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

[bervin]

Thanks for the write up. I think I'd like to give these a go. Do you have any you're looking to get rid of?

 

Also, what is your claim of the thinner sole and sharper leading edge producing greater chance at good contact based on? I don't understand the technical advantage concept in reference to the blade design, but would like to understand it as I am a believer in empirical data. Do you have a data reference where I could educate myself on this?

 

Sorry, but I don't plan on ever selling my mp67s. They have a lot of sentimental value to me.

 

My claim is based on two things: 1) pure theory and 2) personal data hitting thousands of comparison shots between mp67s and mp60s where the only real difference was the differences in sole size and leading edge sharpness.

 

In terms of pure theory and assuming all other things being equal, a thinner sole simply exposes less surface area to the ground and so those irons will simply not have as much of a chance of contact with the ground before the face of the iron contacts the ball. A larger surface area sole simply has more potential for any part of that sole to hit the ground before the face contacts the ball. To put it another way, there is the ABSENCE of mass that can contact the ground with a thinner soled iron and so there is nothing there to even worry about as compared to a wider soled iron that has mass that actually CAN interfere with the ground.

 

Also in terms of pure theory, the sharper leading edge is better such that the leading edge can literally fit better in the corner formed between the lower hemisphere of the ball and the ground. When the leading edge is rounded, the rounded part can actually skull the ball and the rounded part hits the ball instead of the flat leading edge just catching the ball on the flat part of the face instead of a rounded surface.

 

And the issue with both of these points above is not with a perfect strike, the issue with a larger sole and/or blunted leading its is with those strikes that aren't picture perfect. Let's take the case of the wider sole. The club that literally has the wider sole that is dangerously close to the ground before the club leading edge reaches the ball will literally have a higher chance of that sole hitting the ground (again all other things equal) as compared to a thinner soled club that is also dangerously close to the ground. And moreover, *if* ground contact is made before face contact with the ball, the wider soled iron will have more drag force on the clubhead as compared to the thinner soled one. The thinner soled iron cuts through turf with less resistance and more easily and again it exposes less overall surface area to the ground. By analogy a thinner soled and sharper leading edge iron is like a women's basketball going through a standard hoop and a wider soled and more blunted leading edge iron is like a men's basketball going through the same hoop. The smaller basket ball simply has a greater chance of going through the hoop, all other things equal..

 

Here is a sketch that may help visualize the above points. All other things equal, club A, the thinner soled and sharper leading edge one will simply pick the ball cleaner than club B, and it is because it has a sharper leading edge that best fits in that corner formed between the ball and the ground, and also the sole is a little flatter and thinner so it won't have as much of a chance for ground interference. Club B simply has a higher chance for that rounded edge to skull into the side of the ball and then in order to avoid that issue, the club has to go lower than club A and thus the sole will contact the ground sooner (or at least has a higher chance of it).

 

 

 

As to empirical data that I can refer you to, I only have my own personal experience over 9 years of comparing how the mp67s and mp60s play when I kept the shafts, lofts, lies, and SWs all the same. That wider sole of the mp60, without a doubt in my mind, causes more fat shots and skulled miss hits than my mp67. I have proven this time and again over the years that I couldn't care less about anybody else's "data" on the matter. If anybody is going to tell me the wider mp60 sole is a good thing for clean ball contact over the thinner soled mp67, I'm going to call BS in that it certainly wasn't the case in my experience and I would love to compare "data" on that point.

 

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to explain your theory. You articulated it very well and I was easily able to grasp the concept. Logistically, it makes sense and I believe at the very least, incorporating some of these points into my swing thoughts could help to breed confidence.

 

I am finding 67s at great prices online (eBay) looks like this should be a fairly inexpensive experiment.

 

Thanks again for taking the time.

[NRJyzr]

Thanks for the write up. I think I'd like to give these a go. Do you have any you're looking to get rid of?

 

Also, what is your claim of the thinner sole and sharper leading edge producing greater chance at good contact based on? I don't understand the technical advantage concept in reference to the blade design, but would like to understand it as I am a believer in empirical data. Do you have a data reference where I could educate myself on this?

 

Sorry, but I don't plan on ever selling my mp67s. They have a lot of sentimental value to me.

 

My claim is based on two things: 1) pure theory and 2) personal data hitting thousands of comparison shots between mp67s and mp60s where the only real difference was the differences in sole size and leading edge sharpness.

 

In terms of pure theory and assuming all other things being equal, a thinner sole simply exposes less surface area to the ground and so those irons will simply not have as much of a chance of contact with the ground before the face of the iron contacts the ball. A larger surface area sole simply has more potential for any part of that sole to hit the ground before the face contacts the ball. To put it another way, there is the ABSENCE of mass that can contact the ground with a thinner soled iron and so there is nothing there to even worry about as compared to a wider soled iron that has mass that actually CAN interfere with the ground.

 

Also in terms of pure theory, the sharper leading edge is better such that the leading edge can literally fit better in the corner formed between the lower hemisphere of the ball and the ground. When the leading edge is rounded, the rounded part can actually skull the ball and the rounded part hits the ball instead of the flat leading edge just catching the ball on the flat part of the face instead of a rounded surface.

 

And the issue with both of these points above is not with a perfect strike, the issue with a larger sole and/or blunted leading its is with those strikes that aren't picture perfect. Let's take the case of the wider sole. The club that literally has the wider sole that is dangerously close to the ground before the club leading edge reaches the ball will literally have a higher chance of that sole hitting the ground (again all other things equal) as compared to a thinner soled club that is also dangerously close to the ground. And moreover, *if* ground contact is made before face contact with the ball, the wider soled iron will have more drag force on the clubhead as compared to the thinner soled one. The thinner soled iron cuts through turf with less resistance and more easily and again it exposes less overall surface area to the ground. By analogy a thinner soled and sharper leading edge iron is like a women's basketball going through a standard hoop and a wider soled and more blunted leading edge iron is like a men's basketball going through the same hoop. The smaller basket ball simply has a greater chance of going through the hoop, all other things equal..

 

Here is a sketch that may help visualize the above points. All other things equal, club A, the thinner soled and sharper leading edge one will simply pick the ball cleaner than club B, and it is because it has a sharper leading edge that best fits in that corner formed between the ball and the ground, and also the sole is a little flatter and thinner so it won't have as much of a chance for ground interference. Club B simply has a higher chance for that rounded edge to skull into the side of the ball and then in order to avoid that issue, the club has to go lower than club A and thus the sole will contact the ground sooner (or at least has a higher chance of it.

 

 

 

As to empirical data that I can refer you to, I only have my own personal experience over 9 years of comparing how the mp67s and mp60s play when I kept the shafts, lofts, lies, and SWs all the same. That wider sole of the mp60, without a doubt in my mind, causes more fat shots and skulled miss hits than my mp67. I have proven this time and again over the years that I couldn't care less about anybody else's "data" on the matter. If anybody is going to tell me the wider mp60 sole is a good thing for clean ball contact over the thinner soled mp67, I'm going to call BS in that it certainly wasn't the case in my experience and I would love to compare "data" on that point.

 

I just feel obliged to chime in that I disagree with my brother DeNinny about the sharpness of the leading edge and its effect on contact quality. :)

 

On decent to good contact, the impact point on the face of the club is about 3/4" above the ground (ball is 1.68" diameter, which means it's .84" from the center of the ball to the ground). You're not going to be able to slide the leading edge under the ball with an iron. The impact point on the clubface will be there first.

 

Until you get to the more lofted wedges (SW/LW), that is. The loft is enough at that point where I believe it makes a difference.

 

If you're hitting the leading edge, you're hitting it thin, and none of the above matters much. :)

[DeNinny]

Thanks for the write up. I think I'd like to give these a go. Do you have any you're looking to get rid of?

 

Also, what is your claim of the thinner sole and sharper leading edge producing greater chance at good contact based on? I don't understand the technical advantage concept in reference to the blade design, but would like to understand it as I am a believer in empirical data. Do you have a data reference where I could educate myself on this?

I think tge data would change based on swing, turf, conditions(wet), etc to have anything concrete but i am also one who loves a sharp edge (literally the sharper the beyter) and a thin sole...i always am surprised how hard it is to get out of the rough with a non blade...but tgats just me

 

The data doesn't change based on conditions. The sharper leading edge and thinner soled iron will ALWAYS cut through any media faster and with less resistance than the more blunted leading edge and wider soled iron. All other things equal, of course. If you work out the aerodynamic resistance, the thinner soled and sharper leading edge iron will have less of it through ANY media.

 

I have played my mp67s and mp60s in all types of conditions and always the mp67s help with cleaner ball contact and faster clubhead velocity on fat shots.

[DeNinny]

Thanks for the write up. I think I'd like to give these a go. Do you have any you're looking to get rid of?

 

Also, what is your claim of the thinner sole and sharper leading edge producing greater chance at good contact based on? I don't understand the technical advantage concept in reference to the blade design, but would like to understand it as I am a believer in empirical data. Do you have a data reference where I could educate myself on this?

 

Sorry, but I don't plan on ever selling my mp67s. They have a lot of sentimental value to me.

 

My claim is based on two things: 1) pure theory and 2) personal data hitting thousands of comparison shots between mp67s and mp60s where the only real difference was the differences in sole size and leading edge sharpness.

 

In terms of pure theory and assuming all other things being equal, a thinner sole simply exposes less surface area to the ground and so those irons will simply not have as much of a chance of contact with the ground before the face of the iron contacts the ball. A larger surface area sole simply has more potential for any part of that sole to hit the ground before the face contacts the ball. To put it another way, there is the ABSENCE of mass that can contact the ground with a thinner soled iron and so there is nothing there to even worry about as compared to a wider soled iron that has mass that actually CAN interfere with the ground.

 

Also in terms of pure theory, the sharper leading edge is better such that the leading edge can literally fit better in the corner formed between the lower hemisphere of the ball and the ground. When the leading edge is rounded, the rounded part can actually skull the ball and the rounded part hits the ball instead of the flat leading edge just catching the ball on the flat part of the face instead of a rounded surface.

 

And the issue with both of these points above is not with a perfect strike, the issue with a larger sole and/or blunted leading its is with those strikes that aren't picture perfect. Let's take the case of the wider sole. The club that literally has the wider sole that is dangerously close to the ground before the club leading edge reaches the ball will literally have a higher chance of that sole hitting the ground (again all other things equal) as compared to a thinner soled club that is also dangerously close to the ground. And moreover, *if* ground contact is made before face contact with the ball, the wider soled iron will have more drag force on the clubhead as compared to the thinner soled one. The thinner soled iron cuts through turf with less resistance and more easily and again it exposes less overall surface area to the ground. By analogy a thinner soled and sharper leading edge iron is like a women's basketball going through a standard hoop and a wider soled and more blunted leading edge iron is like a men's basketball going through the same hoop. The smaller basket ball simply has a greater chance of going through the hoop, all other things equal..

 

Here is a sketch that may help visualize the above points. All other things equal, club A, the thinner soled and sharper leading edge one will simply pick the ball cleaner than club B, and it is because it has a sharper leading edge that best fits in that corner formed between the ball and the ground, and also the sole is a little flatter and thinner so it won't have as much of a chance for ground interference. Club B simply has a higher chance for that rounded edge to skull into the side of the ball and then in order to avoid that issue, the club has to go lower than club A and thus the sole will contact the ground sooner (or at least has a higher chance of it.

 

 

 

As to empirical data that I can refer you to, I only have my own personal experience over 9 years of comparing how the mp67s and mp60s play when I kept the shafts, lofts, lies, and SWs all the same. That wider sole of the mp60, without a doubt in my mind, causes more fat shots and skulled miss hits than my mp67. I have proven this time and again over the years that I couldn't care less about anybody else's "data" on the matter. If anybody is going to tell me the wider mp60 sole is a good thing for clean ball contact over the thinner soled mp67, I'm going to call BS in that it certainly wasn't the case in my experience and I would love to compare "data" on that point.

 

I just feel obliged to chime in that I disagree with my brother DeNinny about the sharpness of the leading edge and its effect on contact quality. :)

 

On decent to good contact, the impact point on the face of the club is about 3/4" above the ground (ball is 1.68" diameter, which means it's .84" from the center of the ball to the ground). You're not going to be able to slide the leading edge under the ball with an iron. The impact point on the clubface will be there first.

 

Until you get to the more lofted wedges (SW/LW), that is. The loft is enough at that point where I believe it makes a difference.

 

If you're hitting the leading edge, you're hitting it thin, and none of the above matters much. :)

 

FWIW the leading edge is not as significant as the wider sole issue. And it is precisely because the overall magnitude of the differences are marginal by comparison. Meaning, the relative differences in the size of the sole widths are more than the relative differences in the size of the leading edge sharpness.

 

LOL you are only disagreeing based on magnitude of the theory. My theory still holds true. *if* you were to start enlarging those leading edge sharpness differences, then more and more, the issue of my theory would have more significance. So brother, to me we more agree and we are only nitpicking about mathematical and statistical significance. LOL and I'm OK with that!

 

Edit: I only found the better thin miss hit issue was significant with the mp67s over the mp60s over hundreds of shot comparisons. Every now and then the mp67 does, in my anecdotal experience, "forgive" a thin miss hit better than the mp60. It is likely the sole size but leading edge is also a possibility...

[DeNinny]

Thanks for the write up. I think I'd like to give these a go. Do you have any you're looking to get rid of?

 

Also, what is your claim of the thinner sole and sharper leading edge producing greater chance at good contact based on? I don't understand the technical advantage concept in reference to the blade design, but would like to understand it as I am a believer in empirical data. Do you have a data reference where I could educate myself on this?

 

Sorry, but I don't plan on ever selling my mp67s. They have a lot of sentimental value to me.

 

My claim is based on two things: 1) pure theory and 2) personal data hitting thousands of comparison shots between mp67s and mp60s where the only real difference was the differences in sole size and leading edge sharpness.

 

In terms of pure theory and assuming all other things being equal, a thinner sole simply exposes less surface area to the ground and so those irons will simply not have as much of a chance of contact with the ground before the face of the iron contacts the ball. A larger surface area sole simply has more potential for any part of that sole to hit the ground before the face contacts the ball. To put it another way, there is the ABSENCE of mass that can contact the ground with a thinner soled iron and so there is nothing there to even worry about as compared to a wider soled iron that has mass that actually CAN interfere with the ground.

 

Also in terms of pure theory, the sharper leading edge is better such that the leading edge can literally fit better in the corner formed between the lower hemisphere of the ball and the ground. When the leading edge is rounded, the rounded part can actually skull the ball and the rounded part hits the ball instead of the flat leading edge just catching the ball on the flat part of the face instead of a rounded surface.

 

And the issue with both of these points above is not with a perfect strike, the issue with a larger sole and/or blunted leading its is with those strikes that aren't picture perfect. Let's take the case of the wider sole. The club that literally has the wider sole that is dangerously close to the ground before the club leading edge reaches the ball will literally have a higher chance of that sole hitting the ground (again all other things equal) as compared to a thinner soled club that is also dangerously close to the ground. And moreover, *if* ground contact is made before face contact with the ball, the wider soled iron will have more drag force on the clubhead as compared to the thinner soled one. The thinner soled iron cuts through turf with less resistance and more easily and again it exposes less overall surface area to the ground. By analogy a thinner soled and sharper leading edge iron is like a women's basketball going through a standard hoop and a wider soled and more blunted leading edge iron is like a men's basketball going through the same hoop. The smaller basket ball simply has a greater chance of going through the hoop, all other things equal..

 

Here is a sketch that may help visualize the above points. All other things equal, club A, the thinner soled and sharper leading edge one will simply pick the ball cleaner than club B, and it is because it has a sharper leading edge that best fits in that corner formed between the ball and the ground, and also the sole is a little flatter and thinner so it won't have as much of a chance for ground interference. Club B simply has a higher chance for that rounded edge to skull into the side of the ball and then in order to avoid that issue, the club has to go lower than club A and thus the sole will contact the ground sooner (or at least has a higher chance of it).

 

 

 

As to empirical data that I can refer you to, I only have my own personal experience over 9 years of comparing how the mp67s and mp60s play when I kept the shafts, lofts, lies, and SWs all the same. That wider sole of the mp60, without a doubt in my mind, causes more fat shots and skulled miss hits than my mp67. I have proven this time and again over the years that I couldn't care less about anybody else's "data" on the matter. If anybody is going to tell me the wider mp60 sole is a good thing for clean ball contact over the thinner soled mp67, I'm going to call BS in that it certainly wasn't the case in my experience and I would love to compare "data" on that point.

 

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to explain your theory. You articulated it very well and I was easily able to grasp the concept. Logistically, it makes sense and I believe at the very least, incorporating some of these points into my swing thoughts could help to breed confidence.

 

I am finding 67s at great prices online (eBay) looks like this should be a fairly inexpensive experiment.

 

Thanks again for taking the time.

 

I really appreciate the feedback and open minded discussion over the topic. I pride myself on being able to explain technical things at any level and so I thoroughly enjoy it whenever someone at least sees my logic process if not outright agreeing with me. And on that point, all I can tell you is that I don't violate any law of physics or science in anything I state. The mathematical and statistical significance of what I state can be "up for debate", but LOL if you disagree with my theory, then all I got is "I'm sorry" and "good luck to you". (Again, just my professional opinion...)

 

And I'm 100% with you in that you need to use science to enable confidence in your game for sure. As long as your science is 100% theoretically correct, you can't go wrong with it. Even if it is not 100% technically correct, it *can* still help from just the confidence boost alone. The only issue to me with not being 100% technically correct is that it won't help troubleshooting an issue when you have the wrong understanding the physics behind your clubs and their designs. For example *if* you thought wide soled irons were actually good for helping with fat shots but yet they really weren't, then when you hit a lot of fat shots with those clubs you would think that it was you and your bad swing but in reality the club wasn't helping you either. That is my only issue when someone's science is completely back Word not allowedwards in their head. Sure it can help with confidence, but at some point the incorrect science is going to screw up your ability to troubleshoot an issue. LOL you are hitting on exactly why I like to get as technical as possible in analyzing a clubhead's design. There better not be any detrimental physics in that design or else it is going to get in my head! It's why I am adamant about playing blades too. I have full confidence in them BECAUSE of their technical superiority over all other options.

[wmblake2000]

I've sort of come to my own conclusion about the 'tastes better v less filling' debate over blades vs cb. As you read this, you have to understand I am a psychologist by training and nature. So my analysis is conducted fundamentally differently from, say, engineer DeNinney's, as one would expect.

 

Golf is a game where confidence is a major factor. I had just gotten a set of blades after a lot of thinking. No sooner did I get them and I had to go to India for 10 weeks. The first week there, my shoulder froze. It took weeks to rehab and was still a little sore when I got back home. I had been swinging the club using a lot on Manuel de la Torre's ideas - swinging the club with my arms. I was afraid of that approach because of the shoulder and had to revamp my swing. In the process, those blades looked like little tiny intimidating scalpels, so I got some CBs. And reworked my swing, began going to the gym, and started playing some tournament golf.

 

Along the way, i started playing well, and all of a sudden I wanted to play the blades again. I was no longer intimidated by them and, in fact, play them very well. They are a complete joy to hit, and I am now thinking about an even more 'playerish' set of blades.

 

The moral to the story is: are blades harder/easier to hit? I have no idea. But they looked harder for a while and I could not shake that sense of intimidation, and so they were harder to play (and by the way, in this period I sold a very fine JDM driver and switched putters . I just couldn't feel confident with them.)

 

So I have reached a personal conclusion. I am always going to keep one blade and one CB set, and play whichever one I feel the most confident in. There just aren't any absolutes about clubs in my mind. There's this interplay between your actual experience, your motives and expectations and your confidence. That's why the debate over which is superior is futile. Part of the core analysis has to do with the subjective mindset of the player. So much of our experience is shaped by our assumptions. "We see it when we believe it"

[DeNinny]

I've sort of come to my own conclusion about the 'tastes better v less filling' debate over blades vs cb. As you read this, you have to understand I am a psychologist by training and nature. So my analysis is conducted fundamentally differently from, say, engineer DeNinney's, as one would expect.

 

Golf is a game where confidence is a major factor. I had just gotten a set of blades after a lot of thinking. No sooner did I get them and I had to go to India for 10 weeks. The first week there, my shoulder froze. It took weeks to rehab and was still a little sore when I got back home. I had been swinging the club using a lot on Manuel de la Torre's ideas - swinging the club with my arms. I was afraid of that approach because of the shoulder and had to revamp my swing. In the process, those blades looked like little tiny intimidating scalpels, so I got some CBs. And reworked my swing, began going to the gym, and started playing some tournament golf.

 

Along the way, i started playing well, and all of a sudden I wanted to play the blades again. I was no longer intimidated by them and, in fact, play them very well. They are a complete joy to hit, and I am now thinking about an even more 'playerish' set of blades.

 

The moral to the story is: are blades harder/easier to hit? I have no idea. But they looked harder for a while and I could not shake that sense of intimidation, and so they were harder to play (and by the way, in this period I sold a very fine JDM driver and switched putters . I just couldn't feel confident with them.)

 

So I have reached a personal conclusion. I am always going to keep one blade and one CB set, and play whichever one I feel the most confident in. There just aren't any absolutes about clubs in my mind. There's this interplay between your actual experience, your motives and expectations and your confidence. That's why the debate over which is superior is futile. Part of the core analysis has to do with the subjective mindset of the player. So much of our experience is shaped by our assumptions. "We see it when we believe it"

 

But...at the heart of your intimidation wasn't there some "science" that drove it? When you looked at that small scalpel blade head and felt that intimidation, was there not a core logic process based on some science, whether correct or not? Surely there was some logic that made you intimidated in the first place. And from that, whether consciously or not, it influences your psychological reasoning.

 

I say this because I am incapable of decoupling the scientific reasons to play certain clubs with my psychological reasons and I believe this is at the core of all golfers. All golfers use some semblance of science in their heads to justify their club decisions. If not outright justify then it is at least an influence. The point being is that everybody us using scientific reasoning to the limits of either their capability or desire, but it is a driving force in all of us and cannot be decoupled from the psychology.

[Sir Slicealot]

So I went out today and had the best ball striking day I have likely ever had with driver and irons. I'm back to believing in the 1&2 iron being the right choice in the top of the bag. I hit my 3 iron lights out on a second shot from a monster drive and ended up sitting pretty for an eagle chip. Came away with a par. This choking down a little bit is working well for me. I still need to tighten the lugnuts somehow in the middle of the round, but I shot a 53 on the front and watched it slip away to a 57 on the back. Chipping is killing me. If I can get on the green with and 8-PW shot...I'm looking good. The chipping has got to be fixed. I think I am heading to the driving range with just my 60 and 52 and we're going to sort this business out. I'm tired of losing these strokes. I'm good enough to get to the door efficiently​, but not sure how to open it. My MP-4'S were on fire with the full swings and the driver was cooperating most of the time and the misses were manageable. My bag was filled with monsters. Everything was running smoothly and long today. Except chipping. Hundred yard dash for people afraid of yellow tape.

[wmblake2000]

 

But...at the heart of your intimidation wasn't there some "science" that drove it? When you looked at that small scalpel blade head and felt that intimidation, was there not a core logic process based on some science, whether correct or not? Surely there was some logic that made you intimidated in the first place. And from that, whether consciously or not, it influences your psychological reasoning.

 

I say this because I am incapable of decoupling the scientific reasons to play certain clubs with my psychological reasons and I believe this is at the core of all golfers. All golfers use some semblance of science in their heads to justify their club decisions. If not outright justify then it is at least an influence. The point being is that everybody us using scientific reasoning to the limits of either their capability or desire, but it is a driving force in all of us and cannot be decoupled from the psychology.

 

Now that is a fascinating question and totally unexpected. First, I am not sure how you're defining 'science' here, but I will assume it is a synonym for 'logic' as you're using it. I may be 100% wrong, but that's my best guess from the context.

 

My data is primarily my experience which is influenced by a million other prior experiences - like all those times I played Wilson Staffs and had my hands sting ... repeatedly. Nothing is more potent than my own perception (even if it is fundamentally flawed or biased). So the logic flow is "data says blades = stinging hands if the swing isn't pretty good" which then causes added tension => self fulfilling prophesy. I mean, I have owned a lot of different kinds of clubs over many years. Was I brain-washed into thinking CBs are easier? Maybe. Who knows? I believe, within my own mind, that CB's punish a poor swing less because I have decades of comparative experiences, and, in believing this, I am freer to swing at the ball. I mean, I have bounced from blades to CBs to blades a LOT over the years.

 

The only time external data over-rides my personal experience is when it is overwhelmingly convincing and creates some self-doubt... maybe I was wrong. I actually tested this, and took the blades to the range a few times with the CBs for a shoot-out. They lost every time until my swing confidence returned. But even that was still part of self-fulfilling prophesy. I didn't believe they would be as effective, and, sure enough, they weren't. Then when I started to really trust my swing, voila, I could play them and my swing with them is free and unfettered by skepticism.

 

This whole discussion is a profound one - how do we conclude what we conclude. It's just WAY off base for a golf forum to dig much deeper into it. But it is among the most fascinating topics in all of life to me! I will just say one thing. We humans can think and reason in radically different ways. Some of it is the way our brains are wired and some is a function of maturation.

[DeNinny]

But...at the heart of your intimidation wasn't there some "science" that drove it? When you looked at that small scalpel blade head and felt that intimidation, was there not a core logic process based on some science, whether correct or not? Surely there was some logic that made you intimidated in the first place. And from that, whether consciously or not, it influences your psychological reasoning.

 

I say this because I am incapable of decoupling the scientific reasons to play certain clubs with my psychological reasons and I believe this is at the core of all golfers. All golfers use some semblance of science in their heads to justify their club decisions. If not outright justify then it is at least an influence. The point being is that everybody us using scientific reasoning to the limits of either their capability or desire, but it is a driving force in all of us and cannot be decoupled from the psychology.

 

Now that is a fascinating question and totally unexpected. First, I am not sure how you're defining 'science' here, but I will assume it is a synonym for 'logic' as you're using it. I may be 100% wrong, but that's my best guess from the context.

 

My data is primarily my experience which is influenced by a million other prior experiences - like all those times I played Wilson Staffs and had my hands sting ... repeatedly. Nothing is more potent than my own perception (even if it is fundamentally flawed or biased). So the logic flow is "data says blades = stinging hands if the swing isn't pretty good" which then causes added tension => self fulfilling prophesy. I mean, I have owned a lot of different kinds of clubs over many years. Was I brain-washed into thinking CBs are easier? Maybe. Who knows? I believe, within my own mind, that CB's punish a poor swing less because I have decades of comparative experiences, and, in believing this, I am freer to swing at the ball. I mean, I have bounced from blades to CBs to blades a LOT over the years.

 

The only time external data over-rides my personal experience is when it is overwhelmingly convincing and creates some self-doubt... maybe I was wrong. I actually tested this, and took the blades to the range a few times with the CBs for a shoot-out. They lost every time until my swing confidence returned. But even that was still part of self-fulfilling prophesy. I didn't believe they would be as effective, and, sure enough, they weren't. Then when I started to really trust my swing, voila, I could play them and my swing with them is free and unfettered by skepticism.

 

This whole discussion is a profound one - how do we conclude what we conclude. It's just WAY off base for a golf forum to dig much deeper into it. But it is among the most fascinating topics in all of life to me! I will just say one thing. We humans can think and reason in radically different ways. Some of it is the way our brains are wired and some is a function of maturation.

 

By your "science" yes I just mean some means of logical reasoning, whether through your understanding of the laws and mathematics of actual science and/or your own personal experience, it doesn't matter. So yes, thank you so much for sharing your perspective and basis behind your own conclusions as to why you choose the irons you play. Fundamentally it is no different than the process of reasoning that I use to make my choice in irons. We both used our own logic, formed by our brain wiring and/or maturation to conclude why we play the irons we do.

 

And FWIW, I asked that question based on my own psychologically anecdotal experience in discussing (and often debating) the physics of golf with others on WRX. Everybody and anybody that has ever debated with me only does so to the limit of their own technical understanding (or desire to understand). It never goes beyond that and even when I present all possible proof, the sources of my knowledge and information, and even the actual links to the scientific theory and also after I try to explain it in multiple ways, all backed 100% by all laws of science, mind you, it is all for naught if the person is incapable of technically understanding down to the mathematical formula level. And more often than not, the discussion doesn't even get that technical. Instead it becomes what that person was told about the science rather than their own understanding of it from derived first principles.

 

So yes, this is a profound discussion in my book too (and here we are discussing it). Through debating the physics of golf I have sought to understand the motivations and thought processes behind others' clubs decisions and I came to the conclusion that everybody has a "scientific method" in their own mind and that is a foundation to their club decisions. And you can only influence another's mindset if they have an OPEN mind to other possibilities and perspectives.

 

LOL but all that said there really is only ONE science that is not debatable when it comes to the physics of what clubheads do to the ball, blades, CBs, or others. LOL to even think there is a technical debate over this simple stick hit ball sport is just demonstration of ignorance in my book. The science is a fundamental part of golf that cannot be avoided and is only defined one way based on a set of conditions.

[Jonesy]

So I went out today and had the best ball striking day I have likely ever had with driver and irons. I'm back to believing in the 1&2 iron being the right choice in the top of the bag. I hit my 3 iron lights out on a second shot from a monster drive and ended up sitting pretty for an eagle chip. Came away with a par. This choking down a little bit is working well for me. I still need to tighten the lugnuts somehow in the middle of the round, but I shot a 53 on the front and watched it slip away to a 57 on the back. Chipping is killing me. If I can get on the green with and 8-PW shot...I'm looking good. The chipping has got to be fixed. I think I am heading to the driving range with just my 60 and 52 and we're going to sort this business out. I'm tired of losing these strokes. I'm good enough to get to the door efficiently​, but not sure how to open it. My MP-4'S were on fire with the full swings and the driver was cooperating most of the time and the misses were manageable. My bag was filled with monsters. Everything was running smoothly and long today. Except chipping. Hundred yard dash for people afraid of yellow tape.

 

Glad to hear it's working out Sir Slice! Chipping and putting is key to taking pressure off a round in my mind. If you can chip and putt consistently you keep yourself in the round and the confidence builds, soon are you looking to hole chips/putts rather than trying to get them close. It's a completely different mindset but it can add confidence to every part of your game. I had been struggling with my chipping as well until BM mentioned the quietening of the hands/wrists and now it's all coming back. Good luck!

[Bigmean]

God jonesey, I was such a train wreck after last round, I went to range after work yesterday to dig something out. Range at my club is closed wed after 1:00 since summer and maintentece etc. cart guy is like dude chopping green. Work on short game, and I was like yeah that is smart.

 

So my chips are bad, and I am going back to my lesson and it clicked with this. Think dead hands doesn't work for me, I fact I think I overuse them just by thinking about them. I started to start my downswing with my left shoulder/upper arm, and letting everything just trial that. I wound up having a sold chipping session. Contact was great, direction and distance need practice but I was straight striking matches 7/10 shots and they were all one hop stop tight.

 

So, on that note, I feel like if I applied the thought of my left arm pulling through my round off the tee and irons would have been a bit different. We will see.

 

As far as the above convo. I am of the psych mentality, but maybe a bit different? So I played like crap last round. Well, I am for sure ditching the new toys and putting in the smallest blades you can get. Now that may not make logical sense when your swing is bad and you are trying to find it, but it sounds great to me. I am quite looking forward to puring some some blades next time out.

 

Also, I almost bought a set of irons this morning and backed off, they were some onoffs 4-per, with roddio I-10 shafts. I hope I don't regret it, but at upwards of $450 it was too much. I was going to sell heads on eBay for whatever I could fetch and throw the roddio in my miuras. I like the 1150, but the 130s are legit and I loved those I-10s and should have never sold that set, big mistake.....I wonder if some top

Graphite would Make the BBs great or ruin them?

 

 

 

[DeNinny]

Biggie, it makes perfect technical sense to play your BBs regardless of the state of your swing. Their technical benefits are universal to all swings. It doesn't matter how good or bad it is.

 

Graphite is going to severely change how your BBs feel. When I demo'ed mine, I tried one with a Steelfiber shaft and KBS and Nippon SS shafts and for sure the graphite dramatically changes the feel. And not in a good way.

[Sir Slicealot]

So I went out today and had the best ball striking day I have likely ever had with driver and irons. I'm back to believing in the 1&2 iron being the right choice in the top of the bag. I hit my 3 iron lights out on a second shot from a monster drive and ended up sitting pretty for an eagle chip. Came away with a par. This choking down a little bit is working well for me. I still need to tighten the lugnuts somehow in the middle of the round, but I shot a 53 on the front and watched it slip away to a 57 on the back. Chipping is killing me. If I can get on the green with and 8-PW shot...I'm looking good. The chipping has got to be fixed. I think I am heading to the driving range with just my 60 and 52 and we're going to sort this business out. I'm tired of losing these strokes. I'm good enough to get to the door efficiently​, but not sure how to open it. My MP-4'S were on fire with the full swings and the driver was cooperating most of the time and the misses were manageable. My bag was filled with monsters. Everything was running smoothly and long today. Except chipping. Hundred yard dash for people afraid of yellow tape.

 

Glad to hear it's working out Sir Slice! Chipping and putting is key to taking pressure off a round in my mind. If you can chip and putt consistently you keep yourself in the round and the confidence builds, soon are you looking to hole chips/putts rather than trying to get them close. It's a completely different mindset but it can add confidence to every part of your game. I had been struggling with my chipping as well until BM mentioned the quietening of the hands/wrists and now it's all coming back. Good luck!

I'm believing that the chip will go in the hole ever time. To hell with close. If a man in a pink shirt on TV can make it look easy...I can learn to do it too! The reality is that I'm just not there yet.

[duffer987]

I get it... this is the blade safe haven lol. I thought we weren't supposed to debate club heads though lol! I play Mizzy blades now! I've played blades since high school.

 

I am just not well versed in the Cleveland iron line and would like to know what other CB would blend well with such a distinctly unique aesthetic the CG1s have. In fact, I am coming off of a few years hiatus from golf and playing pretty well (down to about a 3 cap) but wouldn't mind a little more forgiveness in the long irons until I'm able to start practicing more again.

 

What about a 588 CB/MB combo, Taylormade TP MC/MB (2011 or 2014), Srixon z745/z945, Cobra Fly Zs/King CB/MBs, loads of Mizuno combo options on eBay too.

Another option is the Callaway X Forged '13. They are a very streamlined CB. Looking down at them, you won't know the difference between them and most modern MBs.

 

And please bear in mind you're a good stick and know your game and what suits it, certainly a damn sight more than some bogey golfer spouting off 'theory'. Good luck in your search :)

[DeNinny]

Hahaha gotta love a passive dig. Can't discuss scientific fact? Discuss one's handicap instead!

[bervin]

But...at the heart of your intimidation wasn't there some "science" that drove it? When you looked at that small scalpel blade head and felt that intimidation, was there not a core logic process based on some science, whether correct or not? Surely there was some logic that made you intimidated in the first place. And from that, whether consciously or not, it influences your psychological reasoning.

 

I say this because I am incapable of decoupling the scientific reasons to play certain clubs with my psychological reasons and I believe this is at the core of all golfers. All golfers use some semblance of science in their heads to justify their club decisions. If not outright justify then it is at least an influence. The point being is that everybody us using scientific reasoning to the limits of either their capability or desire, but it is a driving force in all of us and cannot be decoupled from the psychology.

 

Now that is a fascinating question and totally unexpected. First, I am not sure how you're defining 'science' here, but I will assume it is a synonym for 'logic' as you're using it. I may be 100% wrong, but that's my best guess from the context.

 

My data is primarily my experience which is influenced by a million other prior experiences - like all those times I played Wilson Staffs and had my hands sting ... repeatedly. Nothing is more potent than my own perception (even if it is fundamentally flawed or biased). So the logic flow is "data says blades = stinging hands if the swing isn't pretty good" which then causes added tension => self fulfilling prophesy. I mean, I have owned a lot of different kinds of clubs over many years. Was I brain-washed into thinking CBs are easier? Maybe. Who knows? I believe, within my own mind, that CB's punish a poor swing less because I have decades of comparative experiences, and, in believing this, I am freer to swing at the ball. I mean, I have bounced from blades to CBs to blades a LOT over the years.

 

The only time external data over-rides my personal experience is when it is overwhelmingly convincing and creates some self-doubt... maybe I was wrong. I actually tested this, and took the blades to the range a few times with the CBs for a shoot-out. They lost every time until my swing confidence returned. But even that was still part of self-fulfilling prophesy. I didn't believe they would be as effective, and, sure enough, they weren't. Then when I started to really trust my swing, voila, I could play them and my swing with them is free and unfettered by skepticism.

 

This whole discussion is a profound one - how do we conclude what we conclude. It's just WAY off base for a golf forum to dig much deeper into it. But it is among the most fascinating topics in all of life to me! I will just say one thing. We humans can think and reason in radically different ways. Some of it is the way our brains are wired and some is a function of maturation.

 

By your "science" yes I just mean some means of logical reasoning, whether through your understanding of the laws and mathematics of actual science and/or your own personal experience, it doesn't matter. So yes, thank you so much for sharing your perspective and basis behind your own conclusions as to why you choose the irons you play. Fundamentally it is no different than the process of reasoning that I use to make my choice in irons. We both used our own logic, formed by our brain wiring and/or maturation to conclude why we play the irons we do.

 

And FWIW, I asked that question based on my own psychologically anecdotal experience in discussing (and often debating) the physics of golf with others on WRX. Everybody and anybody that has ever debated with me only does so to the limit of their own technical understanding (or desire to understand). It never goes beyond that and even when I present all possible proof, the sources of my knowledge and information, and even the actual links to the scientific theory and also after I try to explain it in multiple ways, all backed 100% by all laws of science, mind you, it is all for naught if the person is incapable of technically understanding down to the mathematical formula level. And more often than not, the discussion doesn't even get that technical. Instead it becomes what that person was told about the science rather than their own understanding of it from derived first principles.

 

So yes, this is a profound discussion in my book too (and here we are discussing it). Through debating the physics of golf I have sought to understand the motivations and thought processes behind others' clubs decisions and I came to the conclusion that everybody has a "scientific method" in their own mind and that is a foundation to their club decisions. And you can only influence another's mindset if they have an OPEN mind to other possibilities and perspectives.

 

LOL but all that said there really is only ONE science that is not debatable when it comes to the physics of what clubheads do to the ball, blades, CBs, or others. LOL to even think there is a technical debate over this simple stick hit ball sport is just demonstration of ignorance in my book. The science is a fundamental part of golf that cannot be avoided and is only defined one way based on a set of conditions.

 

Great read this morning, fellas. It is so interesting how deeply rooted the correlation is between our life experiences and the cognitive decisions we make every day. WB2000, I know you stated it is somewhat off topic in regards to the game of golf, but I believe it is as prevalent in golf as anything else in one's life. I think ideally we all would like to fall perfectly in the middle of psychological influence and what we know to be empirically correct from a scientific and quantifiable perspective when making decisions. In this case, its deciding whether to hit a cb or mb, but in another it may be the reason a teacher uses a particular approach to deliver curriculum to a learner (i.e. blackboard, instructor-led or collaborative with new learning technologies). There are an infinite number of these decisions at various levels of significance that occur everyday (as insignificant as what golf club to hit and as imporatant as how we educate our youth) and are influenced heavily by one's life experiences. Now I am no engineer or psychologist, but my assumption is that if I were, that would heavily influence my cognitive reception/retention of information and impact my perceived belief or opinion. I deal with data on a daily basis and have noticed over time how this has influenced my way of thinking. This discussion has been a great reminder that there are many variables associated with knowledge/skill/information transfer and retention and I shouldn't always place so much weight into one particular level of belief or opinion.

 

Hey, maybe subconsciously this is why I want a combo set! LOL

[Nard_S]

Speaking of Chipping:

 

I adopted a different setup recently to deal with inconsistencies in chip shots. Been right handsy dominate for eons. My logic was mimic a full swing impact on a little scale.

 

So I open my hips, place hands in vertical line of right pec, right elbow tucked, rock shoulders thru (not sure if they are square or slightly open). If I need wrist/hand action, it is there but subjugated to dominate shoulder move.

 

Only 1 round with it but I did not muff a chip, the miss would be too long because I am striking it that much purer.

 

Setup works for low pitches too.

 

Cheers.

[wmblake2000]

DeNinney, what power does your analysis have over my direct testing? To be sure, the outcome of my testing was influenced by my going in assumptions. But this is the real world and this is part of the fact of how we humans perceive and perform?

 

I would assume that your perseverance in your belief reflects more of your own bias than science because I have personal data that contradicts your conclusions.

[DeNinny]

DeNinney, what power does your analysis have over my direct testing? To be sure, the outcome of my testing was influenced by my going in assumptions. But this is the real world and this is part of the fact of how we humans perceive and perform?

 

I would assume that your perseverance in your belief reflects more of your own bias than science because I have personal data that contradicts your conclusions.

 

The power of my analysis on you is highly subjective based on your own ability to integrate it (or not) into your own ligic processes. I cannot answer it.

 

All I can do is keep highlighting what is scientific fact and what isn't AND if merited what the mathematical and statistical significance is of said facts. And LOL it doesn't really matter to me if one's anecdotal experience matches up to this. I don't see that as a technical refutation at all. As you state yourself about the psychology overriding anything technical, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this plays a greater role in one's ability to hit one type of iron better than another. But again this does NOT refute any theory. Scientists and engineers *should* operate on facts and data. To bring personal anecdotal experience into the mix is dangerous in the realm of reaching a scientific conclusion from it.

 

As to how this aligns or contradicts your own personal experience. We would have to get into the details of what specifically you feel that I have stated theoretically in contradiction to your personal experience and I would have to understand all context as to how you gathered your 'data'. In addition to this, both of us would need to understand the science at the level of detail discussed. And lastly, BOTH of us would need to be OPEN minded to each other's views and seek to really understand each other before we could ever come close to really aligning on the discrepancy between my theory and your personal experience.

 

I could make that same last argument back at you. Your own personal experience *could* form your own bias in the science that you choose to believe.

 

So if we want to resolve this, I am willing to get into the details of where our contradictions lie and if you will indulge me, I can easily rectify any gaps...but we both have to go into it with OPEN minds and really try to understand each other's perspectives.

[DeNinny]

But...at the heart of your intimidation wasn't there some "science" that drove it? When you looked at that small scalpel blade head and felt that intimidation, was there not a core logic process based on some science, whether correct or not? Surely there was some logic that made you intimidated in the first place. And from that, whether consciously or not, it influences your psychological reasoning.

 

I say this because I am incapable of decoupling the scientific reasons to play certain clubs with my psychological reasons and I believe this is at the core of all golfers. All golfers use some semblance of science in their heads to justify their club decisions. If not outright justify then it is at least an influence. The point being is that everybody us using scientific reasoning to the limits of either their capability or desire, but it is a driving force in all of us and cannot be decoupled from the psychology.

 

Now that is a fascinating question and totally unexpected. First, I am not sure how you're defining 'science' here, but I will assume it is a synonym for 'logic' as you're using it. I may be 100% wrong, but that's my best guess from the context.

 

My data is primarily my experience which is influenced by a million other prior experiences - like all those times I played Wilson Staffs and had my hands sting ... repeatedly. Nothing is more potent than my own perception (even if it is fundamentally flawed or biased). So the logic flow is "data says blades = stinging hands if the swing isn't pretty good" which then causes added tension => self fulfilling prophesy. I mean, I have owned a lot of different kinds of clubs over many years. Was I brain-washed into thinking CBs are easier? Maybe. Who knows? I believe, within my own mind, that CB's punish a poor swing less because I have decades of comparative experiences, and, in believing this, I am freer to swing at the ball. I mean, I have bounced from blades to CBs to blades a LOT over the years.

 

The only time external data over-rides my personal experience is when it is overwhelmingly convincing and creates some self-doubt... maybe I was wrong. I actually tested this, and took the blades to the range a few times with the CBs for a shoot-out. They lost every time until my swing confidence returned. But even that was still part of self-fulfilling prophesy. I didn't believe they would be as effective, and, sure enough, they weren't. Then when I started to really trust my swing, voila, I could play them and my swing with them is free and unfettered by skepticism.

 

This whole discussion is a profound one - how do we conclude what we conclude. It's just WAY off base for a golf forum to dig much deeper into it. But it is among the most fascinating topics in all of life to me! I will just say one thing. We humans can think and reason in radically different ways. Some of it is the way our brains are wired and some is a function of maturation.

 

By your "science" yes I just mean some means of logical reasoning, whether through your understanding of the laws and mathematics of actual science and/or your own personal experience, it doesn't matter. So yes, thank you so much for sharing your perspective and basis behind your own conclusions as to why you choose the irons you play. Fundamentally it is no different than the process of reasoning that I use to make my choice in irons. We both used our own logic, formed by our brain wiring and/or maturation to conclude why we play the irons we do.

 

And FWIW, I asked that question based on my own psychologically anecdotal experience in discussing (and often debating) the physics of golf with others on WRX. Everybody and anybody that has ever debated with me only does so to the limit of their own technical understanding (or desire to understand). It never goes beyond that and even when I present all possible proof, the sources of my knowledge and information, and even the actual links to the scientific theory and also after I try to explain it in multiple ways, all backed 100% by all laws of science, mind you, it is all for naught if the person is incapable of technically understanding down to the mathematical formula level. And more often than not, the discussion doesn't even get that technical. Instead it becomes what that person was told about the science rather than their own understanding of it from derived first principles.

 

So yes, this is a profound discussion in my book too (and here we are discussing it). Through debating the physics of golf I have sought to understand the motivations and thought processes behind others' clubs decisions and I came to the conclusion that everybody has a "scientific method" in their own mind and that is a foundation to their club decisions. And you can only influence another's mindset if they have an OPEN mind to other possibilities and perspectives.

 

LOL but all that said there really is only ONE science that is not debatable when it comes to the physics of what clubheads do to the ball, blades, CBs, or others. LOL to even think there is a technical debate over this simple stick hit ball sport is just demonstration of ignorance in my book. The science is a fundamental part of golf that cannot be avoided and is only defined one way based on a set of conditions.

 

Great read this morning, fellas. It is so interesting how deeply rooted the correlation is between our life experiences and the cognitive decisions we make every day. WB2000, I know you stated it is somewhat off topic in regards to the game of golf, but I believe it is as prevalent in golf as anything else in one's life. I think ideally we all would like to fall perfectly in the middle of psychological influence and what we know to be empirically correct from a scientific and quantifiable perspective when making decisions. In this case, its deciding whether to hit a cb or mb, but in another it may be the reason a teacher uses a particular approach to deliver curriculum to a learner (i.e. blackboard, instructor-led or collaborative with new learning technologies). There are an infinite number of these decisions at various levels of significance that occur everyday (as insignificant as what golf club to hit and as imporatant as how we educate our youth) and are influenced heavily by one's life experiences. Now I am no engineer or psychologist, but my assumption is that if I were, that would heavily influence my cognitive reception/retention of information and impact my perceived belief or opinion. I deal with data on a daily basis and have noticed over time how this has influenced my way of thinking. This discussion has been a great reminder that there are many variables associated with knowledge/skill/information transfer and retention and I shouldn't always place so much weight into one particular level of belief or opinion.

 

Hey, maybe subconsciously this is why I want a combo set! LOL

 

Great post and yeah it really does boil down to your own personal cognitive ability to justify your own club choices. And it 100% applies to this thread and what drives us to be blade users.

 

And yeah your point about not putting too much weight on any particular belief or opinion is a great OPEN minded perspective! That is one thing I'm saying about the HALF-TRUTH carney "science" of "forgiveness" as presented by the manufacturers that are in the market to sell it. There is so much true science that is beyond what is presented, yet the ignorant duffers obsessed with "forgiveness" will form the basis of their own club choices based only on the limited world view of the marketed "science" and couple this with their personal anecdotal experience. And then when presented with any science that contradicts this, the golfer with the closed mind will be incapable of considering that there is a greater level of knowledge and perhaps other clubs once thought as "bad" may actually be better. And the open minded golfer that has the cognitive skills to assess and consider another view will find themselves with even broader club choice possibilities! ...And maybe even find improvement that changes their world view!

[wmblake2000]

DeNinney, what power does your analysis have over my direct testing? To be sure, the outcome of my testing was influenced by my going in assumptions. But this is the real world and this is part of the fact of how we humans perceive and perform?

 

I would assume that your perseverance in your belief reflects more of your own bias than science because I have personal data that contradicts your conclusions.

 

The power of my analysis on you is highly subjective based on your own ability to integrate it (or not) into your own ligic processes. I cannot answer it.

 

All I can do is keep highlighting what is scientific fact and what isn't AND if merited what the mathematical and statistical significance is of said facts. And LOL it doesn't really matter to me if one's anecdotal experience matches up to this. I don't see that as a technical refutation at all. As you state yourself about the psychology overriding anything technical, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this plays a greater role in one's ability to hit one type of iron better than another. But again this does NOT refute any theory. Scientists and engineers *should* operate on facts and data. To bring personal anecdotal experience into the mix is dangerous in the realm of reaching a scientific conclusion from it.

 

As to how this aligns or contradicts your own personal experience. We would have to get into the details of what specifically you feel that I have stated theoretically in contradiction to your personal experience and I would have to understand all context as to how you gathered your 'data'. In addition to this, both of us would need to understand the science at the level of detail discussed. And lastly, BOTH of us would need to be OPEN minded to each other's views and seek to really understand each other before we could ever come close to really aligning on the discrepancy between my theory and your personal experience.

 

I could make that same last argument back at you. Your own personal experience *could* form your own bias in the science that you choose to believe.

 

So if we want to resolve this, I am willing to get into the details of where our contradictions lie and if you will indulge me, I can easily rectify any gaps...but we both have to go into it with OPEN minds and really try to understand each other's perspectives.

 

No, you seem to me to be ignoring data input from all kinds of field testing.

[DeNinny]

DeNinney, what power does your analysis have over my direct testing? To be sure, the outcome of my testing was influenced by my going in assumptions. But this is the real world and this is part of the fact of how we humans perceive and perform?

 

I would assume that your perseverance in your belief reflects more of your own bias than science because I have personal data that contradicts your conclusions.

 

The power of my analysis on you is highly subjective based on your own ability to integrate it (or not) into your own ligic processes. I cannot answer it.

 

All I can do is keep highlighting what is scientific fact and what isn't AND if merited what the mathematical and statistical significance is of said facts. And LOL it doesn't really matter to me if one's anecdotal experience matches up to this. I don't see that as a technical refutation at all. As you state yourself about the psychology overriding anything technical, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this plays a greater role in one's ability to hit one type of iron better than another. But again this does NOT refute any theory. Scientists and engineers *should* operate on facts and data. To bring personal anecdotal experience into the mix is dangerous in the realm of reaching a scientific conclusion from it.

 

As to how this aligns or contradicts your own personal experience. We would have to get into the details of what specifically you feel that I have stated theoretically in contradiction to your personal experience and I would have to understand all context as to how you gathered your 'data'. In addition to this, both of us would need to understand the science at the level of detail discussed. And lastly, BOTH of us would need to be OPEN minded to each other's views and seek to really understand each other before we could ever come close to really aligning on the discrepancy between my theory and your personal experience.

 

I could make that same last argument back at you. Your own personal experience *could* form your own bias in the science that you choose to believe.

 

So if we want to resolve this, I am willing to get into the details of where our contradictions lie and if you will indulge me, I can easily rectify any gaps...but we both have to go into it with OPEN minds and really try to understand each other's perspectives.

 

No, you seem to me to be ignoring data input from all kinds of field testing.

 

Not at all. I don't ignore any data or reasoning by others. I only seek to understand the context and basis of such data and determine the merits of it adhering to proper scientific method as it pertains to the theoretical discussion before I even consider "using" it as either the justification or refutation of ANY theory presented.

 

This is the same comment I have about your own personal field testing "data". You originally claimed that the pure theory that I am stating completely contradicts your own personal field testing data. And what I stated in response was me being OPEN minded to ANY possibility of explaining it, with logic that we both understand. As mentioned, I'm confident that we can close any gaps between our view...but only if we are BOTH OPEN minded to each other's views. At this point, the way I read your last reply, YOU are closing YOUR mind to what I have to say by ASSUMING that I am ignoring data. Taking into account the context and validity of data adhering to the scientific method is critical to determining whether or not it can be "ignored". Aren't there psychological tests and experiments that need to be properly set up and data vetted properly before any conclusions can be made from them to either support or refute a psychological theory? This is not ignoring anything, it is trying to understand the context better in order to have a conclusion from it.

[Nard_S]

What's always lacking in the "Versus" thing is not science but the scope to acknowledge that there is trade offs, a Bell Curve a "given that" context.

 

There is a delusion that you can have it all, that this choice is best.........period, where it is more 'you cannot have it all', there will be gain and there will be loss, strengths and weaknesses and most assuredly compromises.

 

So if you chose with that scope in mind and are comfortable with it, there is little to debate or dither over.

 

 

Cheers.

[bervin]

What's always lacking in the "Versus" thing is not science but the scope to acknowledge that there is trade offs, a Bell Curve a "given that" context.

 

There is a delusion that you can have it all, that this choice is best.........period, where it is more 'you cannot have it all', there will be gain and there will be loss, strengths and weaknesses and most assuredly compromises.

 

So if you chose with that scope in mind and are comfortable with it, there is little to debate or dither over.

 

 

Cheers.

 

 

Unless you buy a combo set! HAHA!

[wmblake2000]

Hmmm. I don't think I have anything else to add to this.

[Schmeegz]

Wow, I was just about ready to celebrate being a part of the blade family!!!! Sort of anyway, just played my first round with my ping iblades! But then I come here and see this family feud!

 

In my only experience so far, I found them extremely easy to hit, easy to shape, and in 1 shot in particular I caught it a touch off the bottom and it still stuck the green. Couldn't be happier with the purchase. Shot 3 over thru 9 which is very very good for me.

 

 

 

 

[Nard_S]

What's always lacking in the "Versus" thing is not science but the scope to acknowledge that there is trade offs, a Bell Curve a "given that" context.

 

There is a delusion that you can have it all, that this choice is best.........period, where it is more 'you cannot have it all', there will be gain and there will be loss, strengths and weaknesses and most assuredly compromises.

 

So if you chose with that scope in mind and are comfortable with it, there is little to debate or dither over.

 

 

Cheers.

 

 

Unless you buy a combo set! HAHA!

 

Ah, but you might get the best of both or the worst of both. :)

[socialdarwinist]

Looking at moving back to blades at some point in the future - once I get my swing consistency back a bit.

[bervin]

What's always lacking in the "Versus" thing is not science but the scope to acknowledge that there is trade offs, a Bell Curve a "given that" context.

 

There is a delusion that you can have it all, that this choice is best.........period, where it is more 'you cannot have it all', there will be gain and there will be loss, strengths and weaknesses and most assuredly compromises.

 

So if you chose with that scope in mind and are comfortable with it, there is little to debate or dither over.

 

 

Cheers.

 

 

Unless you buy a combo set! HAHA!

 

Ah, but you might get the best of both or the worst of both. :)

 

Haha! Quite clever. Ultimately, it provides me with the perfect "reasoning" to tell my friends exactly why I played terrific or exactly why I played so poorly! That is all WRX'rs are really after anyway, right?