Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[kasturbo]

Thanks for the rumor!!!!

 

I have no room in my current house, we have been looking to move for a year now and I had to jump on it while I could, no basements in florida, but the wife knows that the garage is going to have a simulator in it and cars outside :)

I can only imagine how much fun that is going to be to have dinner and hit some balls with the boy after....WAY better than playing Tiger woods on Xbox......

 

The fact is, there isn't a day that goes by now where I don't hit at least one ball. I can't walk by my setup without hitting balls. Spend money on a good mat that will simulate the real world as close to possible.

[Kingcat990]

 

 

This post is pretty damn long, but I'll add one last comment.... in 1991, Callaway introduced the Big Bertha. Made quite a bit of noise in the marketplace. The Big Bertha came at 44" with graphite shaft, and 43.5" in steel. When Callaway introduced the Great Big Bertha in 95, and the Biggest Big Bertha a few years later, they took the graphite length to 45". This was done to add distance, nothing more.

 

The benefit of any distance from the added swingspeed is often offset by a lower frequency of quality contact.

 

There was a not inconsiderable backlash against this added length, creating inconsistency at the expense of the occasional longer drive. :)

 

Anyone still awake? LOL

 

I remember that driver, I had 1. I believe it came standard at 8° and 9° and had a sub 440 head. Wasn't the easiest to hit nor did it move the ball that well. Could have easily been the worst driver I have ever owned.

 

Their 3 wood on the other hand that same year replaced the driver as my tee box club.

[DeNinny]

The idea of playing with blades is a romantic one. Just like playing with wooden woods. I'm interested to see if I like playing with them. I keep hearing that the feeling of a well struck shot isn't comparable. But I also hear that hitting a ball that solidly with a blade is few and far between. Not sure if that will help me love the game or not.

With a good amount of time spent with Blade's you will find that it becomes more and more repeatable. It also should help in the long run with a more consistent strike of the ball and no more ???? shots where you think you hit the ball well and it ends up 15ft short. Take some time and look back through this thread. There is a great Faldo quote about how everyone should really learn the game with a blade.

 

Lately, I have been wanting to play with vintage clubs. Blades and persimmons have been on my mind. I don't know why, maybe just the challenge of it. Knowing that if I can play with those that I can play with anything. But I also want the buttery feel that I keep hearing about.

 

The design of a blade is both vintage and modern. Modern in that it is already optimized for the best spin and launch angle control AND consistency. Carney "forgiving" manufacturers don't want the ignorant golfer to realize this because it undermines all supposed "benefit" from an alternate "forgiving" design. So now a blade design is perceived to be "vintage". LMAO whether or not a blade is an old design or modern, that thick muscle (amongst other beneficial features tied to it) IS a superior design for performance over ANY other iron head design out there.

 

And it doesn't just help workability. It helps with simply ALL spin and launch angle control. This includes a stock shot that you want to keep repeating.

 

And even if you don't WANT to work the ball, by playing blades you will realize that you CAN, and it will be EASIER, so it may open your game up in that you will more and more try to work it. But even if you don't, again remember that the design helps even the most boring of all stock shots.

 

Now I can and will (in a PM) explain the superior physics behind the blade design (and all the HALF-TRUTHS of "forgiveness"), but it matters not if you don't open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that blades are NOT EVER going to hurt your game. They can only help you unless you are a head case about them.

 

So if you open your mind and put a little trust in what you read from blade users in this thread, then you will realize that using a blade is beyond the "romance" and the "challenge", and blade users of all skills use them because they provide the best PERFORMANCE for their game, in addition to everything else they bring.

 

But you never know until you try...

[doctordwaynewilliams]

The idea of playing with blades is a romantic one. Just like playing with wooden woods. I'm interested to see if I like playing with them. I keep hearing that the feeling of a well struck shot isn't comparable. But I also hear that hitting a ball that solidly with a blade is few and far between. Not sure if that will help me love the game or not.

With a good amount of time spent with Blade's you will find that it becomes more and more repeatable. It also should help in the long run with a more consistent strike of the ball and no more ???? shots where you think you hit the ball well and it ends up 15ft short. Take some time and look back through this thread. There is a great Faldo quote about how everyone should really learn the game with a blade.

 

Lately, I have been wanting to play with vintage clubs. Blades and persimmons have been on my mind. I don't know why, maybe just the challenge of it. Knowing that if I can play with those that I can play with anything. But I also want the buttery feel that I keep hearing about.

 

The design of a blade is both vintage and modern. Modern in that it is already optimized for the best spin and launch angle control AND consistency. Carney "forgiving" manufacturers don't want the ignorant golfer to realize this because it undermines all supposed "benefit" from an alternate "forgiving" design. So now a blade design is perceived to be "vintage". LMAO whether or not a blade is an old design or modern, that thick muscle (amongst other beneficial features tied to it) IS a superior design for performance over ANY other iron head design out there.

 

And it doesn't just help workability. It helps with simply ALL spin and launch angle control. This includes a stock shot that you want to keep repeating.

 

And even if you don't WANT to work the ball, by playing blades you will realize that you CAN, and it will be EASIER, so it may open your game up in that you will more and more try to work it. But even if you don't, again remember that the design helps even the most boring of all stock shots.

 

Now I can and will (in a PM) explain the superior physics behind the blade design (and all the HALF-TRUTHS of "forgiveness"), but it matters not if you don't open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that blades are NOT EVER going to hurt your game. They can only help you unless you are a head case about them.

 

So if you open your mind and put a little trust in what you read from blade users in this thread, then you will realize that using a blade is beyond the "romance" and the "challenge", and blade users of all skills use them because they provide the best PERFORMANCE for their game, in addition to everything else they bring.

 

But you never know until you try...

 

Awesome. Thanks.

[mahonie]

...

 

Yeah, and I really don't want to hear anyone talk about their feedback from cbs being almost as good as blades. I can see a lot of guys preferring the CB feel and that is all good, I was getting used to it yesterday, but you can't hit one next to the other and make that case.

 

+1 this^

 

it's funny how feel is so subjective. Some people say CB and MB are very similar. But coming from CB501 to Small Blades, hand on my heart i can say it's day & night.

 

Don't get me wrong, the CB501 weren't bricks but blades are just different. I told my friend recently, everybody should get a set of blades just to appreciate it.

 

Maybe it won't be your competition set or your goto clubs to shoot 69 but it's worth the $$ just so you can feel the difference and compare

 

Some of the feel difference between CBS and MBs can be attributed to the materials in the clubheads and also the shape. At address there is hardly any difference between my MP4s and my Mac MT Pro Cs. The Macs feel quite a bit softer than the Mizzys except on shots hit right out of the middle when I cannot tell the difference. The other week I was at the range playing one set against the other, 5, 7 and 9 irons. I had 10 balls left and reached for what I thought was the Mizzy 5 iron to finish off. Now at this stage of the session, I was pretty loose and hitting well. Aiming for the flag at 180 yards, I hit all 10 balls pretty close and off the button. It was only when I put the club back in my bag that I noticed it was the Mac. Having said that, I prefer the more 'solid' feel of the Mizzys, the Macs are a very good 'change of pace' set, although the actual change is very slight. As they are set up exactly the same way (shafts, grips, length, loft and lie) that shouldn't be a surprise really.

 

ALL of the differences in feel and feedback are from either a material change or a shape change. It really is this simple. Feedback and feel are from the literal way the molecules of the entire club vibrate in relation to one another. This is what the hands literally feel both during and just after impact. Change the material(s), including the quality, different feel. Change the shape of the club, also different feel.

 

In other words, if ANYTHING changes between the ball and golfer's hands, the feel and feedback WILL be different and the magnitude of the difference will be related and proportional to how much the two clubs are different.

 

BUT...having said that...*if* you are the insensitive type, then you may not notice any differences in feel. You are literally too insensitive!!!

 

I do have fists of ham and fingers of butter lol and I can switch between the two sets very easily...as I've often said, the MB version of the Macs is my dream iron but I just don't see any in the UK.

 

The Macs are the softest clubs I have ever hit and it took me a very long time to get used to them initially. I struggle to get my head around the fact that the top line is as slim as the MP4s and the sole width is very similar but they are a CB. The blade high on the face must be extremely thin which I can probably bare out because when I hit high on the face, the ball hardly goes anywhere...there is just no mass to propel the ball. Misses with the Mizzys are not nearly as punitive as there is more direct mass in contact with the ball high on the face...just my thoughts.

[NRJyzr]

This post is pretty damn long, but I'll add one last comment.... in 1991, Callaway introduced the Big Bertha. Made quite a bit of noise in the marketplace. The Big Bertha came at 44" with graphite shaft, and 43.5" in steel. When Callaway introduced the Great Big Bertha in 95, and the Biggest Big Bertha a few years later, they took the graphite length to 45". This was done to add distance, nothing more.

 

The benefit of any distance from the added swingspeed is often offset by a lower frequency of quality contact.

 

There was a not inconsiderable backlash against this added length, creating inconsistency at the expense of the occasional longer drive. :)

 

Anyone still awake? LOL

 

I remember that driver, I had 1. I believe it came standard at 8° and 9° and had a sub 440 head. Wasn't the easiest to hit nor did it move the ball that well. Could have easily been the worst driver I have ever owned.

 

Their 3 wood on the other hand that same year replaced the driver as my tee box club.

 

I'm going even older than that, KC. The Big Bertha I'm referring to was 191cc, and the GBB I'm talking about was the world's first titanium driver, at a whopping 255cc. The Biggest Big Bertha was a bit bigger, but it was still only 290cc or so.

 

The *really* old stuff. :)

[mahonie]

This post is pretty damn long, but I'll add one last comment.... in 1991, Callaway introduced the Big Bertha. Made quite a bit of noise in the marketplace. The Big Bertha came at 44" with graphite shaft, and 43.5" in steel. When Callaway introduced the Great Big Bertha in 95, and the Biggest Big Bertha a few years later, they took the graphite length to 45". This was done to add distance, nothing more.

 

The benefit of any distance from the added swingspeed is often offset by a lower frequency of quality contact.

 

There was a not inconsiderable backlash against this added length, creating inconsistency at the expense of the occasional longer drive. :)

 

Anyone still awake? LOL

 

I remember that driver, I had 1. I believe it came standard at 8° and 9° and had a sub 440 head. Wasn't the easiest to hit nor did it move the ball that well. Could have easily been the worst driver I have ever owned.

 

Their 3 wood on the other hand that same year replaced the driver as my tee box club.

 

I'm going even older than that, KC. The Big Bertha I'm referring to was 191cc, and the GBB I'm talking about was the world's first titanium driver, at a whopping 255cc. The Biggest Big Bertha was a bit bigger, but it was still only 290cc or so.

 

The *really* old stuff. :)

 

I read an interesting story about that first Big Bertha driver. No one, including Callaway's pros at that time (can't remember who they were), could hit a pre-production 9*, but they could hit the 11* version with no trouble. Callaway made the decision to sell the 11* version marked up as 9* so that golfer's egos wouldn't be bruised.

[NRJyzr]

This post is pretty damn long, but I'll add one last comment.... in 1991, Callaway introduced the Big Bertha. Made quite a bit of noise in the marketplace. The Big Bertha came at 44" with graphite shaft, and 43.5" in steel. When Callaway introduced the Great Big Bertha in 95, and the Biggest Big Bertha a few years later, they took the graphite length to 45". This was done to add distance, nothing more.

 

The benefit of any distance from the added swingspeed is often offset by a lower frequency of quality contact.

 

There was a not inconsiderable backlash against this added length, creating inconsistency at the expense of the occasional longer drive. :)

 

Anyone still awake? LOL

 

I remember that driver, I had 1. I believe it came standard at 8° and 9° and had a sub 440 head. Wasn't the easiest to hit nor did it move the ball that well. Could have easily been the worst driver I have ever owned.

 

Their 3 wood on the other hand that same year replaced the driver as my tee box club.

 

I'm going even older than that, KC. The Big Bertha I'm referring to was 191cc, and the GBB I'm talking about was the world's first titanium driver, at a whopping 255cc. The Biggest Big Bertha was a bit bigger, but it was still only 290cc or so.

 

The *really* old stuff. :)

 

I read an interesting story about that first Big Bertha driver. No one, including Callaway's pros at that time (can't remember who they were), could hit a pre-production 9*, but they could hit the 11* version with no trouble. Callaway made the decision to sell the 11* version marked up as 9* so that golfer's egos wouldn't be bruised.

 

 

Apparently, the Big Bertha was too low spin, that was the cause of these issues. Similar to the deal with the J's Professional Weapon.

 

Well, that and the ego of the average male golfer in the USA. They wouldn't buy the 12° or 13° regular flex they needed so Callaway created it for them through creative labeling. Caused problems for those who knew what they needed, though.

 

I've never had a Big Bertha, it might be interesting to track one down. Though I hate the idea of messing with a bore thru....

 

 

edited to add: I *do* have a couple Dynacraft Grand Limited drivers, a 250cc clubhead made from 15-5 stainless steel. Back in the day, it was fabled for its sound; it sounds like you're using a cowbell to tee off. I believe the clubheads I have are 8.5° loft.

 

It's not quite the same, but it could be fun nonetheless. LOL

[mahonie]

This post is pretty damn long, but I'll add one last comment.... in 1991, Callaway introduced the Big Bertha. Made quite a bit of noise in the marketplace. The Big Bertha came at 44" with graphite shaft, and 43.5" in steel. When Callaway introduced the Great Big Bertha in 95, and the Biggest Big Bertha a few years later, they took the graphite length to 45". This was done to add distance, nothing more.

 

The benefit of any distance from the added swingspeed is often offset by a lower frequency of quality contact.

 

There was a not inconsiderable backlash against this added length, creating inconsistency at the expense of the occasional longer drive. :)

 

Anyone still awake? LOL

 

I remember that driver, I had 1. I believe it came standard at 8° and 9° and had a sub 440 head. Wasn't the easiest to hit nor did it move the ball that well. Could have easily been the worst driver I have ever owned.

 

Their 3 wood on the other hand that same year replaced the driver as my tee box club.

 

I'm going even older than that, KC. The Big Bertha I'm referring to was 191cc, and the GBB I'm talking about was the world's first titanium driver, at a whopping 255cc. The Biggest Big Bertha was a bit bigger, but it was still only 290cc or so.

 

The *really* old stuff. :)

 

I read an interesting story about that first Big Bertha driver. No one, including Callaway's pros at that time (can't remember who they were), could hit a pre-production 9*, but they could hit the 11* version with no trouble. Callaway made the decision to sell the 11* version marked up as 9* so that golfer's egos wouldn't be bruised.

 

 

Apparently, the Big Bertha was too low spin, that was the cause of these issues. Similar to the deal with the J's Professional Weapon.

 

Well, that and the ego of the average male golfer in the USA. They wouldn't buy the 12° or 13° regular flex they needed so Callaway created it for them through creative labeling. Caused problems for those who knew what they needed, though.

 

I've never had a Big Bertha, it might be interesting to track one down. Though I hate the idea of messing with a bore thru....

 

 

edited to add: I *do* have a couple Dynacraft Grand Limited drivers, a 250cc clubhead made from 15-5 stainless steel. Back in the day, it was fabled for its sound; it sounds like you're using a cowbell to tee off. I believe the clubheads I have are 8.5° loft.

 

It's not quite the same, but it could be fun nonetheless. LOL

 

The first named driver I had was a King Cobra in 1996...regular steel shaft to boot. That was one great club and put me on the path to becoming a fairly decent driver of the ball. A mate asked to have a look at it and managed to tread on the crown with his steel spikes leaving two nasty scratches...doh! Really satisfying crack when you caught it but looking back I reckon it was not much bigger than a modern 3-wood in size.

[OsnolaKinnard]

 

 

And it doesn't just help workability. It helps with simply ALL spin and launch angle control. This includes a stock shot that you want to keep repeating.

 

And even if you don't WANT to work the ball, by playing blades you will realize that you CAN, and it will be EASIER, so it may open your game up in that you will more and more try to work it. But even if you don't, again remember that the design helps even the most boring of all stock shots.

 

Now I can and will (in a PM) explain the superior physics behind the blade design (and all the HALF-TRUTHS of "forgiveness"), but it matters not if you don't open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that blades are NOT EVER going to hurt your game. They can only help you unless you are a head case about them.

 

 

 

But you never know until you try...

 

What I have found is that 'workability' does not always mean 'left or right' but high or low…I think people forget that. A great example was a shot I executed perfectly today…I hit a 6 iron into a 150 yard par 3 that had about a 20 mph headwind…I hit a beautiful little knockdown shot that flew straight and true and 'cheated' the wind. I landed about 15 feet from the pin, sadly did not make birdie. Could I have done that with my X18's? Probably…but something about knowing that these clubs make that easier inspires confidence at address and leads to a good shot.

 

I have a feeling that i have an addiction that is going to get out of control…I have been looking at forged blades all last night on Ebay…ugh…wife is going to kill me.

[Shakester]

I've always gone back and forth with blades because I love the feel and workability but I'm not the purest ball striker and need the forgiveness. I played the 990Bs and went to MP-14s. Also played the Titleist Tour Models for a season. After taking a break and decided I needed new irons, I picked up a set of the Nike blades and couldn't hit them at all so I went to a more forgivig set of Nike Victory red cavity backs. Which has gotten me to my Vapor Pro Combos which is a good compromise. Not as much offset, slightly bigger than a blade, yet when I hit it pure, it feels like a blade. Sucks that after I bought these, the Vapor Fly comes out then they stopped making clubs.

[dog flog]

NRJ, when you add length to a club, you usually have to add weight (and/or the MOI goes up). And when you add weight/MOI, you swing that club slower based on the same "energy" of the swing. So at some point adding length, by virtue of adding weight/MOI in order to add it, has a tradeoff where length no longer adds swingspeed and distance.

 

I tried to mention weight, but largely wanted to focus on the changes due to length. DSFI is generally used in building a club, in which an exact clubhead is not yet selected, maybe just a model. One could get a lighter or heavier clubhead to match up to the different length.

 

In making changes with an existing club, weight is very much in play. Such as, my adding weight in varying ways to the clubheads I've made shorter. If I wanted to make one of them longer again, I'd use lighter weights. and so on :)

 

Weight is yet another something that affects different people differently. Some are sensitive to too heavy, some sensitive to too light (I'm one of these).

For me the difference between the DG S300 and R300 is way more than ten grams. It's the difference between a willow branch and a freakin' barbell. If I had the cash to splash, I'd be reshafting some barbell plates to make them useable.

[Bigmean]

I know I am like the only putter HO in group, but I just want to say as I settle in after dinner, that I got my brothers CC info....I feel it necessary to say that my wife is not that uncool, but at some point my putter collection will be worth more than my car. one of the putters I am going for is a bit white whale hunting which is the only reason I am doing this.....

[Bigmean]

NRJ, when you add length to a club, you usually have to add weight (and/or the MOI goes up). And when you add weight/MOI, you swing that club slower based on the same "energy" of the swing. So at some point adding length, by virtue of adding weight/MOI in order to add it, has a tradeoff where length no longer adds swingspeed and distance.

 

I tried to mention weight, but largely wanted to focus on the changes due to length. DSFI is generally used in building a club, in which an exact clubhead is not yet selected, maybe just a model. One could get a lighter or heavier clubhead to match up to the different length.

 

In making changes with an existing club, weight is very much in play. Such as, my adding weight in varying ways to the clubheads I've made shorter. If I wanted to make one of them longer again, I'd use lighter weights. and so on :)

 

Weight is yet another something that affects different people differently. Some are sensitive to too heavy, some sensitive to too light (I'm one of these).

For me the difference between the DG S300 and R300 is way more than ten grams. It's the difference between a willow branch and a freakin' barbell. If I had the cash to splash, I'd be reshafting some barbell plates to make them useable.

 

You would love Nippon. Thank me later

[Bigmean]

So trouble in first world paradise, my preferred proxy service changed website(Way for the better) and I am apparently not registered anymore along with my $90 or so balance that I presume disappeared with it.....

 

I have an email into service, but white whale ends in 22 hours and now I am hoping that no one bids......which was always the plan but still....

[DeNinny]

Some of the feel difference between CBS and MBs can be attributed to the materials in the clubheads and also the shape. At address there is hardly any difference between my MP4s and my Mac MT Pro Cs. The Macs feel quite a bit softer than the Mizzys except on shots hit right out of the middle when I cannot tell the difference. The other week I was at the range playing one set against the other, 5, 7 and 9 irons. I had 10 balls left and reached for what I thought was the Mizzy 5 iron to finish off. Now at this stage of the session, I was pretty loose and hitting well. Aiming for the flag at 180 yards, I hit all 10 balls pretty close and off the button. It was only when I put the club back in my bag that I noticed it was the Mac. Having said that, I prefer the more 'solid' feel of the Mizzys, the Macs are a very good 'change of pace' set, although the actual change is very slight. As they are set up exactly the same way (shafts, grips, length, loft and lie) that shouldn't be a surprise really.

 

ALL of the differences in feel and feedback are from either a material change or a shape change. It really is this simple. Feedback and feel are from the literal way the molecules of the entire club vibrate in relation to one another. This is what the hands literally feel both during and just after impact. Change the material(s), including the quality, different feel. Change the shape of the club, also different feel.

 

In other words, if ANYTHING changes between the ball and golfer's hands, the feel and feedback WILL be different and the magnitude of the difference will be related and proportional to how much the two clubs are different.

 

BUT...having said that...*if* you are the insensitive type, then you may not notice any differences in feel. You are literally too insensitive!!!

 

I do have fists of ham and fingers of butter lol and I can switch between the two sets very easily...as I've often said, the MB version of the Macs is my dream iron but I just don't see any in the UK.

 

The Macs are the softest clubs I have ever hit and it took me a very long time to get used to them initially. I struggle to get my head around the fact that the top line is as slim as the MP4s and the sole width is very similar but they are a CB. The blade high on the face must be extremely thin which I can probably bare out because when I hit high on the face, the ball hardly goes anywhere...there is just no mass to propel the ball. Misses with the Mizzys are not nearly as punitive as there is more direct mass in contact with the ball high on the face...just my thoughts.

 

Yeah a blade has nothing high up on the face, so absolutely it will punish a miss hit up there more so than a CB which has upper perimeter weighting. There is really nothing to support that thin upper section of a blade head. In order for a blade to perform right, the thick muscle part has to be behind where the majority of the contact with the compressed ball is. If part of the compressed ball is up against that thinner upper section, then that section will literally bend more from the force of the ball against it than the same force against the thicker muscle part.

 

But here's the thing, there really isn't much need to reinforce the clubface up high on it. The reason is because in order to hit that high up on the face, the sole of the club has to be lower than normal and so by that time the shot is a fat shot and the sole is digging into the ground even before the face contacts the ball. A fluffy lie or ball teed up high may be the only two scenarios where a blade design is bad. In those two scenarios, it is entirely possible that ball contact is made at the upper part of the clubface before the sole contacts the ground (if ever).

 

You get the MB version of those Macs and you will get everything that you already get from the CB version. And then some!!!

[DeNinny]

And it doesn't just help workability. It helps with simply ALL spin and launch angle control. This includes a stock shot that you want to keep repeating.

 

And even if you don't WANT to work the ball, by playing blades you will realize that you CAN, and it will be EASIER, so it may open your game up in that you will more and more try to work it. But even if you don't, again remember that the design helps even the most boring of all stock shots.

 

Now I can and will (in a PM) explain the superior physics behind the blade design (and all the HALF-TRUTHS of "forgiveness"), but it matters not if you don't open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that blades are NOT EVER going to hurt your game. They can only help you unless you are a head case about them.

 

 

 

But you never know until you try...

 

What I have found is that 'workability' does not always mean 'left or right' but high or low…I think people forget that. A great example was a shot I executed perfectly today…I hit a 6 iron into a 150 yard par 3 that had about a 20 mph headwind…I hit a beautiful little knockdown shot that flew straight and true and 'cheated' the wind. I landed about 15 feet from the pin, sadly did not make birdie. Could I have done that with my X18's? Probably…but something about knowing that these clubs make that easier inspires confidence at address and leads to a good shot.

 

I have a feeling that i have an addiction that is going to get out of control…I have been looking at forged blades all last night on Ebay…ugh…wife is going to kill me.

 

I agree, the definition of workability has never really been defined and people have interpreted it in different ways. This is why I just state that a blade is a superior design for spin and launch angle control and consistency rather than for just "workability".

 

And also to your point, none of this means that a CB is completely not workable. By design it just means that it is LESS so than a blade. And again it is beyond left and right spin control, it really is in ALL directions of spin and launch angle where a blade is a superior design. That muscle makes the face this inflexible surface wherever the muscle exists. The ball can thus compress against this (relatively) inflexible face with BETTER CONSISTENCY than a CB face which will behave more like a trampoline face where the face angle will change depending upon where the ball compresses against it.

 

By analogy a blade face is like bouncing a basketball on a concrete court and a CB face is like bouncing a basketball on a trampoline. On the concrete court the ball bounces with a predictable spin and rebound angle because the hard court surface doesn't change relative to the ball. Thus the ball bounces consistently. Change the surface to a trampoline, then the trampoline face will literally fold inward as the ball pushes into it, and moreover that face angle that the trampoline folds inwards will change relative to where on the face the ball contacts it. The end result is MORE INCONSISTENT spin and launch angle on the bouncing ball. Jump up and down on a trampoline and you will always find that you only go straight up and down at the dead center middle of it. As soon as you start bouncing up and down towards the sides of it, by design the bounce angle will point towards the center and thus you will tend to bounce up and towards the center rather than straight up and down as you get away from it..

 

And yes KNOWING all this is what makes me have full confidence in blades too! I am an engineer and so I cannot decouple physics from my club choices. I am incapable of choosing clubs without understanding the science to 100% and so when I analyze irons, for the explanation above and for many other reasons, the only logical technical choice of iron for me, at ANY skill level, is truly a blade. When I analyze the science behind a CB, I see more DETRIMENTS to good ball striking than any blade design has. And to be clear I'm talking the true science and not the HALF-TRUTH carney "forgiving" club manufacturers' marketed "science". So yeah, once I understood the technical TRUTH about blades, my confidence in them went through the roof! LOL this is why I don't care to ever play a CB again. There's no science to justify it!

 

And yeah there is an addiction involved in all this too. My journey into the science led me to find the best performing and best feeling blade out there so that I can maximize that bladey blissful feel of working the ball, hitting it pure, and learning from the feedback. End result is that I bought two sets of some of the most expensive irons that you can buy...All to feed my science based addiction!!!

[3riC]

...

 

Yeah, and I really don't want to hear anyone talk about their feedback from cbs being almost as good as blades. I can see a lot of guys preferring the CB feel and that is all good, I was getting used to it yesterday, but you can't hit one next to the other and make that case.

 

+1 this^

 

it's funny how feel is so subjective. Some people say CB and MB are very similar. But coming from CB501 to Small Blades, hand on my heart i can say it's day & night.

 

Don't get me wrong, the CB501 weren't bricks but blades are just different. I told my friend recently, everybody should get a set of blades just to appreciate it.

 

Maybe it won't be your competition set or your goto clubs to shoot 69 but it's worth the $$ just so you can feel the difference and compare

.

 

Yeah, and 501s are blade like.....hell, I thought my staffs were but not as much as 501s.

 

 

Is the loft that different with a 43" driver from 3 wood? Like I hit my driver farther than my 3 wood, I think it is 45", but if it was 43" I wonder how different they would be? What do you guys do with your 3 woods if a 43" driver?

 

Yeah i've thought about getting a shorter driver shaft, but i'm not keen to spend too much money fitting for a driver shaft when my driver head is like 3-4 years old

 

would be interesting to see if i hit my driver further & better with shorter shaft though

[DeNinny]

3riC you can get a good sense of what shortening your driver shaft will do by simply gripping it shorter...

[3riC]

3riC you can get a good sense of what shortening your driver shaft will do by simply gripping it shorter...

 

but i thought the swing weight is different with a shorter club vs choking it down with your grip

[Sir edward of putternut]

Just wanted to add my name to the list as a new "blade" owner. I had my first range session with my new to me MP-32s yesterday and all I can say is wow. The experience was special. I couldn't believe how crisp the contact felt. The ball flight was much higher, which was a nice change. I was a little surprised how high given the S300 shafts are a low launching shaft. I loved how easy it was to work the ball. Given the smaller head, you really have to focus on contact, but within about 5 minutes, I felt they were just as easy to hit as my current irons. I love the fact that I could feel my misses.

 

In terms of distance, I didn't lose much if any. Maybe a half club. I wonder if that was due to the fact that I'm launching them better. After the range, I went over to an open hole on the course and put down 6 balls at a 135 yards out. I put 4 of 6 on. This was my easy 8 iron before, so I stuck with it for the 32's. One ball I miss hit, so it came up a bit short, the other I pulled left, but it was pin high. The four that landed on all stopped within two feet of where they landed.

 

This is a the first time a forum post made me buy something. Happy to say I did now otherwise I would have never thought to try blades.

 

You are also likely shorter with the MP 32's because of the lofts. Those have a 39deg 8 iron, vs 38deg in my MP4's, vs. some others 8 irons that are getting into the mid 30s for an 8 iron. I think Taylormade has 8 irons at 34-35deg range.

 

That's one of the aspects of modern irons I find kind of funny, the idea of a 30* club with a "7" on the sole. For most of my golf existence, I have been playing 5 irons at that loft.

 

Thinking about the mental adjustment in switching to such a set is what I find funny. :)

I've never been the guy that needs to say that I am hitting a 7 iron 190 to feel manly. To me, irons need accuracy rather than distance.

 

Would it be better to just have the lofts on the clubs instead of a number?

Ask Mr. Koehler

[DeNinny]

3riC you can get a good sense of what shortening your driver shaft will do by simply gripping it shorter...

 

but i thought the swing weight is different with a shorter club vs choking it down with your grip

 

I only suggested it to help you get a sense of how much of an improvement in simply ability to contact the driver sweetspot more consistently. And yes in theory you are absolutely correct. And to further the point we can actually approximate the degree of swingweight change by using simple physics formulas for MOI and *maybe* making a few simple assumptions. So rather than just give you the answer, I'm going to derive it for the both of us.

 

Let's start with the problem statement so it is clear what problem we are going to solve. In this case the problem statement is this:

 

How much does the moment of inertia of a driver change if it is shortened by one inch from 45" to 44" if it is done by gripping down or by cutting it down?

 

Now I know this isn't exactly what you asked, but really swingweight, other than the units of measure and scale, is no different than the MOI of the clubhead as it rotates around the end of the shaft, so my problem statement is basically the same thing as you asked.

 

So now in order to solve this problem statement we need to understand what moment of inertia means: https://en.wikipedia...ment_of_inertia. And based on this information, it is ultimately the rotational motion equivalent of "mass" as defined in linear motion. And so with this information we can approximate (my first assumption) the MOI of a driver as similar to that of a pendulum, which means the MOI is equal to the square of the driver's length times the mass of the clubhead. In terms of actual formulas:

 

MOI = (driver's length)^2 x mass of driver clubhead

 

Now as a disclaimer I want to mention that this is not exact since the mass of the shaft and grip itself is neglected and that is your point, but really the moment of inertia is driven by the mass of the driver head itself more so than the shaft itself. Basically, the mass that is the farthest away from the fulcrum or center of rotation is a bigger factor in the moment of inertia calculation than any change in mass at the grip end. And in essence, the change in the mass (and also the MOI at that point) from cutting the shaft at the grip end vs just gripping down on it is negligible because at the end of all of it, that driver mass is still at the same distance from the hands and again that distance of 43" to 44" is MUCH bigger than a 1" amount of grip sticking out on the other end of your hands.

 

I hope this all made sense because it is hard to describe unless you know the foundational math definition of the MOI. If you know that, then you know that the extra 1" of grip mass is a very small contributor to the total MOI of the club.

 

I know I haven't quantified anything for you yet, but basically the % you will change the MOI to answer my problem statement is going to be approximated by the % of mass change of cutting 1" off the end of the club relative to the total mass of the club. And even this approximation is a conservative one. Without even calculating anything I know that it really won't change the MOI much whether or not you shorten your driver from gripping down on it or cutting it. It may change other things more significantly, but MOI isn't one of them.

 

So now with this (assumed) formula, I'm just going to take things farther and calculate the change in the MOIs, say MOI1 for the longer driver at 45" and MOI2 for the shorter driver at 43", just for my own curiosity. From that simple pendulum MOI formula above, the % change in MOIs can be defined as the following:

 

%delta MOI = 100 x (MOI1 - MOI2) / MOI1

 

Ultimately and I am jumping to the end here, but after canceling the driver head mass and just plugging in the actual lengths, the solution will be the following:

 

%delta MOI = 100 x (45x45 - 43x43) / (45x45) = 100 x (2025 - 1849) / 2025

= 8.7% (I *think*).

 

So basically the MOI will be 8.7% lower when you grip down or cut down a 45" driver to 43". You will be able to rotate faster when you do this. You *may* get better clubhead speed but the true answer to that is that it depends on the clubhead mass and length too. There is a tradeoff because the shorter length means slower velocity at the clubhead when the rotational velocity is the same. On one hand you can turn faster with a lower club MOI, but on the other hand the shorter radius swing doesn't have as much velocity at the clubhead.

 

Sorry to digress a little, but I like putting numbers to a theoretical discussion to gauge the real world significance of said theory. I can't help myself.

[mahonie]

Some of the feel difference between CBS and MBs can be attributed to the materials in the clubheads and also the shape. At address there is hardly any difference between my MP4s and my Mac MT Pro Cs. The Macs feel quite a bit softer than the Mizzys except on shots hit right out of the middle when I cannot tell the difference. The other week I was at the range playing one set against the other, 5, 7 and 9 irons. I had 10 balls left and reached for what I thought was the Mizzy 5 iron to finish off. Now at this stage of the session, I was pretty loose and hitting well. Aiming for the flag at 180 yards, I hit all 10 balls pretty close and off the button. It was only when I put the club back in my bag that I noticed it was the Mac. Having said that, I prefer the more 'solid' feel of the Mizzys, the Macs are a very good 'change of pace' set, although the actual change is very slight. As they are set up exactly the same way (shafts, grips, length, loft and lie) that shouldn't be a surprise really.

 

ALL of the differences in feel and feedback are from either a material change or a shape change. It really is this simple. Feedback and feel are from the literal way the molecules of the entire club vibrate in relation to one another. This is what the hands literally feel both during and just after impact. Change the material(s), including the quality, different feel. Change the shape of the club, also different feel.

 

In other words, if ANYTHING changes between the ball and golfer's hands, the feel and feedback WILL be different and the magnitude of the difference will be related and proportional to how much the two clubs are different.

 

BUT...having said that...*if* you are the insensitive type, then you may not notice any differences in feel. You are literally too insensitive!!!

 

I do have fists of ham and fingers of butter lol and I can switch between the two sets very easily...as I've often said, the MB version of the Macs is my dream iron but I just don't see any in the UK.

 

The Macs are the softest clubs I have ever hit and it took me a very long time to get used to them initially. I struggle to get my head around the fact that the top line is as slim as the MP4s and the sole width is very similar but they are a CB. The blade high on the face must be extremely thin which I can probably bare out because when I hit high on the face, the ball hardly goes anywhere...there is just no mass to propel the ball. Misses with the Mizzys are not nearly as punitive as there is more direct mass in contact with the ball high on the face...just my thoughts.

 

Yeah a blade has nothing high up on the face, so absolutely it will punish a miss hit up there more so than a CB which has upper perimeter weighting. There is really nothing to support that thin upper section of a blade head. In order for a blade to perform right, the thick muscle part has to be behind where the majority of the contact with the compressed ball is. If part of the compressed ball is up against that thinner upper section, then that section will literally bend more from the force of the ball against it than the same force against the thicker muscle part.

 

But here's the thing, there really isn't much need to reinforce the clubface up high on it. The reason is because in order to hit that high up on the face, the sole of the club has to be lower than normal and so by that time the shot is a fat shot and the sole is digging into the ground even before the face contacts the ball. A fluffy lie or ball teed up high may be the only two scenarios where a blade design is bad. In those two scenarios, it is entirely possible that ball contact is made at the upper part of the clubface before the sole contacts the ground (if ever).

 

You get the MB version of those Macs and you will get everything that you already get from the CB version. And then some!!!

 

DeNinny, my point was that my Mac CB has the same topline/sole as my MP4s but to accommodate the cavity and the muscle pad low on the face, there is hardly any metal behind the ball high on the face and it is the most punishing club when hit high on the face. The Mizzy is comparatively thicker high up and gives better results.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

Welp, bit of a disappointing round today, but a lot of positives. I played a really nice local course that has a pretty open front nine, and a narrower, tree-lined back nine. I was trying a new driver for the first time (just got it two or three days ago), and I am not all there with it yet. I was losing a lot of my tees shots right, which is unusual for me. Heck, I even faded one, something I haven't done in two years. Also, I played the Honma PP737 cast blades for the first time in a real round. They're actually pretty decent, but for some reason I found I was fading the 10i and 11i. I never normally hit a fade. So I had a number of excursions into the woods or fairway bunkers on the right, and a couple of adventures in right-hand greenside bunkers. The back nine sucked because I wasn't putting the ball in play off the tee, though the front was OK bar a couple of bad holes.

 

The positives are my chipping is back on form, and my new putter is fantastic. I recently bought an Odyssey White Hot Pro #9, which is a heel shafted toe-weighted half-mallet (Callaway describes it as blade?). Up til now I have been using Anser style putters, or just Ansers, but something about this putter just clicked. I hit 28 putts. First time I have broken 30 in years. My last outing, in March, I hit 42 putts. Admittedly, the greens are in better condition now, and the course I played at in March has notoriously difficult greens, and I was chipping close enough to give myself a decent chance of a one-puitt (and sometimes to within 3ft), but they're not the only reason. I reckon I am more suited to this style putter than the Anser. I might splash on the same version putter but the prototype model, which doesn't have the insert. Such a relief to find a putter I like. The only miss I had was a 3-4ft birdie putt that broke more than I thought. I hit the putt on the line I wanted, but it broke right across the hole instead of half a hole.

 

Finally, I've decided to put the Mac r58s in play next, and go fully old school by playing the set right through from 3i to SW.

[DeNinny]

DeNinny, my point was that my Mac CB has the same topline/sole as my MP4s but to accommodate the cavity and the muscle pad low on the face, there is hardly any metal behind the ball high on the face and it is the most punishing club when hit high on the face. The Mizzy is comparatively thicker high up and gives better results.

 

Sorry, I understand what you are describing now and was confused as to which club you referred to as thin walled high up. In my mind it is always a blade relative to its lower thicker muscle. Oops and yes based on your description whatever club has the thinner mass behind the ball will for sure be the more punishing when impacted there.

 

And to further your point, you also need to consider the hosel attachment itself when talking about contact up high on the face. You *may* find that your CB actually has a thinner overall hosel attachment as compared to a blade where the muscle itself helps to really reinforce the head connection to the shaft. This connection strength will become more important, the higher up on the face you contact the ball because that high up will tend to twist the face in the upward direction and the only thing that holds it in place is the hosel connection. So *maybe* some of the issue is also based on the hosel connection strength in addition to the thinner face wall at the upper part of it. A weaker connection will basically not be as stable at impact.

 

I'm just really surprised that it matters up that high on the face since up there is when the sole is low enough to already be in the ground. To me that miss hit sucks regardless of the head type.

[NoFancyUsername.]

There are youtube videos showing mishits between MB and CB irons? The misses not being that far off between the two.

[bodhi555]

Welp, bit of a disappointing round today, but a lot of positives. I played a really nice local course that has a pretty open front nine, and a narrower, tree-lined back nine. I was trying a new driver for the first time (just got it two or three days ago), and I am not all there with it yet. I was losing a lot of my tees shots right, which is unusual for me. Heck, I even faded one, something I haven't done in two years. Also, I played the Honma PP737 cast blades for the first time in a real round. They're actually pretty decent, but for some reason I found I was fading the 10i and 11i. I never normally hit a fade. So I had a number of excursions into the woods or fairway bunkers on the right, and a couple of adventures in right-hand greenside bunkers. The back nine sucked because I wasn't putting the ball in play off the tee, though the front was OK bar a couple of bad holes.

 

The positives are my chipping is back on form, and my new putter is fantastic. I recently bought an Odyssey White Hot Pro #9, which is a heel shafted toe-weighted half-mallet (Callaway describes it as blade?). Up til now I have been using Anser style putters, or just Ansers, but something about this putter just clicked. I hit 28 putts. First time I have broken 30 in years. My last outing, in March, I hit 42 putts. Admittedly, the greens are in better condition now, and the course I played at in March has notoriously difficult greens, and I was chipping close enough to give myself a decent chance of a one-puitt (and sometimes to within 3ft), but they're not the only reason. I reckon I am more suited to this style putter than the Anser. I might splash on the same version putter but the prototype model, which doesn't have the insert. Such a relief to find a putter I like. The only miss I had was a 3-4ft birdie putt that broke more than I thought. I hit the putt on the line I wanted, but it broke right across the hole instead of half a hole.

 

Finally, I've decided to put the Mac r58s in play next, and go fully old school by playing the set right through from 3i to SW.

 

Ah, someone else with a #9 :) I got mine earlier in the year to replace/compliment a Yonex 8802 Style putter which kepy blinding me in the sun. I've had one or two issues recently with leaving the face open on impact, but I think that was due to moving the ball back in my stance unconciously (I normally putt off my left foot for more top spin and a better roll, but it also seems to corellate with the point in my arced putting stroke where the face is actually pointing where I want it).

 

I have the Odyssey Works Versa, and I am not 100% about the insert - the odd putt feels very spongey, but overall I'm pretty happy with it. Still very tempted to try to find an old Wilson/TaylorMade TPA instead however....

[Bigmean]

I need to do some cocaine and adderal before trying to sift through the above, but I Will get to it (the reading not the drugs haha)

 

So I just placed a bid on the putter I have coveted for about 4 years. I don't get yahoo Japan sometimes, so it could sell for like $300 more and I am blown away, or it could stay put or I can get it as only bidder. The latter is the scenario that made me take action, ends in 3 hours, I thought about letting lapse since if I am only bidder and it doesn't sell it may lower, but it is all in japanese and they don't lower fast, and inreally don't want another american with a bid service finding it(the all japanese items take mich longer to find and I have become proficient at finding items with no english to search for). You would be surprised how more than once I have bid on items other proxys were bidding on as well.........that's how you know your elitist game is on max and you are looking at real boutique bull$hit that some other sicko is also jumping through many hoops to acquire.......

 

Anyway, wish me luck, if I get it I will share pics, but it is a legit stunner of a outter that the blades crew will appreciate, even those without a putter fetish.

[kaaayelll]

I can't help myself.

That pretty sums it up. ?

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

Ah, someone else with a #9 :) I got mine earlier in the year to replace/compliment a Yonex 8802 Style putter which kepy blinding me in the sun. I've had one or two issues recently with leaving the face open on impact, but I think that was due to moving the ball back in my stance unconciously (I normally putt off my left foot for more top spin and a better roll, but it also seems to corellate with the point in my arced putting stroke where the face is actually pointing where I want it).

 

I have the Odyssey Works Versa, and I am not 100% about the insert - the odd putt feels very spongey, but overall I'm pretty happy with it. Still very tempted to try to find an old Wilson/TaylorMade TPA instead however....

 

It sort of sets up open to my eye, but I like that. I'd really like to get a putter fitting to find out more about my putting stroke, because there's something about this style of putter that just fits. In the shop, I tried the basic same model in different versions and I got pretty much the same results--good results--with all of them. I liked the prototype best because it didn't have an insert, but it was also three times the price of the model I bought. I'm going to try and sell off a few clubs and pick up the prototype tomorrow.