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

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

4 hours ago, cadman88 said:

Surprised to see that my local Golf Galaxy had a Callaway fitting cart that included the APEX MB 7 iron fitting head as I was there to test the APEX Pro 21 demo (great clubs). I had to hit the APEX MB to compare it to my Wilson Staff Model blade.. Not even close.. The Wilson's were way better for me.. The APEX MB was nice, but the distance drop off was too much for me.. 

 

 

Drop-off in distance? How much, and are the lofts comparable?

 

[cadman88]

1 hour ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

 

Drop-off in distance? How much, and are the lofts comparable?

 

Don't recall exact numbers, I wasn't going for a fitting, just trying them out in between open spots on their sim. Both lofted @ 34°, my Wilson's have Dynamic Gold S300's in them, I had them put Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400's in the APEX MB's, so both 13g shafts at the same lengths +/- 1/4"

 

I'm sure it's due to strike, but bouncing back and forth between them I could definitely tell that the Wilson's felt solid like they normally do to me, and the APEX MB's weren't. The APEX MB's did seem to hold their intended line well for where I was aiming.. just not as long as the Wilson's. It didn't really matter much as I was there to hit the APEX Pro 21's and just noticed they had the APEX MB, just figured since the store is just over an hour from my home I'd put a few swings on the APEX MB. I really liked the look and feel of the APEX Pro's, reminds me of my Adams XTD Forged irons with the tungsten and urethane in the heads. Nice easy high launching, with a bit more punch than my Wilson's.

[TheDeanAbides]

I know this isn't a classic blade thread, but these just came back after I thought they were definitely lost in the post (long story). Anyway, I just hit the 8 iron (44* inch shorter than modern standard) and I have to say that these are the most solid feeling irons I've ever hit. Better than any of the other 6 sets of Hogans I own, better than any Mizzy I've hit or classic Wilson blades. They're just such a simple and effective design for decent ballstrikers. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by TheDeanAbides

[NRJyzr]

3 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I know this isn't a classic blade thread, but these just came back after I thought they were definitely lost in the post (long story). Anyway, I just hit the 8 iron (44* inch shorter than modern standard) and I have to say that these are the most solid feeling irons I've ever hit. Better than any of the other 6 sets of Hogans I own, better than any Mizzy I've hit or classic Wilson blades. They're just such a simple and effective design for decent ballstrikers. 

One wonders if a reason for that solid feel you describe is related to the weight of the clubhead?  At a full inch shorter than modern sticks, it would be 14 grams or more heavier than the corresponding modern clubhead.

 

It's a thought.  🙂

 

[TheDeanAbides]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

One wonders if a reason for that solid feel you describe is related to the weight of the clubhead?  At a full inch shorter than modern sticks, it would be 14 grams or more heavier than the corresponding modern clubhead.

 

It's a thought.  🙂

 

I'll admit that I'm not the most sensitive player, but it doesn't feel overly heavy. Maybe that's just because of the length? 

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I'll admit that I'm not the most sensitive player, but it doesn't feel overly heavy. Maybe that's just because of the length? 

 

I would think its exactly that

 

[Joe S]

Just now, TheDeanAbides said:

I'll admit that I'm not the most sensitive player, but it doesn't feel overly heavy. Maybe that's just because of the length? 

 

Is the Slazinger head the same as the U.S. released head, but with different stamps?  According to the MPF data the U.S. Saber heads are heavier than most.  Around 275 grams compared to 250 for most.

[TheDeanAbides]

34 minutes ago, Joe S said:

 

Is the Slazinger head the same as the U.S. released head, but with different stamps?  According to the MPF data the U.S. Saber heads are heavier than most.  Around 275 grams compared to 250 for most.

I think they might be a little smaller. I know the Slazengers were designed for the small ball, but who knows. They're very compact heads. 

[DeNinny]

Hi fellow blade users!  It's so good to see this thread still alive!

 

But we all know it should because the design of blades is a masterpiece that has never (ever) been improved upon.

 

Anyhow, just stopping in to say hi and show my support.  I won't be staying long.

 

I'm still playing my baby blades.  Still switching between both sets (satin and black boron).   And don't plan on changing this.  Ever.  Last Sunday to close my round on #18 I hit a 5i 150yds into the wind and stuck it inside 8'.  It was a beautiful shot, and you blade users know that that also means it was a beautiful feel.  I was still in an afterglow from the feel alone when I got home.  I beat my CB using buddy with that shot too.  We were playing stroke play 1v1 and I was up one stroke going into the hole.  With that shot I sealed the win.  (He put his CB approach shot in the back bunker.)

 

Anyhow, rock on, blade users!  Never let this thread die!!!

 

✊👍👍🏌️

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by DeNinny

[Nard_S]

16 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I know this isn't a classic blade thread, but these just came back after I thought they were definitely lost in the post (long story). Anyway, I just hit the 8 iron (44* inch shorter than modern standard) and I have to say that these are the most solid feeling irons I've ever hit. Better than any of the other 6 sets of Hogans I own, better than any Mizzy I've hit or classic Wilson blades. They're just such a simple and effective design for decent ballstrikers. 

Righteous!

[DeNinny]

17 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I know this isn't a classic blade thread, but these just came back after I thought they were definitely lost in the post (long story). Anyway, I just hit the 8 iron (44* inch shorter than modern standard) and I have to say that these are the most solid feeling irons I've ever hit. Better than any of the other 6 sets of Hogans I own, better than any Mizzy I've hit or classic Wilson blades. They're just such a simple and effective design for decent ballstrikers. 

These are true beauties and I can see why they feel so good with that squarish shape.  That muscle is like a solid 4x4 as opposed to a more rounded shaped muscle is like a baseball bat.  Feedback and feel with those will get more precise when you have a shape like that.  More rounded shapes and edges tend to damp or dull vibrations.  Plus it's just thick throughout the length and depth.  You can strike a ball anywhere up and down the length of that face and there will be solid muscle behind it, which translates to a solid feel.  They are a great design in my book!  And I'd recommend them to any golfer.  

[TheDeanAbides]

4 hours ago, DeNinny said:

These are true beauties and I can see why they feel so good with that squarish shape.  That muscle is like a solid 4x4 as opposed to a more rounded shaped muscle is like a baseball bat.  Feedback and feel with those will get more precise when you have a shape like that.  More rounded shapes and edges tend to damp or dull vibrations.  Plus it's just thick throughout the length and depth.  You can strike a ball anywhere up and down the length of that face and there will be solid muscle behind it, which translates to a solid feel.  They are a great design in my book!  And I'd recommend them to any golfer.  

Yes, that's a great description of the reasons for it. Also I feel like with such a compact blade the ball is never very far from the sweet spot. 

[DeNinny]

5 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Yes, that's a great description of the reasons for it. Also I feel like with such a compact blade the ball is never very far from the sweet spot. 

Yeah I wasn't sure but I thought they looked compact too, which definitely helps with both feel and solid ball contact.  Although the length is compact, the muscle isn't, and this makes the "relative" thickness of the muscle bigger, meaning thickness relative to the length.  It's like how a shorter piece of metal gets harder to literally bend as compared to a longer one of the same thickness.  It's more "blocky" in shape.  So when a shape like that contacts a round surface ball, it literally doesn't bend around that ball with much temporary deformation.  The face stays more straight and flat at impact, relatively speaking.  So again this makes for a really solid feel. 

 

Also if you could put calipers to the thickest part of that muscle and compare the thickness to your other blades of the same #, I'll bet that muscle is as thick or even thicker than the rest of your sets.  You might even be able to feel or see this with your eyes if you compare the two different clubs close together.

 

And as to a "sweet spot", I stopped looking at blades that way long ago.  To me the entire length of the muscle is excellent for good ball contact and creating a consistent spin and flight direction on the ball.  All other things equal, as long as there is a thick muscle behind the ball at impact, it's going to be a consistent and similar shot relative to another impact location along the length.  Again that thick muscle is unbending along the length of it.

 

Although with that said, the farther away from the shaft that you hit a ball, the more torque it puts on your hands, so you do feel a difference in you hands when you hit the muscle closer to the toe. But again the result isn't going to be much different.

 

So with all this, to me the "sweet spot" of a blade is contact as close to the shaft/hosel as possible without actually shanking it on the rounded shape.  The closer you hit a ball to the shaft, the literal LESS torque it puts on the hands at impact.  And the less torque there is, the less you literally feel impact.  It feels as if you didn't hit much whenever you hit a "sweet" shot.  This is because your hands literally didn't twist much from the torque from impact.  But hit a ball out more at the toe and farther from the shaft, then this is felt more by the hands and isn't as "sweet" feeling.

 

And so with a compact head shape like yours, again relatively speaking, you unequivocally cannot put as much torque on your hands from a toe shot because the toe is closer to the shaft.  So yeah, with a compact head shape like that, the ball is literally not that far from the "sweet spot".

 

Sorry for such a long winded reply, but my baby blades are similar to yours with a compact muscle design and I've analyzed their physics in depth.  And yeah, in my experience they are the best feeling (and performing and forgiving) blades I've ever hit, even compared to longer length Miura blades.

 

In short, the compact blade design is an awesome design that results in solid feel, and it's as if the entire length of it is a "sweet spot".

Edited March 19, 2021 by DeNinny

[TheDeanAbides]

2 minutes ago, DeNinny said:

Yeah I wasn't sure but I thought they looked compact too, which definitely helps with both feel and solid ball contact.  Although the length is compact, the muscle isn't, and this makes the "relative" thickness of the muscle bigger, meaning thickness relative to the length.  It's like how a shorter piece of metal gets harder to literally bend as compared to a longer one of the same thickness.  It's more "blocky" in shape.  So when a shape like that contacts a round surface ball, it literally doesn't bend around that ball with much temporary deformation.  The face stays more straight and flat at impact, relatively speaking.  So again this makes for a really solid feel. 

 

Also if you could put calipers to the thickest part of that muscle and compare the thickness to your other blades of the same #, I'll bet that muscle is as thick or even thicker than the rest of your sets.  You might even be able to feel or see this with your eyes if you compare the two different clubs close together.

 

And as to a "sweet spot", I stopped looking at blades that way long ago.  To me the entire length of the muscle is excellent for good ball contact and creating a consistent spin and flight direction on the ball.  All other things equal, as long as there is a thick muscle behind the ball at impact, it's going to be a consistent and similar shot relative to another impact location along the length.  Again that thick muscle is unbending along the length of it.

 

Although with that said, the farther away from the shaft that you hit a ball, the more torque it puts on your hands, so you do feel a difference in you hands when you hit the muscle closer to the toe. But again the result isn't going to be much different.

 

So with all this, to me the "sweet spot" of a blade is contact as close to the shaft/hosel as possible without actually shanking it on the rounded shape.  The closer you hit a ball to the shaft, the literal LESS torque it puts on the hands at impact.  And the less torque there is, the less you literally feel impact.  It feels as if you didn't hit much whenever you hit a "sweet" shot.  This is because your hands literally didn't twist much from the torque from impact.  But hit a ball out more at the toe and farther from the shaft, then this is felt more by the hands and isn't as "sweet" feeling.

 

And so with a compact head shape like your, again relatively speaking, you unequivocally cannot put as much torque on your hands from a toe shot because the toe is closer to the shaft.  So yeah, with a compact head shape like that, the ball is literally not that far from the "sweet spot".

 

Sorry for such a long winded reply, but my baby blades are similar to yours with a compact muscle design and I've analyzed their physics in depth.  And yeah, in my experience they are the best feeling (and performing and forgiving) blades I've ever hit, even compared to longer length Miura blades.

 

In short, the compact blade design is an awesome design that results in solid feel, and it's as if the entire length of it is a "sweet spot".

I found myself nodding along to all of that. I have always favoured striking closer to the hosel and definitely agree that all of that mass behind the ball makes these far more forgiving than popular opinion would have us believe. 

The lack of forgiveness is in the complete lack of bounce, and that's where I tend to favour newer designs (especially when my ball striking isn't as pure as I'd like). I would guess that the Baby Blades have a little more help in that regard? 

[DeNinny]

2 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I found myself nodding along to all of that. I have always favoured striking closer to the hosel and definitely agree that all of that mass behind the ball makes these far more forgiving than popular opinion would have us believe. 

The lack of forgiveness is in the complete lack of bounce, and that's where I tend to favour newer designs (especially when my ball striking isn't as pure as I'd like). I would guess that the Baby Blades have a little more help in that regard? 

Yeah to me (and to the true science) the key physics of impact get down to the detailed physics of literal contact between the ball and the clubface during impact.  During impact is where the round ball compresses "flat" against the flat face of the clubhead and when the flat face of the clubhead "bends" around the round ball.  The two shapes ultimately have to "meet", and as such this is where the defining physics of the ball flight starts!  it's where the spin off the face, the velocity, and overall launch angle are defined.  And by the mathematics of it all, it's better to have a consistent surface against which the ball compresses against so that all the variability and temporary deformation is on the ball rather than on the clubface itself (or at least less so).  And furthermore the way you get a consistent surface is through added thickness behind the ball.  This is why a blade/muscle design is so good and a big reason that us blade users get consistent results using them.  And it gets even better, albeit incrementally, with a compact muscle design which has the thickest overall muscle relatively speaking.

 

As to bounce, I could go way into the physics weeds with it but I'll try to be short with it and say that it has zero basis for being "forgiving".  In fact I see it as being unforgiving to a small degree with blades and to a larger degree with really high bounce clubs.

 

So to start with it, let's analyze your pictured Slazenger, and without changing anything else, let's imagine adding some bounce to the bottom of it.  To me that added mass that now hangs even lower relative to the leading edge of the clubface is detrimental (albeit incrementally)!  The reason being is now that added mass below the leading edge of the clubface has a chance of contacting the ground BEFORE the leading edge of the clubface contacts the ball itself.  In my world (and per the physics) this is NOT good under any circumstances.  Bounce will create higher chances for a fat shot as opposed to the absence of it.  This is as simple as I can put it.

 

Furthermore, low bounce is more aerodynamic through any media.  Compare the aerodynamics of a corvette (low bounce) and a Volkswagen beetle (high bounce).  The corvette is clearly more aerodynamic.  This same principle applies to low bounce clubs.  They will literally cut through the air, grass, turf, dirt, etc faster than their higher bounce counterpart.  They are simply more aerodynamic through any media which is better in my book.

 

So with all this and my earlier posts about feel, I don't see those Slazengers as less forgiving as my baby blades on the basis of that lack of bounce.  I actually see them as better in that regard.  LOL but only marginally to the point that I don't care because I doubt it will help my game statistically speaking.  And furthermore in regards to feel (as explained earlier) I can see those clubs having "unforgiving" feedback so they will FEEL more harsh than my BBs on a miss hit.  This would give the perception of being unforgiving, but I just don't see it from a pure ball striking physics standpoint.  So in that regard I don't see those being any harder to hit than my BBs.

 

All this is "in my professional opinion only" and it's my personal experience as a blade user, so as not to stir up a debate!

Edited March 19, 2021 by DeNinny

[TheDeanAbides]

1 hour ago, DeNinny said:

Yeah to me (and to the true science) the key physics of impact get down to the detailed physics of literal contact between the ball and the clubface during impact.  During impact is where the round ball compresses "flat" against the flat face of the clubhead and when the flat face of the clubhead "bends" around the round ball.  The two shapes ultimately have to "meet", and as such this is where the defining physics of the ball flight starts!  it's where the spin off the face, the velocity, and overall launch angle are defined.  And by the mathematics of it all, it's better to have a consistent surface against which the ball compresses against so that all the variability and temporary deformation is on the ball rather than on the clubface itself (or at least less so).  And furthermore the way you get a consistent surface is through added thickness behind the ball.  This is why a blade/muscle design is so good and a big reason that us blade users get consistent results using them.  And it gets even better, albeit incrementally, with a compact muscle design which has the thickest overall muscle relatively speaking.

 

As to bounce, I could go way into the physics weeds with it but I'll try to be short with it and say that it has zero basis for being "forgiving".  In fact I see it as being unforgiving to a small degree with blades and to a larger degree with really high bounce clubs.

 

So to start with it, let's analyze your pictured Slazenger, and without changing anything else, let's imagine adding some bounce to the bottom of it.  To me that added mass that now hangs even lower relative to the leading edge of the clubface is detrimental (albeit incrementally)!  The reason being is now that added mass below the leading edge of the clubface has a chance of contacting the ground BEFORE the leading edge of the clubface contacts the ball itself.  In my world (and per the physics) this is NOT good under any circumstances.  Bounce will create higher chances for a fat shot as opposed to the absence of it.  This is as simple as I can put it.

 

Furthermore, low bounce is more aerodynamic through any media.  Compare the aerodynamics of a corvette (low bounce) and a Volkswagen beetle (high bounce).  The corvette is clearly more aerodynamic.  This same principle applies to low bounce clubs.  They will literally cut through the air, grass, turf, dirt, etc faster than their higher bounce counterpart.  They are simply more aerodynamic through any media which is better in my book.

 

So with all this and my earlier posts about feel, I don't see those Slazengers as less forgiving as my baby blades on the basis of that lack of bounce.  I actually see them as better in that regard.  LOL but only marginally to the point that I don't care because I doubt it will help my game statistically speaking.  And furthermore in regards to feel (as explained earlier) I can see those clubs having "unforgiving" feedback so they will FEEL more harsh than my BBs on a miss hit.  This would give the perception of being unforgiving, but I just don't see it from a pure ball striking physics standpoint.  So in that regard I don't see those being any harder to hit than my BBs.

 

All this is "in my professional opinion only" and it's my personal experience as a blade user, so as not to stir up a debate!

That's interesting regarding the bounce (the stuff before that is far too deep down the rabbit hole for me!) because I want to say that I disagree, but I don't know if it's true in actuality. I think of my other blades that have a little bounce - different amounts depending on age - and I'm not sure if the bounce actually helps me. Obviously, someone like Ralph Maltby would say that bounce absolutely helps golfers, but does it help decent ball strikers? I need to do some more testing. 

I do know one thing: my zero bounce blades hate range mats.

[mgoblue83]

Anyone have experience with Sub70 MB Tours yet?

 

https://www.golfsub70.com/sub-70-649-mb-tour-forged-raw-irons.html

 

Reading the specs it checks off all the boxes for what I want in a blade but interested to hear from anyone who has played them.

 

Been playing Scratch SB-1s for 10 years and looking for something with less offset and more weight in the toe. Of all the OEM's the only blades that interested me were the P7TWs because of the zero offset and toe weighting. 

 

 

[DeNinny]

2 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

That's interesting regarding the bounce (the stuff before that is far too deep down the rabbit hole for me!) because I want to say that I disagree, but I don't know if it's true in actuality. I think of my other blades that have a little bounce - different amounts depending on age - and I'm not sure if the bounce actually helps me. Obviously, someone like Ralph Maltby would say that bounce absolutely helps golfers, but does it help decent ball strikers? I need to do some more testing. 

I do know one thing: my zero bounce blades hate range mats.

That first part was just further technical expansion of the previous posts of mine that you were "nodding your head to" earlier.  Unless you know the mathematics behind temporary materials deformation and the expanded physics from Newton's laws of motion - momentum, force, and kinetic energy physics, it's going to be harder to understand.  LOL I'm sorry but I have analyzed golf physics down to the molecular level, so my rabbit hole goes pretty deep.  I'll stop here on that point and leave it at "the physics of a compact blade design is superior in many ways."

 

I highly appreciate your open mindedness on the physics of bounce!  I can tell you that I too thought it was helpful based on my ignorance and assumption that "forgiving" golf club sellers, like Maltby, actually had a sound scientific basis for their "forgiving theories".  But once I really analyzed it from engineering first principles AND also from trying high bounce CBs and wedges, I realized that a lot of things touted as "forgiving" did NOT have a sound technical basis and they did NOT match my reality.  For example on the issue of bounce the supposed "theory" is that somehow magically the bounce will cause a golfer hitting a fat shot to "dig less" into the ground and thus this will "forgive" him and make the that fat shot less penal than a low bounce clubhead.  From a theoretical standpoint this is nonsense because, in short, it requires the clubhead path to reroute through the soft ground just because of a few millimeters of added curvature at the bottom of the clubhead.  This is nonsense based on the science.  The reality is what I already stated:  high bounce will literally cause you to hit the ground more as opposed to the ABSENCE of it AND it is aerodynamically inferior.

 

Also as mentioned I have tried high bounce long irons (Mizuno mpFliHi 3i and 4i) and also high bounce wedges (old Clevelands) and these were always more problematic than when I played lower bounce counterparts.  My personal reality matched my physics exactly.  So I couldn't care less about what a "forgiving" golf seller like Maltby has to say about the matter.  (Again, this is my professional opinion only and from my own personal blade using experience.)

 

So yes, absolutely I encourage you to challenge your own assumptions about the bounce between your Slazengers and your other higher bounce irons!  Hit a lot of balls and compare all your clubs!  I'll go out on a limb here and say that I doubt you'll ever find a scenario that the bounce of your Slazengers has any statistical significance to the point that they cost strokes just because of their low bounce.  And if they do, please also consider how they help you with thin shots because that is the flip side of the physics I'm mentioning.  With low bounce you actually have more room for error in getting the leading edge to go in between the ball and the turf just prior to impact, so in theory those Slazengers are forgiving when you hit a shot thin!

 

And lastly, absolutely if you hit a range mat (with concrete underneath) with those Slazengers and that sharp leading edge, it's gonna FEEL terribly unforgiving as opposed to hitting a mat the same way with a club with a more rounded sole and more rounded leading edge.  This is exactly why I said earlier that rounded edges tend to damp feel.

[TheDeanAbides]

40 minutes ago, DeNinny said:

That first part was just further technical expansion of the previous posts of mine that you were "nodding your head to" earlier.  Unless you know the mathematics behind temporary materials deformation and the expanded physics from Newton's laws of motion - momentum, force, and kinetic energy physics, it's going to be harder to understand.  LOL I'm sorry but I have analyzed golf physics down to the molecular level, so my rabbit hole goes pretty deep.  I'll stop here on that point and leave it at "the physics of a compact blade design is superior in many ways."

 

I highly appreciate your open mindedness on the physics of bounce!  I can tell you that I too thought it was helpful based on my ignorance and assumption that "forgiving" golf club sellers, like Maltby, actually had a sound scientific basis for their "forgiving theories".  But once I really analyzed it from engineering first principles AND also from trying high bounce CBs and wedges, I realized that a lot of things touted as "forgiving" did NOT have a sound technical basis and they did NOT match my reality.  For example on the issue of bounce the supposed "theory" is that somehow magically the bounce will cause a golfer hitting a fat shot to "dig less" into the ground and thus this will "forgive" him and make the that fat shot less penal than a low bounce clubhead.  From a theoretical standpoint this is nonsense because, in short, it requires the clubhead path to reroute through the soft ground just because of a few millimeters of added curvature at the bottom of the clubhead.  This is nonsense based on the science.  The reality is what I already stated:  high bounce will literally cause you to hit the ground more as opposed to the ABSENCE of it AND it is aerodynamically inferior.

 

Also as mentioned I have tried high bounce long irons (Mizuno mpFliHi 3i and 4i) and also high bounce wedges (old Clevelands) and these were always more problematic than when I played lower bounce counterparts.  My personal reality matched my physics exactly.  So I couldn't care less about what a "forgiving" golf seller like Maltby has to say about the matter.  (Again, this is my professional opinion only and from my own personal blade using experience.)

 

So yes, absolutely I encourage you to challenge your own assumptions about the bounce between your Slazengers and your other higher bounce irons!  Hit a lot of balls and compare all your clubs!  I'll go out on a limb here and say that I doubt you'll ever find a scenario that the bounce of your Slazengers has any statistical significance to the point that they cost strokes just because of their low bounce.  And if they do, please also consider how they help you with thin shots because that is the flip side of the physics I'm mentioning.  With low bounce you actually have more room for error in getting the leading edge to go in between the ball and the turf just prior to impact, so in theory those Slazengers are forgiving when you hit a shot thin!

 

And lastly, absolutely if you hit a range mat (with concrete underneath) with those Slazengers and that sharp leading edge, it's gonna FEEL terribly unforgiving as opposed to hitting a mat the same way with a club with a more rounded sole and more rounded leading edge.  This is exactly why I said earlier that rounded edges tend to damp feel.

This all makes perfect sense to me. I do like bounce with my wedges because I use it more around the greens for certain shots, but I'm perfectly happy hitting my older Hogan equalizers that have zero bounce. 

 

One thing I have found for sure is that the zero bounce irons are GREAT out of rough. They just go through that stuff like it isn't there. I guess that's another plus of a compact MB - lots of resistance to twist. 

 

Thanks for this - I didn't expect to go down this rabbit hole (if only deep enough to see the tips of the ears). 

[DeNinny]

35 minutes ago, TheDeanAbides said:

This all makes perfect sense to me. I do like bounce with my wedges because I use it more around the greens for certain shots, but I'm perfectly happy hitting my older Hogan equalizers that have zero bounce. 

 

One thing I have found for sure is that the zero bounce irons are GREAT out of rough. They just go through that stuff like it isn't there. I guess that's another plus of a compact MB - lots of resistance to twist. 

 

Thanks for this - I didn't expect to go down this rabbit hole (if only deep enough to see the tips of the ears). 

I hope and I'm very pleased that it makes sense!  For one thing, it's reality.  And also having to type and explain technical things in layman's terms is a challenge that I like.  I think it was Einstein that said, to paraphrase, "if you can't explain something technical in simple terms, then you don't understand it well enough yourself."  He was absolutely right about this!

 

For me personally with wedges, I simply NEVER buy the higher bounce option and seek ones with low bounce overall.  But I'm not obsessed with having zero bounce because at the end of the day it really doesn't matter given my inconsistent short game.  So as long as I'm playing the lower bounce wedges I'm good!

 

And you are spot on aligned with the physics with your experience with low bounce irons through the rough, and with compact heads too!  That low bounce is streamlined as it is passing through thick grass.  All higher bounce will do is create literally more mass that can rub into the grass.  This slows the clubhead down!  So absolutely that is a benefit of lower bounce.

 

And the same thing applies to a more compact head shape!  Again this design, relatively speaking, interferes with less overall grass as the clubhead passes through it.  It's buried deep in this thread in earlier posts and pages, but this is exactly my experience when I tried baby blades for the first time.  I remember having a shot from out of the rough with a 6i and it freaking flew out of it as if it didn't matter.  Both my ball flight was nearly the same as from the fairway AND my hands didn't feel that same amount of twist and resistance.  That was one enlightening moment for me and helped convince me of the superiority of a compact head design.

 

And even just recently when I saw those Slazengers of yours for the first time, my "spidey sense" that it was a good design immediately went off because it looked compact to me and that is the kind of thing that makes my technical head swoon.  It's one of the first things I look for in any new blade I come across.  It's why I love Miura BBs, Wilson FG-59s, NRJyzr's beloved RAM Tour Grinds, and a few other blades amongst all others.  And now I'm adding those Hogan Slazengers to that list.  So thank you for the discussion over them and the beautiful pic!

 

LOL PM me if you wanna go farther down the hole.  And I appreciate that you've gone as far as you did and read what I wrote with an open mind.

 

Also anytime you come to play golf in Portland or Oregon in general, hit me up.  I love playing with fellow blade users.  And I'll letcha hit my BBs!

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by DeNinny

[TheDeanAbides]

4 minutes ago, DeNinny said:

I hope and I'm very pleased that it makes sense!  For one thing, it's reality.  And also having to type and explain technical things in layman's terms is a challenge that I like.  I think it was Einstein that said, to paraphrase, "if you can't explain something technical in simple terms, then you don't understand it well enough yourself."  He was absolutely right about this!

 

For me personally with wedges, I simply NEVER buy the higher bounce option and seek ones with low bounce overall.  But I'm not obsessed with having zero bounce because at the end of the day it really doesn't matter given my inconsistent short game.  So as long as I'm playing the lower bounce wedges I'm good!

 

And you are spot on aligned with the physics with your experience with low bounce irons through the rough, and with compact heads too!  That low bounce is streamlined as it is passing through thick grass.  All higher bounce will do is create literally more mass that can rub into the grass.  This slows the clubhead down!  So absolutely that is a benefit for lower bounce.

 

And the same thing applies to a more compact head shape!  Again this design, relatively speaking, interferes with less overall grass as the clubhead passes through it.  It's buried deep in this thread in earlier posts and pages, but this is exactly my experience when I tried baby blades for the first time.  I remember having a shot from out of the rough with a 6i and it freaking flew out of it as if it didn't matter.  Both my ball flight was nearly the same as from the fairway AND my hands didn't feel that same amount of twist and resistance.  That was one enlightening moment for me and helped convince me of the superiority of a compact head design.

 

And even just recently when I saw those Slazengers of yours for the first time my "spidey sense" that it was a good design immediately went off because it looked compact to me and that is the kind of thing that makes my technical head swoon.  It's one of the first things I look for in any new blade I come across.  It's why I love Miura BBs, Wilson FG-59s, NRJyzr's beloved RAM Tour Grinds, and a few other blades amongst all others.  And now I'm adding those Hogan Slazengers to that list.  So thank you for the discussion over them and the beautiful pic!

 

LOL PM me if you wanna go farther down the hole.  And I appreciate that you've gone as far as you did and read what I wrote with an open mind.

 

Also anytime you come play golf in Portland or Oregon in general, hit me up.  I love playing with fellow blade users.  And I'll letcha hit my BBs!

 

I recall when I bought these that I took the Equalizer to my local field and the first thing I noticed was exactly what you just said - the rough felt like it wasn't even there through the hitting zone. 

 

The Starbursts are the exact same irons as Hogan Sabers. You can see them and the predecessors in great detail here... https://www.benhoganvintage.com/shop/ben-hogan-1950-59-7c1.html

 

I definitely want a set of Tour Grinds - they've always been on my wanted list! 

 

It would take a very weird chain of events for me to be anywhere near you (I'm in the UK), but if I am I'll sure hit you up for a game. 🙂

 

P.S. I'll pass on going deeper - my head already hurts. 😉

[DeNinny]

1 minute ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I recall when I bought these that I took the Equalizer to my local field and the first thing I noticed was exactly what you just said - the rough felt like it wasn't even there through the hitting zone. 

 

The Starbursts are the exact same irons as Hogan Sabers. You can see them and the predecessors in great detail here... https://www.benhoganvintage.com/shop/ben-hogan-1950-59-7c1.html

 

I definitely want a set of Tour Grinds - they've always been on my wanted list! 

 

It would take a very weird chain of events for me to be anywhere near you (I'm in the UK), but if I am I'll sure hit you up for a game. 🙂

 

P.S. I'll pass on going deeper - my head already hurts. 😉

Yeah those Hogans in that link are beautiful.  I really like that "experimental" set.  Definitely compact!  😍

[TheDeanAbides]

38 minutes ago, DeNinny said:

Yeah those Hogans in that link are beautiful.  I really like that "experimental" set.  Definitely compact!  😍

I drool over that shop far too regularly! 😆

[DeNinny]

So a while back I posted that I was going to go to a 1i as an added experiment to my 2i experiment.  And as an update I will say that both experiments are over for now and I'm back to playing my Exotics CB2 3w and 5w.  At least for this season.

 

As to the results, I could easily go back to the 2i, my 'Katana', and not fear that she's affecting my scoring, but right now since I haven't played it in a year I'm sticking with my 5w.  I've hit great shots with both clubs and equally poor ones.  Most likely I'll break out Katana on links style courses (Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes for example) and the 5w on most others.  I really like the 2i because it has better dispersion, but I simply lose about 5yds with it to the 5w on total distance and it has a lower ball flight.

 

As to the 1i, aka 'Excalibur', alas, I lose about 10 yds to my 3w with it, and it has a ball flight way too low, and it is the harshest feedback club I've ever hit, and it has no better dispersion than my 3w.  The one good thing is that, yes, it is amplified bladey bliss feeling on a good strike.  Conclusion for now is that I'm not worthy of it.  I will practice with it for sure and possibly use it off the tee, but in the fairway or rough or on game day, no bueno. 

 

[NixLix26]

26 minutes ago, DeNinny said:

So a while back I posted that I was going to go to a 1i as an added experiment to my 2i experiment.  And as an update I will say that both experiments are over for now and I'm back to playing my Exotics CB2 3w and 5w.  At least for this season.

 

As to the results, I could easily go back to the 2i, my 'Katana', and not fear that she's affecting my scoring, but right now since I haven't played it in a year I'm sticking with my 5w.  I've hit great shots with both clubs and equally poor ones.  Most likely I'll break out Katana on links style courses (Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes for example) and the 5w on most others.  I really like the 2i because it has better dispersion, but I simply lose about 5yds with it to the 5w on total distance and it has a lower ball flight.

 

As to the 1i, aka 'Excalibur', alas, I lose about 10 yds to my 3w with it, and it has a ball flight way too low, and it is the harshest feedback club I've ever hit, and it has no better dispersion than my 3w.  The one good thing is that, yes, it is amplified bladey bliss feeling on a good strike.  Conclusion for now is that I'm not worthy of it.  I will practice with it for sure and possibly use it off the tee, but in the fairway or rough or on game day, no bueno. 

 

Wow those both look awesome. Wish they made a raw apex MB for the pub in 1&2 irons

[NixLix26]

8 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

Anyone have experience with Sub70 MB Tours yet?

 

https://www.golfsub70.com/sub-70-649-mb-tour-forged-raw-irons.html

 

Reading the specs it checks off all the boxes for what I want in a blade but interested to hear from anyone who has played them.

 

Been playing Scratch SB-1s for 10 years and looking for something with less offset and more weight in the toe. Of all the OEM's the only blades that interested me were the P7TWs because of the zero offset and toe weighting. 

 

 

Not sure if you call it camber? But the leading edge looks almost to circular to my eye. Like it rolls and doesn’t sit flat. Just my stupid humble opinion. I would most certainly like to hit one of those sticks. 

[DeNinny]

23 minutes ago, NixLix26 said:

Wow those both look awesome. Wish they made a raw apex MB for the pub in 1&2 irons

Thanks.  And yeah both of those are not standard.  Fellow WRXer and BB user @kaaayelll hooked me up with both of them.  They were opportunities that I could not pass up.  I figured since BBs are the best designed club that I've ever played, why not play more of them?  In the end their lower ball flight limits my maximum distance and I just don't have the swing speed to generate enough spin with them, which would help to elevate the ball flight.  So in the end I don't hit them as far nor as high as their wood counterparts.  As I get even older I plan on having to swap my 3i to my 7w, but not today!  

 

Raw Apex MBs...mmmmmm 🤤

Edited March 20, 2021 by DeNinny

[DeNinny]

22 minutes ago, NixLix26 said:

Not sure if you call it camber? But the leading edge looks almost to circular to my eye. Like it rolls and doesn’t sit flat. Just my stupid humble opinion. I would most certainly like to hit one of those sticks. 

It looks that way to me too and my BBs have a little of it as well.  See pic of my 6i when it was just the head.  I think it's a more common design in modern irons.  It's beneficial in that it accommodates situations where you can't lie the club perfectly flat to the ground relative to your normal, fitted, lie angle.  In theory it will help on sidehill, non-flat lies and such.  

 

I'd be interested in hitting them too just to see what that muscle design does to the feel.  

 

[rxk9fan]

6 hours ago, DeNinny said:

That first part was just further technical expansion of the previous posts of mine that you were "nodding your head to" earlier.  Unless you know the mathematics behind temporary materials deformation and the expanded physics from Newton's laws of motion - momentum, force, and kinetic energy physics, it's going to be harder to understand.  LOL I'm sorry but I have analyzed golf physics down to the molecular level, so my rabbit hole goes pretty deep.  I'll stop here on that point and leave it at "the physics of a compact blade design is superior in many ways."

 

I highly appreciate your open mindedness on the physics of bounce!  I can tell you that I too thought it was helpful based on my ignorance and assumption that "forgiving" golf club sellers, like Maltby, actually had a sound scientific basis for their "forgiving theories".  But once I really analyzed it from engineering first principles AND also from trying high bounce CBs and wedges, I realized that a lot of things touted as "forgiving" did NOT have a sound technical basis and they did NOT match my reality.  For example on the issue of bounce the supposed "theory" is that somehow magically the bounce will cause a golfer hitting a fat shot to "dig less" into the ground and thus this will "forgive" him and make the that fat shot less penal than a low bounce clubhead.  From a theoretical standpoint this is nonsense because, in short, it requires the clubhead path to reroute through the soft ground just because of a few millimeters of added curvature at the bottom of the clubhead.  This is nonsense based on the science.  The reality is what I already stated:  high bounce will literally cause you to hit the ground more as opposed to the ABSENCE of it AND it is aerodynamically inferior.

 

Also as mentioned I have tried high bounce long irons (Mizuno mpFliHi 3i and 4i) and also high bounce wedges (old Clevelands) and these were always more problematic than when I played lower bounce counterparts.  My personal reality matched my physics exactly.  So I couldn't care less about what a "forgiving" golf seller like Maltby has to say about the matter.  (Again, this is my professional opinion only and from my own personal blade using experience.)

 

So yes, absolutely I encourage you to challenge your own assumptions about the bounce between your Slazengers and your other higher bounce irons!  Hit a lot of balls and compare all your clubs!  I'll go out on a limb here and say that I doubt you'll ever find a scenario that the bounce of your Slazengers has any statistical significance to the point that they cost strokes just because of their low bounce.  And if they do, please also consider how they help you with thin shots because that is the flip side of the physics I'm mentioning.  With low bounce you actually have more room for error in getting the leading edge to go in between the ball and the turf just prior to impact, so in theory those Slazengers are forgiving when you hit a shot thin!

 

And lastly, absolutely if you hit a range mat (with concrete underneath) with those Slazengers and that sharp leading edge, it's gonna FEEL terribly unforgiving as opposed to hitting a mat the same way with a club with a more rounded sole and more rounded leading edge.  This is exactly why I said earlier that rounded edges tend to damp feel.

I have read a few post (I only stopped by because I play Srixon Z945's and was curios what a blade thread was about) and you make several references that interest me.  Could you provide a bit more background:

1. "Again, this is my professional opinion only", I am curious what profession do you reference?

2. "LOL I'm sorry but I have analyzed golf physics down to the molecular level" How were these analysis conducted, measured, and compared?  Particularly, do you have the capabilities to apply molecular dynamics to the components involved with the golf shot?

Thank you

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by rxk9fan

[DeNinny]

6 minutes ago, rxk9fan said:

I have read a few post (I only stopped by because I play Srixon Z945's and was curios what a blade thread was about) and you make several references that interest me.  Could you provide a bit more background:

1. "Again, this is my professional opinion only", I am curious what profession do you reference?

2. "LOL I'm sorry but I have analyzed golf physics down to the molecular level" How were these analysis conducted, measured, and compared?  Particularly, do you have the capabilities to apply molecular dynamics to the components involved with the golf shot?

Thank you

 

No problem and thanks for the questions.  LOL I was just stopping by too.  And for the record I think the Z945 is one of the more intriguing blade designs of late.  Given the unique muscle shape it definitely would feel unique too.  I'd love to hit them.

 

1.  I am a chemical engineer by profession of over 25 years.  I have my B.S. in chemical engineering from UC Berkeley.

 

2.  By analysis down to the molecular level, I mean in both in pure book theory, including the understanding of the mathematics that define the physics and forces involved in golf ball and clubface impact, and based on my own experience with the same metals and polymer materials that are involved in golf equipment as in my own profession.  I understand how the polymer chains in a urethane ball literally look from atom to atom and also the same goes for the atoms in stainless steel which have a specific crystalline structure.  Plus I can account for impurities.  Plus I understand their materials science properties well.  I've looked them up.  So anyway with all this I simply just know how all those atomic structures in the clubhead and ball will look in the process of impact and all the temporary compressions and elongations and deformations that will be going on at the molecular level.  It's really no different than how I have to understand the forces of impacts on stainless steel and polymer piping in chemical systems.  It's all already defined in my engineering and science books.  So as to the analysis in my head on all this, I simply go back to my books from school and validate that the mathematics behind what I'm "seeing" in my head matches the formulas and such in the books.  Plus I apply my own engineering experience with materials in golf equipment.

 

And as to practically applying all this as a molecular dynamics simulation, I would definitely not have the capability to actually program it, nor the interest, but I most certainly would be able to understand the actual math behind molecular dynamics and discuss the proven theories that define said math.  It's all going to boil down to how you apply all the math behind chemical bonds and other atomic forces in 3 dimensions and simulate the molecular forces and movements.