The 9th circle of confession.

[Pigems]

This is the PW.

[Pigems]

And 6i

[Palauan Hammer]

With my swing I've always wanted to be able to stop my swing short of parallel, I used to go way past and actually see the clubhead in my peripheral vision at the top of the swing. I stop at parallel now, I've been trying to make it stop sooner but I think I'm just gonna stop now before I get lost. Parallel is comfortable for me, short of that feels unfinished and rushed.

[Palauan Hammer]

Glad the first go around with the newer sticks went well Pigs! Good round too Bro, look forward to hearing how they work out for you once you really get them dialed in!

[DeNinny]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445888693' post='12509218']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445876410' post='12508336']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1445875916' post='12508294']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445875345' post='12508238']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1445874189' post='12508144']
This one is for DeNinny-

I was reading this interview with the Titleist folks about the new AP1s and they talk quite a bit about COG, and very little about MOI, etc. Of course they mention inertia, but it doesn't seem to be a driver of the convo for them like COG is. It seems like they viewed an improved inertia value to be a happy accident as a result of putting the COG where they wanted it. Just from a feel perspective, it seems they are talking about COG stuff about 3 or 4:1 It seems like the majority of what they are trying to discuss is regarding COG values for ball flight stuff, and and COG location based on empirical evidence from their testing.

They mention lofts, and distance, and thinner faces, etc... but it seems to me that what "forgiveness" means to Titleist is determined heavily on those factors that impact COG. If that is the case, it reads like the ability for the average golfer to hit it higher without losing distance is what they are trying to achieve. Again, I am a dufus comparatively about the physics and stuff, but I thought this might give you some discussion points to interpret this for the rest of us self-proclaimed knuckleheads.

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/331088/titleist-answers-questions-about-the-716-ap1-irons/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...-716-ap1-irons/[/url]
[/quote]
This is a good topic and one I have struggled to understand technically how CG location changes the trajectory. The advertisements certainly are NOT clear. I have my theories all laid out and I will get to the details later. What I would like to understand is how you or anybody envision what is happening? The manufacturers are claiming a lowered CG launches the ball higher. While not untrue, how do you "see" this?
[/quote]

I don't know how to see it, actually. That's why I ask. I don't understand how anything outside of the loft presented to the ball at the strike would affect trajectory when I try to think about it conceptually. From my experience though, unless I am off and just think I know what happens when I acutally hit clubs like versus, say my Mizuno TN-91s, is that I can hit them higher, easier. And, again, I could be wrong.

At a previous job, I needed to figure out where to allocate some resources. I built this elaborate predictive model with fancy math in hopes that the folks that needed to buy into it would glaze over the technical stuff, ask me to give them the gist of it, and then buy in based on my pitch. It sort of worked for me, and it kind of feels like what is happening in this article. Lol.
[/quote]
I completely understand and what you just stated about loft angle presented at the ball is how I see it with maybe some elements of spin thrown in. So to me CG must either impact the loft angle and/or the spin in order to change the trajectory. By itself it does nothing, in theory.

This was a good alignment so we start on the same page.
[/quote]
I just read the farticle. LOL this is just to summarize about what they did with the AP1. Again I will do a deeper dive into it later. They brought back the flexing CB face by moving the mass lower. Now the flexing face launches the ball higher because the ball contact at the lower part of the face where it will always flex in the upward or weaker loft position during impact. So now in order to get the distance back, because now the ball goes too high, they JACK THE LOFT STRONGER!

Look at the AP1 3i specs. It is 19* as compared to the AP2, CB, and MB at 21*. LOL of course you need it to launch higher. It's 19*!!! So here's the "logic": lower the CG to launch a stronger lofted 3i higher. Ummmm...they might not have needed to do that if the "forgiving" club didn't need to be so strong lofted. LOL but now they get to advertise the "breakthrough" technology of "progressive lower CG placement".

Three card Monte at its finest. Dante needs to create a tenth circle for these club "designers".

More on this later.
[/quote]

Ok Nine/All, here are the details of what is going on with CG placement and launch angle. As mentioned it is NOT a direct correlation, and this is the HALF-TRUTH "physics" that the industry has a tendency to promote.

Let's start with moving the CG but assume that there's no change to the face flex or the bend of the shaft or clubface. So now you have this lofted inflexible face going into the ball. The ball will compress against this face with more compression at the lower half of the ball. And as such the ball will launch from the face with spin and at an angle normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the lofted face angle. Now, does CG matter in this evaluation? No. You could put the CG high on the face or low on the face and it wouldn't matter. The ball still rebounds and compresses off the same inflexible face the same way no matter what happened to the CG.

So this is why I have issue with the marketing and farticles like you shared. CG location, by itself, has NOTHING to do with launch angle. Yet from that article you left it thinking and wondering how the heck CG changes the launch angle because it was emphasized as such. This is a marketing HALF-TRUTH I keep harping on.

So now let's look at how CG can affect launch angle by looking at its effect on twisting the face and/or the shaft. In this scenario, let's still assume the face doesn't flex and just assume that now both it and the shaft can bend and twist. So now what happens when the CG of the face is lower than that of the ball? The face itself will be under a torque force. The CG of the face will tend to push the lower part of the clubface more forward, BUT...the CG of the ball will be pushing on the face higher than the clubhead CG in the exact opposite direction, so this will put a twist on the clubface in the upward direction. The end result is MORE loft.

Now let's expand on this and add face flex. As mentioned in Confessions #8 and other Confessions threads, the flexing face has the most flex near center of the face, where the face wall is the thinnest. And since ball contact is ALWAYS below this point, a ball hit with a flexing face will ALWAYS launch the ball [i]higher [/i]than a club with less face flex (but with the same loft angle). By analogy, when you bounce on a trampoline, you bounce straight up when you jump up and down at the middle. But when you start bouncing up and down near the edges, the trampoline bounces you towards the middle again. This same phenomenon is happening at the clubface and ball interface. And again, CG placement is irrelevant to this. So regardless of the CG placement, a flexing face club will launch the ball higher than an inflexible face club because of this dynamic change in the loft from ball contact at the lower part of the flexing face.

So now combine the two phenomena above. A low CG will torque the face and add loft with or without the face flexing, BUT...combined with face flexing it will ADD even [i]more[/i] loft.

This is why it was key that you showed me your 3i with that gap between the feng shui "muscle" and the clubface. When I had assumed (my bad) that you had a true muscled CB, I was perplexed that you stated you launched it so high compared to a blade. Without that face flex, there won't be nearly as much dynamic loft added as with a lot of face flex. So absolutely your 3i should have a significantly higher launch than a blade 3i of equivalent fixed loft.

So now you have to ask yourselves why focus on the CG in that farticle and also in all the advertising? It takes away the focus on that flexing face and also the fact that the lofts got jacked. This is the marketing HALF-TRUTH "physics" they don't want you focusing on. They want you walking away with a simple thought: lowered CG = higher launch = "forgiveness". But the reality is that they tried to create as much of a flexing face as possible, and in order to do this they had to put a lot of weight down at the bottom of the club so the wall thickness was as thin as structurally possible. When they did this the ball launched higher than they wanted and distance was lost, so then they needed to JACK THE LOFT to get the ball flight back down and regain that lost distance. In effect, there's NO CHANGE in the overall ball loft.

Instead what you get marketed is that they lowered the CG to launch the ball higher. LMAO. SHAM!!!

And ultimately behind all of this is an obsession by the industry to increase the total clubhead horizontal MOI so they can sell this as "forgiveness". But also that is a SHAM. A higher MOI clubhead is HARDER to keep square through impact. Higher MOI means the hands have to work HARDER to keep the clubhead square.

And yes I have ignored spin changes up to this point which I can get into if we want to. Also this is a good stopping point if you or others have any questions or rebuttals.

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445908215' post='12510850']
Ok Nine/All, here are the details of what is going on with CG placement and launch angle. As mentioned it is NOT a direct correlation, and this is the HALF-TRUTH "physics" that the industry has a tendency to promote.

Let's start with moving the CG but assume that there's no change to the face flex or the bend of the shaft or clubface. So now you have this lofted inflexible face going into the ball. The ball will compress against this face with more compression at the lower half of the ball. And as such the ball will launch from the face with spin and at an angle normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the lofted face angle. Now, does CG matter in this evaluation? No. You could put the CG high on the face or low on the face and it wouldn't matter. The ball still rebounds and compresses off the same inflexible face the same way no matter what happened to the CG.

So this is why I have issue with the marketing and farticles like you shared. CG location, by itself, has NOTHING to do with launch angle. Yet from that article you left it thinking and wondering how the heck CG changes the launch angle because it was emphasized as such. This is a marketing HALF-TRUTH I keep harping on.

So now let's look at how CG can affect launch angle by looking at its effect on twisting the face and/or the shaft. In this scenario, let's still assume the face doesn't flex and just assume that now both it and the shaft can bend and twist. So now what happens when the CG of the face is lower than that of the ball? The face itself will be under a torque force. The CG of the face will tend to push the lower part of the clubface more forward, BUT...the CG of the ball will be pushing on the face higher than the clubhead CG in the exact opposite direction, so this will put a twist on the clubface in the upward direction. The end result is MORE loft.

Now let's expand on this and add face flex. As mentioned in Confessions #8 and other Confessions threads, the flexing face has the most flex near center of the face, where the face wall is the thinnest. And since ball contact is ALWAYS below this point, a ball hit with a flexing face will ALWAYS launch the ball [i]higher [/i]than a club with less face flex (but with the same loft angle). By analogy, when you bounce on a trampoline, you bounce straight up when you jump up and down at the middle. But when you start bouncing up and down near the edges, the trampoline bounces you towards the middle again. This same phenomenon is happening at the clubface and ball interface. And again, CG placement is irrelevant to this. So regardless of the CG placement, a flexing face club will launch the ball higher than an inflexible face club because of this dynamic change in the loft from ball contact at the lower part of the flexing face.

So now combine the two phenomena above. A low CG will torque the face and add loft with or without the face flexing, BUT...combined with face flexing it will ADD even [i]more[/i] loft.

This is why it was key that you showed me your 3i with that gap between the feng shui "muscle" and the clubface. When I had assumed (my bad) that you had a true muscled CB, I was perplexed that you stated you launched it so high compared to a blade. Without that face flex, there won't be nearly as much dynamic loft added as with a lot of face flex. So absolutely your 3i should have a significantly higher launch than a blade 3i of equivalent fixed loft.

So now you have to ask yourselves why focus on the CG in that farticle and also in all the advertising? It takes away the focus on that flexing face and also the fact that the lofts got jacked. This is the marketing HALF-TRUTH "physics" they don't want you focusing on. They want you walking away with a simple thought: lowered CG = higher launch = "forgiveness". But the reality is that they tried to create as much of a flexing face as possible, and in order to do this they had to put a lot of weight down at the bottom of the club so the wall thickness was as thin as structurally possible. When they did this the ball launched higher than they wanted and distance was lost, so then they needed to JACK THE LOFT to get the ball flight back down and regain that lost distance. In effect, there's NO CHANGE in the overall ball loft.

Instead what you get marketed is that they lowered the CG to launch the ball higher. LMAO. SHAM!!!

And ultimately behind all of this is an obsession by the industry to increase the total clubhead horizontal MOI so they can sell this as "forgiveness". But also that is a SHAM. A higher MOI clubhead is HARDER to keep square through impact. Higher MOI means the hands have to work HARDER to keep the clubhead square.

And yes I have ignored spin changes up to this point which I can get into if we want to. Also this is a good stopping point if you or others have any questions or rebuttals.
[/quote]

Thank you for the breakdown. That is essentially what my little mind wandered to wonder about. I was sitting there thinking there is no way what they are talking about makes any difference independent of the other factors.

I'm glad you were able to eloquently explain the whole deal on a deeper level than I could formulate in my own head.

Also, the added benefit is that I was pretty much right, and you all know how much I love it when that happens. :P

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445906984' post='12510714']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445905613' post='12510610']
[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445901721' post='12510272']
I know. I'm not usually a sucker for BS marketing and half truths.

If I may ask you, Sir Deninja, have you ever hit a shovel? Not a CB, but a big ol Callaway, Ping or TBag GI?

If not, you should. I'm not sure if you could hit one with an open mind but it would be an interesting experiment. I would enjoy your feedback. I've paid attention to your explanations of the physics. In fact, I've learned a lot and enjoyed and appreciated your posts. It will be part of the consideration when getting a new set of irons.
[/quote]

I have hit everything (not every single club, but rather the gamut of SGI shovel to blade) with an open mind. In fact after my initial MP67 purchase, I went to MP60s for "forgiveness" and didn't find it, and then I purchased a 3i and 4i MP-FliHi hybrid iron. These were about as forgiving an iron as offered by mizuno. And all my Mizuno irons had the same Rifle 5.0 shaft and they were all the same loft and lie angle (I had the MP67s bent stronger 1* to match all lofts). Here are the 3i's of every iron type that I have hit extensively. From left to right, there is the MP-FliHi, MP-60, MP-67, and baby blade.

....

With every single one of these clubs (and the 4is) I have hit every shot possible and hundreds upon hundreds of balls. I have confirmed every bit of my science in doing this. I have also hit Big Bertha SGIs (loaned to me for a couple of rounds while I was in AZ) and also rental Callaway SGIs and old PINGs with the "eye". I ended up shooting around my handicap or scoring average when I did so with all of these SGI/CB sets. The bottom line (from the open minded complete science perspective) is that SGIs have severe drawbacks that far outweigh their supposed benefit. And they do NOT help improve scores. I'm not going to go into detail again on them (unless you want me to). The real point I'm making is that I have gone down the "forgiveness" SHAM journey myself. I SOUGHT it and WANTED it. It doesn't exist. Or rather it does, but there are a bunch of drawbacks that are NEVER mentioned by the marketing.

Just look at my MP-FliHi 3i pic. That wide sole is NOT helping anything. It increases my chance of hitting the ground first with it, compared to my thinner soled irons, and the big cavity increases my shot dispersion and makes it much harder to work the ball. So basically what I get from using an SGI shovel is a higher chance of a fat shot, less workability, worse dispersion, and a dead straight shot. This is definitely NOT WORTH bagging.
[/quote]

I got one word for ya!!

COOL!

Hear ye! Hear ye! DeBunker has done extensive field testing and concludes that: People can play what they want. Ninja is a blade man!!

And that 3 flihi is YOUGE!! YOUGE I tell ya!
[/quote]

Not that I disagree, but your conclusion is yours alone and has nothing to do with my field testing and what I stated. I'm saying (in this post exchange) that an SGI shovel is not good to play from a technical standpoint when you compare it to vanilla CBs and blades. Nobody should be playing SGI shovels if they are basing their decision on the complete science.

Sorry, MC, but I want to be clear on what you are interpreting what I'm saying and what you stated is NOT it.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.

[Reasonability]

Ninja -

You've put out some beauties. I have say that was one of your finest hours. Well played.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.

[Nine Miler]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

D, respectfully, isn't the chance of a fat shot the same, As there can only be one area of contact regardless of how wide the sole is? I'm familiar with your drawing, I just don't see that as a real world, in practice, drawback. If you are finding the bottom of the swing, there should be no increase in the margin of error. That's how I see it anyway.

[Michael C.]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909567' post='12510984']
[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445906984' post='12510714']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445905613' post='12510610']
[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445901721' post='12510272']
I know. I'm not usually a sucker for BS marketing and half truths.

If I may ask you, Sir Deninja, have you ever hit a shovel? Not a CB, but a big ol Callaway, Ping or TBag GI?

If not, you should. I'm not sure if you could hit one with an open mind but it would be an interesting experiment. I would enjoy your feedback. I've paid attention to your explanations of the physics. In fact, I've learned a lot and enjoyed and appreciated your posts. It will be part of the consideration when getting a new set of irons.
[/quote]

I have hit everything (not every single club, but rather the gamut of SGI shovel to blade) with an open mind. In fact after my initial MP67 purchase, I went to MP60s for "forgiveness" and didn't find it, and then I purchased a 3i and 4i MP-FliHi hybrid iron. These were about as forgiving an iron as offered by mizuno. And all my Mizuno irons had the same Rifle 5.0 shaft and they were all the same loft and lie angle (I had the MP67s bent stronger 1* to match all lofts). Here are the 3i's of every iron type that I have hit extensively. From left to right, there is the MP-FliHi, MP-60, MP-67, and baby blade.

....

With every single one of these clubs (and the 4is) I have hit every shot possible and hundreds upon hundreds of balls. I have confirmed every bit of my science in doing this. I have also hit Big Bertha SGIs (loaned to me for a couple of rounds while I was in AZ) and also rental Callaway SGIs and old PINGs with the "eye". I ended up shooting around my handicap or scoring average when I did so with all of these SGI/CB sets. The bottom line (from the open minded complete science perspective) is that SGIs have severe drawbacks that far outweigh their supposed benefit. And they do NOT help improve scores. I'm not going to go into detail again on them (unless you want me to). The real point I'm making is that I have gone down the "forgiveness" SHAM journey myself. I SOUGHT it and WANTED it. It doesn't exist. Or rather it does, but there are a bunch of drawbacks that are NEVER mentioned by the marketing.

Just look at my MP-FliHi 3i pic. That wide sole is NOT helping anything. It increases my chance of hitting the ground first with it, compared to my thinner soled irons, and the big cavity increases my shot dispersion and makes it much harder to work the ball. So basically what I get from using an SGI shovel is a higher chance of a fat shot, less workability, worse dispersion, and a dead straight shot. This is definitely NOT WORTH bagging.
[/quote]

I got one word for ya!!

COOL!

Hear ye! Hear ye! DeBunker has done extensive field testing and concludes that: People can play what they want. Ninja is a blade man!!

And that 3 flihi is YOUGE!! YOUGE I tell ya!
[/quote]

Not that I disagree, but your conclusion is yours alone and has nothing to do with my field testing and what I stated. I'm saying (in this post exchange) that an SGI shovel is not good to play from a technical standpoint when you compare it to vanilla CBs and blades. Nobody should be playing SGI shovels if they are basing their decision on the complete science.

Sorry, MC, but I want to be clear on what you are interpreting what I'm saying and what you stated is NOT it.
[/quote]

No apologies needed, Sir Ninja. Could we call it a......Half-truth?
Just bein' funny, bro!

[Reasonability]

Talking irons here - not fairway metals, drivers, or even hybrids.

Impact happens with the little ball first - ideally. Got no numbers to back this up but would hazard a guess that 9 of 10 golfers seeking forgiveness are too steep in the AoA...AND they release early...

They need the wider sole with that much energy literally "hitting down on it".... a phrase that unfortunately ruins many golfers. (works for a select few).

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1445910635' post='12511052']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

D, respectfully, isn't the chance of a fat shot the same, As there can only be one area of contact regardless of how wide the sole is? I'm familiar with your drawing, I just don't see that as a real world, in practice, drawback. If you are finding the bottom of the swing, there should be no increase in the margin of error. That's how I see it anyway.
[/quote]

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:2956706]

I know you are already familiar with this but imagine both clubs having the same error. In this example just assume they have the same vertical error. Meaning, both clubs can be lifted higher the same distance and they can drop lower the same distance, effectively defining their "range of error".

Club A is still better. There will be a point where the rounded leading edge of B will contact the ball instead of the flat leading edge of A, which will result in a skulled shot. Also at the low end there will be a point where club B hits the ground first.

By analogy, club A is like a women's basketball and club B is the men's basketball, and the corner formed by the ball and ground is the same sized basket. Given the same error, the women's basketball has a higher chance of going through the hoop and this is no different than club A having a higher chance of properly wedging itself into that corner.

You said it perfectly: "If you are [i]finding the bottom of the swing[/i], there should be no increase in the margin of error". The whole point is that a golfer is not consistently finding the bottom of the swing. It is variable just like all of his other error is. It is NEVER the same; therefore a wider soled and more rounded bottom and leading edge club will have a HIGHER chance of a mishit.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.

[PeanutsDaddy]

Pigs,

Happy you were able to take the PM's for a spin. They are certainly beauties.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Reasonability' timestamp='1445910969' post='12511088']
Talking irons here - not fairway metals, drivers, or even hybrids.

Impact happens with the little ball first - ideally. Got no numbers to back this up but would hazard a guess that 9 of 10 golfers seeking forgiveness are too steep in the AoA...AND they release early...

They need the wider sole with that much energy literally "hitting down on it".... a phrase that unfortunately ruins many golfers. (works for a select few).
[/quote]

And they would still have a higher chance of a cleaner hit if they DIDN'T use a wider sole. It's like saying you need a dull axe to chop a tree down. In all cases a duller axe makes it HARDER.

[PeanutsDaddy]

Goodnight all. Have fun.

[Michael C.]

Now, all this talk had me thinking....AGAIN!

When I played the pro combos, I hit good partial wedge shots. Since switching to the GIs 5 years ago I'm much more prone to hit my blade style wedges heavy. I'm also, not fond of playing when it's sloppy out because when i misshit the ball it tends to be heavy with my irons.

It could be possible my iron strikes have become sloppy because of the "skid" factor when it's dry. I prefer playing when the fairways are harder. When I had the other clubs I used to never practice off mats for this reason.

Crap!! More things to think about.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911246' post='12511116']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1445910635' post='12511052']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

D, respectfully, isn't the chance of a fat shot the same, As there can only be one area of contact regardless of how wide the sole is? I'm familiar with your drawing, I just don't see that as a real world, in practice, drawback. If you are finding the bottom of the swing, there should be no increase in the margin of error. That's how I see it anyway.
[/quote]



I know you are already familiar with this but imagine both clubs having the same error. In this example just assume they have the same vertical error. Meaning, both clubs can be lifted higher the same distance and they can drop lower the same distance, effectively defining their "range of error".

Club A is still better. There will be a point where the rounded leading edge of B will contact the ball instead of the flat leading edge of A, which will result in a skulled shot. Also at the low end there will be a point where club B hits the ground first.

By analogy, club A is like a women's basketball and club B is the men's basketball, and the corner formed by the ball and ground is the same sized basket. Given the same error, the women's basketball has a higher chance of going through the hoop and this is no different than club A having a higher chance of properly wedging itself into that corner.

You said it perfectly: "If you are [i]finding the bottom of the swing[/i], there should be no increase in the margin of error". The whole point is that a golfer is not consistently finding the bottom of the swing. It is variable just like all of his other error is. It is NEVER the same; therefore a wider soled and more rounded bottom and leading edge club will have a HIGHER chance of a mishit.
[/quote]

That pic could be a little exaggerated as far as the leading edges on both
those irons but even so A could dig a hole behind the ball and B glide into
the ball. A could be SOBcutosis and B a serviceable shot.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

Well in all my hitting of balls between my MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67, unequivocally the MP67 is best on a thin shot. MP-FliHi was absolutely the worst and MP-60 was in between but much better than the MP-FliHi. There is no benefit to the thin shot with an SGI and you need to compare it with extensive testing. If you go into the blade thread you will find countless posts about hitting it thin with a blade. It is much more forgiving result with a blade (and this is not just my experience).

You're gonna need to play your S58s as long as your G series Pings and really compare the two with fat and thin shots. Then get back to me. I'll go on record now and state your thinner soled S58s will be better in the long run.

[Michael C.]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

I've hit shots that I thought were thin that flew well.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='PeanutsDaddy' timestamp='1445911575' post='12511150']
Goodnight all. Have fun.
[/quote]

Nighty Night PD. I just remembered your blades vs CB pic you posted, lol.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911754' post='12511166']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911246' post='12511116']
[quote name='Nine Miler' timestamp='1445910635' post='12511052']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

D, respectfully, isn't the chance of a fat shot the same, As there can only be one area of contact regardless of how wide the sole is? I'm familiar with your drawing, I just don't see that as a real world, in practice, drawback. If you are finding the bottom of the swing, there should be no increase in the margin of error. That's how I see it anyway.
[/quote]



I know you are already familiar with this but imagine both clubs having the same error. In this example just assume they have the same vertical error. Meaning, both clubs can be lifted higher the same distance and they can drop lower the same distance, effectively defining their "range of error".

Club A is still better. There will be a point where the rounded leading edge of B will contact the ball instead of the flat leading edge of A, which will result in a skulled shot. Also at the low end there will be a point where club B hits the ground first.

By analogy, club A is like a women's basketball and club B is the men's basketball, and the corner formed by the ball and ground is the same sized basket. Given the same error, the women's basketball has a higher chance of going through the hoop and this is no different than club A having a higher chance of properly wedging itself into that corner.

You said it perfectly: "If you are [i]finding the bottom of the swing[/i], there should be no increase in the margin of error". The whole point is that a golfer is not consistently finding the bottom of the swing. It is variable just like all of his other error is. It is NEVER the same; therefore a wider soled and more rounded bottom and leading edge club will have a HIGHER chance of a mishit.
[/quote]

That pic could be a little exaggerated as far as the leading edges on both
those irons but even so A could dig a hole behind the ball and B glide into
the ball. A could be SOBcutosis and B a serviceable shot.
[/quote]

I was as accurate as possible on the height of things. The point is to contrast between the two and also I intentionally made the sole of B a little bigger. It's not just about the leading edge it is about the TOTAL SURFACE AREA exposed to the corner. The more surface area, the harder it is to wedge in that corner.

Also I've already stated the rounded edge will help with a fat shot but again the same rounded edge will have an equally detrimental effect on the thin shot. B is slightly better for fat shots and A is slightly better for thin shots. End result is B is NOT any better than A.

And really there is a lot of speculation on the hole digging of A. Your same argument about the leading edges not being that different means that A will not dig any different. You can't have the argument both ways. Regardless, you assume A will dig so much worse than B. But in reality, B will slow down because it cannot dig as easily with that rounded edge and this actually SLOWs the clubhead down.

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445911793' post='12511174']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

I've hit shots that I thought were thin that flew well.
[/quote]

Get a blade and hit a 100 balls with each and then get back to me which one has the better thin miss that flies well.

I never said an SGI/CB ruins all thin shots. It is just worse compared to that of a club with a thinner sole and sharper leading edge.

You can take this to the bank.

[Michael C.]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911767' post='12511168']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

Well in all my hitting of balls between my MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67, unequivocally the MP67 is best on a thin shot. MP-FliHi was absolutely the worst and MP-60 was in between but much better than the MP-FliHi. There is no benefit to the thin shot with an SGI and you need to compare it with extensive testing. If you go into the blade thread you will find countless posts about hitting it thin with a blade. It is much more forgiving result with a blade (and this is not just my experience).

You're gonna need to play your S58s as long as your G series Pings and really compare the two with fat and thin shots. Then get back to me. I'll go on record now and state your thinner soled S58s will be better in the long run.
[/quote]

Would that be because the thinner sole will let the leading hit lower on the ball given the sole contacts the ground?

[DeNinny]

[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1445912339' post='12511222']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911767' post='12511168']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

Well in all my hitting of balls between my MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67, unequivocally the MP67 is best on a thin shot. MP-FliHi was absolutely the worst and MP-60 was in between but much better than the MP-FliHi. There is no benefit to the thin shot with an SGI and you need to compare it with extensive testing. If you go into the blade thread you will find countless posts about hitting it thin with a blade. It is much more forgiving result with a blade (and this is not just my experience).

You're gonna need to play your S58s as long as your G series Pings and really compare the two with fat and thin shots. Then get back to me. I'll go on record now and state your thinner soled S58s will be better in the long run.
[/quote]

Would that be because the thinner sole will let the leading hit lower on the ball given the sole contacts the ground?
[/quote]

It means the thinner sole has less of a chance of hitting the ground before the ball. Period. You can have the same exact leading edge in this scenario. Thinner sole = lower likelihood, all other things equal, of hitting the ground first.

And if we assume the S58 has a sharper leading edge, it will also have a better chance of fitting into that corner even when the soles are the same width. Sharper leading edge = higher chance, all other things equal, of clean ball contact.

[Reasonability]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911464' post='12511142']
[quote name='Reasonability' timestamp='1445910969' post='12511088']
Talking irons here - not fairway metals, drivers, or even hybrids.

Impact happens with the little ball first - ideally. Got no numbers to back this up but would hazard a guess that 9 of 10 golfers seeking forgiveness are too steep in the AoA...AND they release early...

They need the wider sole with that much energy literally "hitting down on it".... a phrase that unfortunately ruins many golfers. (works for a select few).
[/quote]

And they would still have a higher chance of a cleaner hit if they DIDN'T use a wider sole. It's like saying you need a dull axe to chop a tree down. In all cases a duller axe makes it HARDER.
[/quote]

I don't disagree.

All I'm getting at (perhaps poorly) is that a digger who releases early mostly likely hates the shockwave (feel) of a flatter leading edge and thinner sole as his clubhead crashes with mother earth. He/she may even have sore wrists/elbows trying to put that move on thin soled clubs. In this case its not about resistance with the grass - we are talking the outright smash into the dirt below the grass.

Putting ourselves in the steep and early releaser's shoes for a moment.... the center of the face makes contact not by any sort of shaft lean...it happens by digging deep and steep. Without a wide sole that one is going to hurt the old bones. The ball flight issues and distance control issues aside...there is some kinda pain when you plow deep and there's not much bounce to absorb that brand of shock.

[DeNinny]

We get better DESPITE playing SGI clubs, not BECAUSE of it.

Time for dinner.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445911767' post='12511168']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445911274' post='12511122']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445909995' post='12511014']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1445909571' post='12510986']
[quote name='DeNinny' timestamp='1445900540' post='12510164']
Wider sole = MORE resistance from the grass.

Rounded leading edge = MORE resistance from the grass.
[/quote]

The Ping G25 and G30 have trailing edge relief so the sole that comes
into play is not as wide as it once was on the G series. I'd guess about
30% of the sole is out of play because of that relief. Ping actually was
responding to people who wanted the soles to not be so wide, lol.

The rounded leading edge is basically insurance against fat shot
SOBcutosis. If you hit one of these irons you will see that you can hit an
inch or 2 behind the ball and the iron will not dig or bounce but will
glide into the back of the ball and give you a pretty decent result on a
pretty big mistake.

I have a friend who plays the Callaway Big Bertha irons and I see and
hear him hitting the grass before the ball and he gets away with it. It's
almost like cheating when you see his ball land on the green.

You will often hear blade players say they switched to an SGI iron and
then came back cause they felt their ball striking was getting sloppy
cause the irons were masking their mistakes. They preferred to play an
iron that didn't cover up their mistakes and made them be a better
ball striker.

Nothing wrong with that. Each to their own. Having played many styles
of irons and seen others play I would be reluctant to tell someone they are
playing an iron that is detrimental to their game. There are trade offs in
play and then there visual preferences and then there is confidence.It
all adds up to something for each person.

The very notion that an SGI iron can "mask" mistakes goes against the
idea of that being a detriment. A detriment to better ball striking, possibly, but
to score? That gets into the reason people play. And for some the score
is all that matters and they don't care that their ball striking wasn't something
to write home about.

I see this ALL the time where I play and I've gotten beat by guys with fugly
swings and sloppy ball striking. They're just getting the ball in the hole with
less strokes and they've grooved their game around their clubs, whatever
they happen to be.

I'm not disputing any science and I'm pretty observant when I play with
people. I know good ball striking when I see it and I see guys with these
irons shooting 70s and 80s and they couldn't break 90 if you gave them
blades and 3 months to practice with them, lol.
[/quote]

As much insurance you get from the fat shot you get a worse insurance on the THIN shot. And the wider sole is still a higher chance of hitting a fat shot. You don't know if that same exact "skid" with a blade is worse. You can only assume that. So you get this supposed "skid" ability but you already increased the chances of hitting it fat! There's no benefit in the end. You don't need the "skid" benefit when you have a thin soled iron!

Also there's a lot of assumptions in your point about what clubs help what golfers with score. If they already have it in their mind that a club isn't going to help them, then by golly it won't.
[/quote]

Actually the thin shot launches pretty normally. I've hit 'em, lol. Fat and thin
"COVER UPS" are bennies of SGIs. Side to side not so much. The sweet spot
ain't THAT big. All I can say is I've hit both fat and thin shots with Ping G series
irons and got nearly the shot I wanted (results wise).

Now, I'm not the kind of guy that is happy about that. I know when I mishit
an iron and even if the result is OK I am not pleased with myself, lol. Its like
when you drop kick a driver and knock it 250 down the middle. We've all done
it and knew we blew it and got away with it.
[/quote]

Well in all my hitting of balls between my MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67, unequivocally the MP67 is best on a thin shot. MP-FliHi was absolutely the worst and MP-60 was in between but much better than the MP-FliHi. There is no benefit to the thin shot with an SGI and you need to compare it with extensive testing. If you go into the blade thread you will find countless posts about hitting it thin with a blade. It is much more forgiving result with a blade (and this is not just my experience).

You're gonna need to play your S58s as long as your G series Pings and really compare the two with fat and thin shots. Then get back to me. I'll go on record now and state your thinner soled S58s will be better in the long run.
[/quote]

I've played them both but not at the same time so just going on memory. The
worst Ping irons I've ever hit for thin penalty is the i20s. They hit line drive
screamers that literally hurt your hands, lol, and have you thru the green unless
you get lucky and bury the ball in greenside bunker.

The Gs, you almost have to blade them to get a thin result. Hitting on the bottom
grooves will still get a high launch and a decent shot.

The S58s will give me a low shot when thinned but not the painful screamer I get
with the i20s. I find the i20s LESS forgiving than the S58s actually, when mishit.

The S58s are a pretty high launching iron actually. Anyway, the thinned S58 will
usually give me a lower shot but with more spin than the i20, so I just yell at the
ball to BITE and hope for the best.

Those Fli-his were 3 and 4 irons, much lower loft. would think that is much different
than a thinned G25 8 iron. Thin shots with long irons are a whole different animal
I would think. If I thin a 4 iron likely I would hit a worm burner lol. (yes I've done it)