the shaft, using a clubhead MOI is meaningless.

Now let's look at the actual size and shape of that sweetpot. Does anyone really believe that you can hit anywhere within that defined area and the result will actually be a good shot? There are 7 grooves difference in height from the bottom of this sweetspot to the top. I'd love to see the real data that showed hitting it anywhere within that area results in a good shot. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. Also what does the competition say to this? All of a sudden they are behind on technology. 83% behind! That's a huge gap. We better all go buy some JPX EZ clubs and forget everyone else, based on this advertising.

Also check out "Bigger Sweetspot = Better Shots More Often". How about "Bigger Sweetspot = Harder to Work the Ball"? I've never seen any proof that a CB is a better miss when you are trying to work the ball. Every study has been done with a square face and square path hit being off center. Well, what is a forgiving club doing for you when you mishit while you are trying to work the ball? There's absolutely no definitive proof that it is a better result than a blade. In fact, to me the physics are unclear in this regard. Furthermore it is nearly impossible to tell whether or not a golfer mishit a worked ball or did exactly what he intended because a miss for a worked ball may actually result in a decent shot.

LOL. What a joke! (And again, I love Mizuno!)

[Chuck_22046]

MOI is something that has caused me more confusion than pretty much...well anything. In laymans terms ( and PLEASE correct me) would it be correct to say that MOI measures how easy or hard it is to start an object in motion around a specific axis? This is where I get confused....

What is the axis? The shaft?
And speaking of the shaft...would not the shafts propensity to twisting (torque) affect the clubs MOI? Or maybe more accurately the "useful" MOI?

I am curious as to how this is defined...and with that working definition, perhaps I can reduce my level of confusion to the point were MOI can be a useful measure in club selection (maybe...)

If MOI is in fact so much mumbo-jumbo...somebody let me know lol

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414201156' post='10347079']
As always, I enjoy reading your posts DeNinny. From my own experience, and perhaps to amplify...my play with irons essentially went from Blade to SGI, to GI, to Player CB, and finally now (thanks to this thread) back to blades. Maybe I am strange, but from the beginning I didn't have difficultly finding and hitting the ball consistently....at least with my irons.

The woods and wedges are for a different thread.

[b]What happened to me was a gradual realization that whatever forgiveness I was receiving wasn't providing a level of benefit that exceeded what I received by progressing to a (for lack of a better way to express it) a more "challenging" iron.[/b]

To that point, there are certain aspects of blade design I concern myself with that go beyond the "feel" issue. Those would be leading and trailing edge relief (if any) and the relative position of the that sweet spot. And to be completely honest...how it looks. I have a set of Hogan Precisions with the famous under slung hosel where the sweet spot is just dangerously close to the heel for me. When struck well, I receive serviceable shots with unequaled feel. But (for me) I prefer to be hitting the ball more towards the center of the face.

Otherwise put...(and stating the painfully obvious) not ALL blades are the same...

My two cents..
[/quote]

Hey chuck I feel the exact same way about your posts. And I came to the same conclusion as you did in bold. Again, 8 yrs, side by side comparison, switching back and forth, same shafts, same lofts, same lies, same golfer. The only difference was the clubhead. Result using a CB and a blade? Same scores. Conclusion: a blade has benefits that a CB cannot and will not provide. These benefits equalize any negative from their lack of forgiveness.

Also yes, not all blades are the same, but also...

not all CBs are the same,
not all golfers are the same,
not all golfer's swings are the same, and
not all golfer's miss tendencies are the same.

What does this mean? You cannot engineer universal forgiveness, and any club may have "forgiving features" for a particular golfer. I'm of the position that a blade is absolutely a fine choice and a "forgiving" club, if you will, for a golfer that sweeps the ball and has a thin miss. The thin sole and relatively low COG for a blade is perfect for this kind of golfer. And by the way, I'm that type of golfer.

I posted this in another thread but it is worth looking at again to emphasize my point. In this set of diagrams, have tried to classify all the types of misses that a golfer has:

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:2434853]

In this, there are three basic misses (or four if you want to split hairs about the middle one). The top of each one is the ideal shot, the non-miss, and the lower two are the resulting misses. The top miss is the square face miss, where the golfer has a square path and face, but he is off center. The middle is the angled face miss, where the golfer does not square the face or they do not have a square path. The bottom is the turf miss, where the golfer has a square face and path but cannot contact the ball at the right "bottom" of his swing.

Now ask yourself, what club type out there can handle all these misses? Can a wide sole help with a thin miss? Answer: No. Can a cavity face help with a fat miss? Answer: No. Can a blade help with an off center square face miss? Answer: No.

Every golfer has their miss tendencies and a blade can help much better than a CB for some of them.

[T.Beau]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414199995' post='10346993']
[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414157284' post='10343617']
[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.

[b]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......;>[/b]
[/quote]

Yes we definitely disagree, but what I like is that you have your personal experience and you [i]are not [/i]taking a position [i]without[/i] a lot of blade experience. That was the main issue I was getting at in my post that you responded to. Regardless, it has been a good discussion and I think it is great that multiple (again not absolute!) experiences are constructively being shared on this topic.

Also, please let me be clear about my position on persimmon clubs: they are generations of technology behind the current metal woods/drivers. They would simply cost me strokes if I were to use them vs my metal woods/driver. The persimmon clubs don't go as far and they are far more difficult to control than their metal counterpart [i]A blade, on the other hand, does not cost me strokes, [/i]and it is really not that unforgiving vs a CB as compared to the persimmon wood vs metal wood. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear. Again this is proven without a doubt with me and my own experience.

So this is why I don't understand your last point in bold. A lot of us don't believe a blade is[i] that [/i]punishing to the point that it costs strokes, and I completely don't see how you can make your conclusion based on the theories of this forum. Based on your point, you are saying we should make the game as difficult as possible in order to get better. No one is saying that. You are assuming that playing a blade automatically makes the game more difficult, which is precisely opposite of the point of this thread, which is to discuss how a blade has equal (or even better) merit to a CB in terms of scoring your best. What I read from a lot of people in this forum is that a blade is not that difficult and also a CB is not really helping that much and it can even hurt some players. I haven't read at all that people play blades because they want to score their worst and just want to make the game difficult for themselves, which is what your point in bold is suggesting.

Your point about CB feel is interesting because I completely know there is a difference in feel between my MP60 and MP67, and also I intentionally do comparison testing with both of these clubs against every new Mizuno MP series of club and don't see an improvement in feel. The [i]blades always feel better on a well struck shot[/i] than the same technology generation CB club. Once again, two very different viewpoints and it is good to share and discuss.

Just one more thought to consider: if you think using a CB club to minimize your (admitted) misses is so important, then I really hope you are playing the most SGI club out there. If you are not, and you are playing a "players CB", but you still miss with those clubs, then by your own logic you really need to keep playing more and more GI club until your misses are negligible and stop costing you strokes. From my perspective it would be [i]highly contradictory [/i]if you are not playing the most forgiving club possible, [i]if misses are so important to avoid[/i]. Now, if you think you are already at the point such that you have adequately managed your misses to the point where more GI club isn't going to help anymore, then I ask: how is that position any different than any blade player's? They are just drawing the line of "acceptable forgiveness" a little differently than you. Who's to say where that line should be drawn? Just because you draw it at your current iron type doesn't mean that anyone else can't draw it differently.
[/quote]

Yo. the bolded part about persimmon, squash racquets, and work boots was just joking around.

Personally, I dont even think the term 'blades' is even the right term.....they should be termed 'muscle back' to better line up w. the term 'cavity back'.

There is just so much of a drop off in performance when you even slightly miss hit a 'muscle back' which renders them not the best choice for many players including really good ones.

As for me, my game would suffer w. a switch to 'muscle backs' and i;m considered a good ball striker who misses far too many short putts. as it is right now, i can get away w. a miss hit on a par 3 all carry over the water (for example)..i;m not gonna get wet. i'd be wet w. a 'blade'..i'm playing to a 3.4 right now.,

Also, there are tennis players defining themselves as tennis players by the gear they choose, rather than how well they play the game...seems to me this happens w. a fair amount of golfers as well. i dont see many playing muscle backs around here, but the ones i have seen were lousy golfers.

this post isnt directed at anyone in particular and people can play w whatever they like for whatever reasons they like. i just hate to see people who read the stuff that gets posted around get misdirected. so i offer up countering points of view. when i was compensated for blogging about tennis gear, i would often get personally affronted for my viewpoints. i;m glad to see this has remained civil....later on

[Mitchell]

"If you are hitting the ball heavy, the latest multi-material wonder club will make as much difference to the fall of your shots as painting your arse yellow" -Mat562

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414202969' post='10347183']
MOI is something that has caused me more confusion than pretty much...well anything. In laymans terms ( and PLEASE correct me) would it be correct to say that MOI measures how easy or hard it is to start an object in motion around a specific axis? This is where I get confused....

What is the axis? The shaft?
And speaking of the shaft...would not the shafts propensity to twisting (torque) affect the clubs MOI? Or maybe more accurately the "useful" MOI?

I am curious as to how this is defined...and with that working definition, perhaps I can reduce my level of confusion to the point were MOI can be a useful measure in club selection (maybe...)

If MOI is in fact so much mumbo-jumbo...somebody let me know lol
[/quote]

Go to pigems "what have you learned on golfwrx" thread where I get into the malarkey of MOI, as advertised, into excruciating detail. I would take about two pages to explain it in this thread. To summarize, the only way to "usefully" calculate MOI is to do it with the shaft attached. To do it based on only the clubhead spinning about its own COG is a meaningless evaluation simply because that is not the physical reality. That's my short answer and I'm sorry it takes a lot of effort to explain it in more detail.

Edit: Here are more specifics to your points:

[i]MOI is something that has caused me more confusion than pretty much...well anything. In laymans terms ( and PLEASE correct me) would it be correct to say that MOI measures how easy or hard it is to start an object in motion around a specific axis? This is where I get confused....[/i]

In short, yes. It is analogous to mass in Newton's laws of motion for linear motion. An object in motion around an axis has angular momentum. An object in motion in a linear direction has linear momentum. With angular momentum, mathematically have to take into account the distance the object (with mass) is from an axis of rotation, in addition to the mass. MOI is the mathematical result of this additional factor. I simply think of it as "rotational mass".

[i]What is the axis? The shaft?[/i]

Yes the shaft is technically the correct axis for which to mathematically calculate MOI (in terms of twisting the face only, but...read further for bending the shaft too) for the clubface hitting the golf ball. The manufacturers never seem to focus on this and instead always market the physics based on the MOI of the clubhead around its own COG*. I'm sorry but in the physics of hitting the golf ball, the clubface, by design because of the attachment to the shaft, will never, ever, rotate around the COG of the clubhead itself. Therefore it is a completely meaningless number. Without taking into account the variability of the golfer too, the only way to properly calculate MOI in terms of propensity to twist the shaft, for proper evaluation of the merits of forgiveness, is to calculate it as it rotates around the shaft. Again, please read further because bending the shaft is actually more important than this.

*Now why do (I think) they advertise this way? Because they get a nice big marketable number from it that makes the consumer think it is important.

[i]And speaking of the shaft...would not the shafts propensity to twisting (torque) affect the clubs MOI? Or maybe more accurately the "useful" MOI?[/i]

This is one MOI, but one must also consider the propensity to bend the shaft as well as twist it. Both are "useful" and technically correct MOIs, but by the math (which is in the other thread), the bend MOI is more significant. Before the shaft will twist to any significance, it will bend first. It's designed not to twist. No one wants a twisting shaft and already there has been good technology to prevent this for years. People are still slicing even though year after year there are more twist resistant shafts being sold. (Like it mattered to begin with...how in the heck did they play with hickory shafts if twisting was so significant?)

[i]I am curious as to how this is defined...and with that working definition, perhaps I can reduce my level of confusion to the point were MOI can be a useful measure in club selection (maybe...)[/i]

You can start with the detailed wikipedia on Moment of Inertia. It's as good as any basic physics book. To properly calculate it for a clubhead attached to the shaft, basically you have to define all the mass of the clubhead as a function of distance to the shaft. Then you end up integrating this function to determine a mathematical value for the MOI.

Then compare this correct way to calculate MOI vs the manufacturers way: assuming rotation around an axis that will never be an axis of rotation in the real world.

[i]If MOI is in fact so much mumbo-jumbo...somebody let me know lol[/i]

As advertised, it is most definitely mumbo-jumbo.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414203818' post='10347235']
Yo. the bolded part about persimmon, squash racquets, and work boots was just joking around.

Personally, I dont even think the term 'blades' is even the right term.....they should be termed 'muscle back' to better line up w. the term 'cavity back'.

There is just so much of a drop off in performance when you even slightly miss hit a 'muscle back' which renders them not the best choice for many players including really good ones.

As for me, my game would suffer w. a switch to 'muscle backs' and i;m considered a good ball striker who misses far too many short putts. as it is right now, i can get away w. a miss hit on a par 3 all carry over the water (for example)..i;m not gonna get wet. i'd be wet w. a 'blade'..i'm playing to a 3.4 right now.,

Also, there are tennis players defining themselves as tennis players by the gear they choose, rather than how well they play the game...seems to me this happens w. a fair amount of golfers as well. i dont see many playing muscle backs around here, but the ones i have seen were lousy golfers.

this post isnt directed at anyone in particular and people can play w whatever they like for whatever reasons they like. i just hate to see people who read the stuff that gets posted around get misdirected. so i offer up countering points of view. when i was compensated for blogging about tennis gear, i would often get personally affronted for my viewpoints. i;m glad to see this has remained civil....later on
[/quote]

T.Beau it has been great to read your viewpoints and civil as well and sorry for not getting your joke, so thanks for clarifying. I hate to see the misdirection as well. (Oh, and FYI I'm not getting any more wet going over those par3's with a "blade" because I know how to manage the miss for that club.)

To be clear (to you and others) I only used the word "blade" for simplicity. In fact, my beloved MP-67 could be viewed as a cavity club...LOL that cut muscle according to Mizuno is technically a small cavity. I think the point is to discuss the blade-like clubs in this thread which would include MBs.

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='Mitchell' timestamp='1414203922' post='10347239']
"If you are hitting the ball heavy, the latest multi-material wonder club will make as much difference to the fall of your shots as painting your arse yellow" -Mat562
[/quote]
I am seriously sad that guy isn't around anymore. Talk about being able to make a point...lol

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414170397' post='10344703']
[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1414169620' post='10344653']
Speaking about marketing BS, it has been noted that if one were to add up all the gains in distance of each succeeding generation of driver claimed by the manufacturers, we should easily be driving it 450 with modern drivers.

As a scientist, I also love the (barely) quasi-technical market verbiage. Kind of like the stuff you see on TV for diet supplements, where they explain how their product works by showing a graphic of a pill entering a person's stomach and then blinking red while the person's stomach fat goes away. 'Inverted atomic flow forging', 'thrust power generator design', 'hyperbolic energy technology', 'elastic power weighting'. What a bunch of drivel.
[/quote]

To your point there was a thread a while back, and one of the posters described a driver that wasn't hyperbolic...it wasn't even regular bolic.

I fell for the 17 yards fluff and didn't get it. Went back to my original 3 wood, worked on my swing and picked up 20. Go figure
[/quote]

LOL....that was my line...all the way back in 2010!

post #8

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/406228-whos-got-the-prototypical-golfwrx-bag/

[Bigmean]

Seriously, If your a good ballstriker then a blade or cb is NOT the difference between being wet or not...... A bad shot for a BALLSTRIKER is short fringe as compared to pin high.


I am not a great scorer. I have blow up holes. I putt like a 3 hcp, I iron play probably the same, I am really like a 15 hcp. Off the tee and my chipping is anywhere from good to below what it should be, and hence my handicap. As far as this thread is concerned, I can't believe anyone who really strikes the ball well sees any benefit from cbs to blades, we are talking half a club or full club on mishits, and short birdie putts on well struck shots. They even out and then some. This is getting dumb. When I miss irons, it is my club head through impact, it is not from not hitting the sweetspot or near it with a descending blow,. if that is the case, then blade or not is irrelevant as you hit a badly struck shot. I prefer the feel and discipline of blades, but to each their own. The blade naysayers act as though a "mishit" is the same mishit a high 80s golfer has, which is not the case for ballstrikers. Ballstrikers mis with club head through the impact zone not from missing the sweetspot Iin a detrimental way.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414146097' post='10343127']
[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.
[/quote]

So #3 and 4 are checks. If you want closure on #1 and #2, then you'll have to keep taking that club out on the range and determining for yourself, by hitting balls with it over and over, if either of them also checks out as a reason for the plastic. Note also that on #2, you may have to reference the club against the next number up and down irons that both still have the plastic piece intact and make some assumptions on how it would have performed with the plastic still intact too. Otherwise you need the same number club that still has a good plastic piece and then you can compare your broken one to that.

I would tend to think it can't just be #3 and #4 only because it is an additional manufacturing cost, which will not help with profit. But if it were really just these two reasons, then it is purely a psychological benefit and not a real physics one. The manufacturer is making it look like an engineering feat through the advertising, again by touting the changed MOI from the feature, but in reality the engineering benefit is marginal. At the end of it all, it is still just "tweener" club design.

Lastly, please note that I have not been offended at all by any of your posts and thanks for joining me on this technical hack. I personally enjoy technical threads and discussion over the physics of golf.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1414211177' post='10347661']
Seriously, If your a good ballstriker if a blade or cb is NOT the difference between being wet or not...... A bad shot for a BALLSTRIKER is short fringe as compared to pin high.


I am not a great scorer. I have blow up holes. I putt like a 3 hcp, I iron play probably the same, I am really like a 15 hcp. Off the tee and my chipping is anywhere from good to below what it should be, and hence my handicap. As far as this thread is concerned, I can't believe anyone who really strikes the ball well sees any benefit from cbs to blades, we are talking half a club or full club on mishits, and shirt birdie putts on well struck shots. They even out and then some. This is getting dumb. When I miss irons, it is my club head through impact, not hitting the sweetspot or near it with a descending blow, if that is the case, blade or not is irrelevant. I prefer the feel and discipline of blades, but to each their own. The blade naysayers act as though a "mishit" is the same mishit a high 80s golfer has, which is not the case for ballstrikers. Ballstrikers mis with club head through the impact zone not from missing the sweetspot Iin a detrimental way.
[/quote]

Amen to everything!

It is very dumb as you mentioned and insulting to the numerous golfers, that have their own experience with blades/MBs and are simply sharing their genuine experiences, when it is suggested that they are losing strokes by using them, or worse that they play blades/MBs for ego or lack of their own ability to judge what is best for their own games.

It's fear mongering as well, likely due or tied to financial motivation. So much focus is put on the negative aspects of a blade/MB and how it is just so bad for your game, how it is so potentially damaging, yet they are definitely superior in ball control and feel. This is a very positive thing for a golfer. The argument "everyone misses" is negative. What about "everyone eventually hits the sweetspot" as a positive way of looking at a blade? Every single golfer's wear pattern has wear marks at the COP of the clubface or in proximity to it. This means everyone can put a good strike on the ball with any iron type. Yet the fear mongering of that dreaded miss is emphasized so much it is, as you said, getting dumb.

If you deem a blade's superior benefits as irrelevant, then that is the same as deeming the CB's forgiveness as irrelevant as well. The two go hand in hand by the physics. You can't have the benefit of both worlds with a CB club. It doesn't work that way. You take forgiveness at the expense of feel/feedback and working the ball. Which, again by the physics, is physically taking the mass away from directly behind the ball and putting it around and below it. When you change the physics to get some forgiveness, you change the physics to lose some workability and feel/feedback.

[Bigmean]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1414222783' post='10347971']
[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1414211177' post='10347661']
Seriously, If your a good ballstriker if a blade or cb is NOT the difference between being wet or not...... A bad shot for a BALLSTRIKER is short fringe as compared to pin high.


I am not a great scorer. I have blow up holes. I putt like a 3 hcp, I iron play probably the same, I am really like a 15 hcp. Off the tee and my chipping is anywhere from good to below what it should be, and hence my handicap. As far as this thread is concerned, I can't believe anyone who really strikes the ball well sees any benefit from cbs to blades, we are talking half a club or full club on mishits, and shirt birdie putts on well struck shots. They even out and then some. This is getting dumb. When I miss irons, it is my club head through impact, not hitting the sweetspot or near it with a descending blow, if that is the case, blade or not is irrelevant. I prefer the feel and discipline of blades, but to each their own. The blade naysayers act as though a "mishit" is the same mishit a high 80s golfer has, which is not the case for ballstrikers. Ballstrikers mis with club head through the impact zone not from missing the sweetspot Iin a detrimental way.
[/quote]

Amen to everything!

It is very dumb as you mentioned and insulting to the numerous golfers, that have their own experience with blades/MBs and are simply sharing their genuine experiences, when it is suggested that they are losing strokes by using them, or worse that they play blades/MBs for ego or lack of their own ability to judge what is best for their own games.
[/quote]

That is what I could not say eloquently as you did in my drunken post las night!

I also think that it is difficult to even know engineering and technical benefits because we have been totally brainwashed by golf marketing for so long that I am sure some things are accepted as fact that may not be so and visa versa, and I mean by us all.

On a funny side note, I won an offer on a set of CB heads last night! Hahahaha. $215 for kyoei catolog heads, why notr?

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1414206868' post='10347395']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414170397' post='10344703']
[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1414169620' post='10344653']
Speaking about marketing BS, it has been noted that if one were to add up all the gains in distance of each succeeding generation of driver claimed by the manufacturers, we should easily be driving it 450 with modern drivers.

As a scientist, I also love the (barely) quasi-technical market verbiage. Kind of like the stuff you see on TV for diet supplements, where they explain how their product works by showing a graphic of a pill entering a person's stomach and then blinking red while the person's stomach fat goes away. 'Inverted atomic flow forging', 'thrust power generator design', 'hyperbolic energy technology', 'elastic power weighting'. What a bunch of drivel.
[/quote]

To your point there was a thread a while back, and one of the posters described a driver that wasn't hyperbolic...it wasn't even regular bolic.

I fell for the 17 yards fluff and didn't get it. Went back to my original 3 wood, worked on my swing and picked up 20. Go figure
[/quote]

LOL....that was my line...all the way back in 2010!

post #8

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/406228-whos-got-the-prototypical-golfwrx-bag/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...al-golfwrx-bag/[/url]
[/quote]

Ahhh...yes exactly!

The only thread that topped that one was the Intimidating bag thread....

[golf9596]

I've tried to go with the GI irons only to have nothing but issues. I went to the new 850 Forged Mizzys and do like them, but still have a set of CB2s in the back of my mind every time I can't get the ball to do what I want it to do.

[Chuck_22046]

Reading...re-reading and the application of a judicious amount of caffeine has led me to this conclusion...

MOI is a steaming pile of marketing mumbo-jumbo for which I shall not fall again.

In other news...I am heading to GG today to try out that new Ping G30 driver...it's got turbulators!!

Seriously though...I fell for the 17 yards (twice). I fell for MOI...but have seen the light (or lack of it). I will catch myself falling for all manner of other well marketed science (or psudoscience) on a fairly regular basis. Human nature being what it is...it will happen again.

For me...what is good, what makes this game fun, and what makes this game (to be frank) the drug that it is...was stated by Hogan himself:

“… a well hit golf shot as a feeling that goes up the shaft, right into your hands-and into your heart.”

Nothing but a blade will give me that high...and I chase it every time I pick up a club

[golf9596]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414243904' post='10348491']
Reading...re-reading and the application of a judicious amount of caffeine has led me to this conclusion...

MOI is a steaming pile of marketing mumbo-jumbo for which I shall not fall again.

In other news...I am heading to GG today to try out that new Ping G30 driver...it's got turbulators!!

Seriously though...I fell for the 17 yards (twice). I fell for MOI...but have seen the light (or lack of it). I will catch myself falling for all manner of other well marketed science (or psudoscience) on a fairly regular basis. Human nature being what it is...it will happen again.

For me...what is good, what makes this game fun, and what makes this game (to be frank) the drug that it is...was stated by Hogan himself:

“… a well hit golf shot as a feeling that goes up the shaft, right into your hands-and into your heart.”

Nothing but a blade will give me that high...and I chase it every time I pick up a club
[/quote]

I can't wait to read your next post on the new GI equipment your going to try...LOL

[T.Beau]

[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1414211177' post='10347661']
Seriously, If your a good ballstriker then a blade or cb is NOT the difference between being wet or not...... A bad shot for a BALLSTRIKER is short fringe as compared to pin high.



[/quote]

sure it can. it often is. i play lots of holes where there is either water or junk close to the greens. miss hits results in loss of distance....even more so with a 'blade'. and if the pin is up front, that adds even more to the equation.
i'm not into throwing strokes away and think it is better to shoot a lower score than a higher score.....thats why many of the pros dont even use blades....and use hybrids....ahh, the reverseness of club selection, where a hack (not referring to you or any specific person) thinks he plays better with blades and a professional thinks he plays worse with blades. again, i speak in generalities.
if someone is a bad golfer, they will be an even worse golfer using blades.

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='golf9596' timestamp='1414245275' post='10348547']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414243904' post='10348491']
Reading...re-reading and the application of a judicious amount of caffeine has led me to this conclusion...

MOI is a steaming pile of marketing mumbo-jumbo for which I shall not fall again.

In other news...I am heading to GG today to try out that new Ping G30 driver...it's got turbulators!!

Seriously though...I fell for the 17 yards (twice). I fell for MOI...but have seen the light (or lack of it). I will catch myself falling for all manner of other well marketed science (or psudoscience) on a fairly regular basis. Human nature being what it is...it will happen again.

For me...what is good, what makes this game fun, and what makes this game (to be frank) the drug that it is...was stated by Hogan himself:

“… a well hit golf shot as a feeling that goes up the shaft, right into your hands-and into your heart.”

Nothing but a blade will give me that high...and I chase it every time I pick up a club
[/quote]

I can't wait to read your next post on the new GI equipment your going to try...LOL
[/quote]
The TS-202's are not far from the bag...lol

[Bigmean]

[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414243904' post='10348491']
For me...what is good, what makes this game fun, and what makes this game (to be frank) the drug that it is...was stated by Hogan himself:

“… a well hit golf shot as a feeling that goes up the shaft, right into your hands-and into your heart.”

Nothing but a blade will give me that high...and I chase it every time I pick up a club
[/quote]

BOOM. This.......

[Chuck_22046]

[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1414251209' post='10348843']
[quote name='Chuck_22046' timestamp='1414243904' post='10348491']
For me...what is good, what makes this game fun, and what makes this game (to be frank) the drug that it is...was stated by Hogan himself:

“… a well hit golf shot as a feeling that goes up the shaft, right into your hands-and into your heart.”

Nothing but a blade will give me that high...and I chase it every time I pick up a club
[/quote]

BOOM. This.......
[/quote]

Me and the 709's have a date this afternoon on the range...I shall report back with my thoughts!

[Bigmean]

[quote name='T.Beau' timestamp='1414247596' post='10348635']
[quote name='Bigmean' timestamp='1414211177' post='10347661']
Seriously, If your a good ballstriker then a blade or cb is NOT the difference between being wet or not...... A bad shot for a BALLSTRIKER is short fringe as compared to pin high.



[/quote]

sure it can. it often is. i play lots of holes where there is either water or junk close to the greens. miss hits results in loss of distance....even more so with a 'blade'. and if the pin is up front, that adds even more to the equation.
i'm not into throwing strokes away and think it is better to shoot a lower score than a higher score.....thats why many of the pros dont even use blades....and use hybrids....ahh, the reverseness of club selection, where a hack (not referring to you or any specific person) thinks he plays better with blades and a professional thinks he plays worse with blades. again, i speak in generalities.
if someone is a bad golfer, they will be an even worse golfer using blades.
[/quote]

NO way, I am not buying this, or at least buying it for 80s golfers and under. EVERY shot I hit in the water or OB is that way regardless the club. Seriously, front pin on an island green?? OK, so I guess if water is 10 yeards short of the pin, and your CLUB SELECTION is not safe middle, and it is a 180 yard shot, then I can see that, but what I cant see is a GI club of some sort not also getting wet.

And since we are making selective examples, lets add a small 10MPH wind in our face, lets say that GI club balloons just that little extra bit and gets wet and the blade penetrates it just that extra bit and is on. OR, lets make it a back pin placement. I at least have hit more flyers or out of no where 10 yards further irons with CBs than blades, actually, it rarely if ever happens with blades as flight and distance control is part of the blade appeal. So now your GI club put you shortsided behind the green and a difficult up and down and the blade is 5 ft. for birdie, so we are cancelling out that wet shot from earlier. And on, and on, and on both ways to the point that all you should care about is the 3 F's.......feel, feedback, and flight. Whatever Iron makes those happen is good on me.

Also, I don't give a $&^# what some tour player gets payed 6-7 figures to put in his bag. In fact, I hate the WITB crap. It has zero to do with my life, my swing my money and my feel. I like to buy used clubs becuase golf clubs are expensive. If I like the flight, feel and feedback, I keep them. If I don't like 1 of the 3, I sell and ho something else. It is that easy. Blade or CB, whatever. Jason Day playing some version of TM slot gimmick irons doesn't enter that equation, nor does Rory playing some special forged blade. I would happily play dynacraft for a fraction of what they get to fill their bags.

Here is what golf is about, and there is not a way to buy a good score with clubs. One of the last times I played, I hooked my iron on a par 3 and at this point, my buddy who I spot way too many shots to was on the green. He is thrilled as this is like 5 holes worth of money. I chip in for birdie, rips his heart out, and he 3 putts and I take it giving him a shot on that hole. OR, playing for money with same guy (not getting a stroke on this hole), I bomb a drive, pumped becuase I have it, then hit SW fat and it falls 3 yards short of the green from like 55 yards and I end up melting down from there. This is golf. You never know where the good or bad may come, you need to play it out. There is no club design for this unpredictablity, there is just the dude swinging it and swinging the weapons that he likes best. Whether he likes them for how they feel or look(address) or becuase he believes they keep mishits dry are irrelivant.