Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[DeNinny]

... in the realm of proving things to statistical validity, you need more than 5 "data points" to make a conclusion. I can tell you that if a scientist is going to prove something outright, he will generate up to 30 data points under the exact same conditions to prove the exact same result in order to make a conclusion.

 

I have more to say, but it's late. I almost noted my N=5, but did not... actually, N should depend on the variance and is likely to be much higher than 30 - there are too many variables to get replicate samples.

At this point, my experience is merely anecdotal, but I was still surprised to see the difference in play - significant or not. As we say in fisheries, it has to pass the "smell test" first, LOL.

 

30 is just a rule of thumb (from my job) and absolutely variance needs to be considered. LOL the only way to truly make a 100% statistically valid conclusion is to collect an infinite number of data points.

 

Those mp62s are really nice irons. You CAN game them...fine!

[scotee]

Yeah, we both qualify but I wasn't a fan of talking with drunken nerds proving how smart they were by one-upping each other. Plus, they met while I was at work ... which tells you most Mensa people apparently have no job. :)

 

Umm... she dresses as a couple different doctors and as Missy (if you watch the show). Keeps trying to get me to be 8th doctor given my hairline or maybe the Master.

 

Biofilm is fun stuff... and if it is on the front of the RO's it tells me you might be lacking a pre-treatment process. Any though to UV treatment or is that post-RO system? It's been a while since I was in a water plant (more for BSWFI, aka bacteriostatic water for injection) but I remember water softening first, a UV system, then RO, and I forget the final 2 steps but one I think was a micron filter (0.22µm probably) and the other was a secondary pH adjustment.

 

Might hit a couple balls tomorrow ... provided the weather isn't 90+ again and my kiddo stops coughing so much.

 

I never got into Dr. Who but I had a girlfriend in high school that watched the show religiously so I watched it on occasion.

 

Yes the water system I have now is an older design - bisulfite pretreatment to remove chlorine from city water. It is a double whammy in terms of bugs because the chlorine is removed and the bisulfite itself is a food source for them. The better design is activated carbon beds and also yes if needed you can add UV and softeners. I have considered UV but it really isn't that much of an operational issue so I can't justify the cost of it.

 

And yeah biofilms are bugs with "hive minds" and are very hard to kill completely. I do know that the ones I'm dealing with are the iron oxidizing type, so UV should work on them.

 

BTW in some ultrapure water systems the final stage is 'ultra'-filtration where the filters are rated by molecular weight removal rather than microns. When you are trying to rinse a computer chip with water and the chip has logic gates the size of nanometers, there better not be particles in that water the size of microns!

 

I just got back from playing a 5 hour round at Rose City GC in 85 degree weather. Shot a "wonderful" 89. I could not find a swing rhythm all day since it was 'hit and wait' on every hole. I sprayed it off the tee and could not putt well at all. The only high point was a nice 3i cut 175yds into the wind and over water on a par 3 to within 10 feet. Made the birdie putt too.

 

There was a two day tournament at Rose. Were you stuck behind that? My son in law won it with a nice 69/70 :) Got a txt from my daughter late last night when we got back from a camping trip. We were off the grid for three days which was fantastic but now I must read a bunch of pages and catch up. Umm catsup!

 

Yeah there was a tournament and I forgot to consider that on why it took so long. And now it explains why it was playing pretty hard. (<-LOL excuse for shooting 89.)

 

Nice regarding your son in law and that is some damn fine shooting!

 

He grew up in Portlandia and played a lot of Jr. golf at Rose City. I have played it with him 5 or 6 times and every time it seems everyone there knows him.

A very fun and good guy too. He is a member at Persimmon where the kids got married 10 or 11 years ago. You will tear it up next time :)

[CrabDaddy]

... in the realm of proving things to statistical validity, you need more than 5 "data points" to make a conclusion. I can tell you that if a scientist is going to prove something outright, he will generate up to 30 data points under the exact same conditions to prove the exact same result in order to make a conclusion.

 

I have more to say, but it's late. I almost noted my N=5, but did not... actually, N should depend on the variance and is likely to be much higher than 30 - there are too many variables to get replicate samples.

At this point, my experience is merely anecdotal, but I was still surprised to see the difference in play - significant or not. As we say in fisheries, it has to pass the "smell test" first, LOL.

 

30 is just a rule of thumb (from my job) and absolutely variance needs to be considered. LOL the only way to truly make a 100% statistically valid conclusion is to collect an infinite number of data points.

 

Those mp62s are really nice irons. You CAN game them...fine!

As a worthless aside, an infinite, or, more realistically, too large of a sample creates it's own problems, where the true variance of the sampled population gets lost, allowing for a false conclusion. This year wigeons had a mean height of 264 mm, last year they were 263 mm tall - if this was a statistically significant finding (alpha=0.05), N was too high.

 

Anyway... I played my G20s for two or three years, and picked up the MP62s last year to see what the fuss was about regarding forged Mizunos. What I experienced was such: My surprise on the upside was that I could hit the MP62s reasonably well. I committed to them (except for a one week stint with a set of Hogans) and played pretty good golf - always felt good to card a sub-80 score with them. My surprise on the downside was that the "buttery soft" forgings didn't really feel much different than my cast shovels. A ball hit with the sweet spot gave the same pleasant sensation. The ball was much more of a determinant of feel than was clubhead material - Wilson Duo, Precept Lady IQ+ were like hitting marshmallows with both clubs; Callaway Warbird, or similar, not so much.

 

I've read quite a bit of what has been written regarding the wonderfullness of blades, particularly regarding consistency of launch conditions (launch angle, spin, etc...), and I have no doubt it's all true .... when you hit the ball with the center of the clubface. BUT, when I get too far from the sweet spot, which as a mid cap I am prone to do, there was a significant loss of distance with the MP62s relative to the G20s. Descriptive "significant" :victory: , in this case meaning 10+ yds. Shots with a poor face to path orientation (aka slice) went farther off line with the MPs, as well. (LOL, I like to classify "workability" as a euphamism). Given all the impact situations, the G20s have produced more consistent results - meaning left me closer to the hole on average.

Another difference between the two has been launch. The MPs launch much lower - if they spin more, it's not enough to off-set the trajectory. Typical roll out with the Mizunos has been ~5-8 yds as opposed to 2-3 ft with the Pings. A big part of that is my swing speed and shaft lean (not enough and, at times, too much), but I need an iron that matches my impact conditions. The lack of carry distance is sometimes mitigated by the roll out, but the roll out hurts when the pin is up front or the contour takes the ball away from the pin, essentially leaving me with a smaller landing area.

The "jacked lofts" of SGI irons are often scoffed at. The explanantion I read was that the lofts needed to be lowered (maybe not TM low :taunt: ) to counter the more rear-ward CG, otherwise they would launch sky high. Based on my limited experience with these two sets, that explanation seems to be borne out. I hear the argument that it doesn't make any difference what the number on the bottom of the club is - doesn't matter if you hit a 7i or 5i from xyz yds. Well, it would matter if the number on the club was shaft length. You know where I'm going with that...

The negative I find with the G20s comes when I have uneven lies. The offset and loft combine to launch the ball more sideways from sidehill lies (it seems). I had two funky lies last week (same hole, same spot, a day apart, lol) - hardpan under patchy grass - where the ball came out much more left than I expected.

Bottom line: I really, really wanted the MP62s to be my #1 set of irons, I enjoyed playing them, and I have had some really good rounds with them. The scores I've posted using both sets of irons are about the same. But, I have had more birdie looks with the G20s this season, and it's more confidence-inspiring to hit my number with the irons and be hole high rather than have inconsistent carry and hope the roll out gets me close.

I have no doubt when people of any handicap level talk of the success they have had with players' irons or blades (well, maybe a little doubt - we're all human). If I had a higher swing speed, needed to work the ball more (high and low), and more consistently hit the sweet spot, that iron type would be a better fit for me. It may be in the future, and I always like to tinker, so I'm not going to let the Mizunos collect dust - we'll see. But, my experience tells me that blades do not perform better for everybody, and that "forgiveness" is not all marketing hype. To reiterate what I posted a few pages back, Karsten Solheim was an awfully smart dude and was better at engineering than marketing.

[CrabDaddy]

Standard Mizuno lie angle is flatter than Ping - I believe 1 or 2 degrees.

 

Curiosity, lol.

The lie angle difference between the two is actually variable.

5i 7i 9i

G20 60.75 62.25 63.75

MP62 60.5 61.5 62.5

[Matt J]

That's pretty interesting CrabDaddy.

 

When I bought my lie and loft vise last year I got very "in" to figuring out how the lie angle effected my ball flight and misses. In the end I found that I like a closer progression than the "standard," which for me was going off of the MP-60's specs since the Miura CB's are very similar. In the end I discovered that I like a little more upright lie angle in my long irons and more flat in my short irons, so I like a little less change over the set. The Mizuno .5 degree progression would fit me much better than the 3/4 degree in the PING's. Might seem "nit-picking" and insignificant, but I think most people would be very surprised if they hit the exact same wedge in 2 degrees of lie difference. The dispersion difference would probably be enough to miss a lot of greens even with a PW. So, perhaps part of what you like about the PING's is the more up right short irons and wedge. Might even be worth trying a little more upright progression in the Mizuno's. Which club do you feel you hit the straightest in terms of path, meaning no pull or push, regardless of how it spins?

 

I have a couple of minutes this morning and thought I'd share something and pose a few questions about the mental game. So, a few posts over the Confessions threads have noted the same observation that some amount of disconnect from the result of a shot leads to better performance. I personally feel that this philosophy is ruining my scoring at the moment. For instance, I start very tense and mechanical until I string a few bogeys together or a double and then I'll play the rest of the round at even par. Or, I start real well, not thinking much about the score and then notice I have a decent number going and get tense and make a string of bogeys. I'm also infamous for going birdie / bogey back to back sometimes for 6 or 8 holes in a row. So how do Confessionaires manage their mental game? We all want to play better right? Score our bests. So what is your "trick" to managing a little lower score when something important to you is on the line.

 

What inspired these questions was during my round yesterday we had a 2-2-2 Nassau going, front, back, and 18 hole match with two-man teams. We got out ahead early with my partner making two birdies, then I sunk a birdie putt to tie, and we had the KP on the first par 3. I hit the closest approach on the second par 3, but it was a very awkward putt and not particularly close, probably 22 or 23 feet. I 3-putted lost the KP and the hole to go from 2 up to 1 up in the match. That led to a domino-effect three hole stretch of pretty poor playing. So, we make the turn having lost the front 1 down. I go grab a candy bar at the clubhouse and am determined to turn it around. I would have liked to press the front bet, but partners says, no. I pipe a drive on 10 and can feel myself get back into it mentally. Opponent barely stays out of the hazard actually the ball is inside but not wet and he stuffs an approach to a couple of feet, kick-in territory. So, I measure and I'm about 100 out no discernible wind or elevation difference, front pin. I would usually hit a 52 degree, but it's like my brain is cut off and I'm just playing golf to win and beat this approach shot. Grab my 56, put a great swing on it and turn it right back at the flag about 3 paces long but it spins back 2 feet and leaves me a 7 or 8 footer. I miss the putt and we lose the hole to the birdie but I'm still in the zone and sand save a birdie on the next par 5 to win that hole. Two holes later and another three putt kills my momentum. So, obviously working on lag putting and not 3-putting is high priority, but how do we let go of bad shots and refocus and step it up instead of crumble? And, why all of a sudden do you feel free and make a "feel" based club choice. If it goes well does it spike you confidence, if it goes poorly does it hurt your confidence? Golf is about decision making as much as hitting the ball, so how do YOU make the best decisions possible and process the outcome either good or bad to improve your round?

[CrabDaddy]

That's pretty interesting CrabDaddy.

 

When I bought my lie and loft vise last year I got very "in" to figuring out how the lie angle effected my ball flight and misses. In the end I found that I like a closer progression than the "standard," which for me was going off of the MP-60's specs since the Miura CB's are very similar. In the end I discovered that I like a little more upright lie angle in my long irons and more flat in my short irons, so I like a little less change over the set. The Mizuno .5 degree progression would fit me much better than the 3/4 degree in the PING's. Might seem "nit-picking" and insignificant, but I think most people would be very surprised if they hit the exact same wedge in 2 degrees of lie difference. The dispersion difference would probably be enough to miss a lot of greens even with a PW. So, perhaps part of what you like about the PING's is the more up right short irons and wedge. Might even be worth trying a little more upright progression in the Mizuno's. Which club do you feel you hit the straightest in terms of path, meaning no pull or push, regardless of how it spins?

 

I have a couple of minutes this morning and thought I'd share something and pose a few questions about the mental game. So, a few posts over the Confessions threads have noted the same observation that some amount of disconnect from the result of a shot leads to better performance. I personally feel that this philosophy is ruining my scoring at the moment. For instance, I start very tense and mechanical until I string a few bogeys together or a double and then I'll play the rest of the round at even par. Or, I start real well, not thinking much about the score and then notice I have a decent number going and get tense and make a string of bogeys. I'm also infamous for going birdie / bogey back to back sometimes for 6 or 8 holes in a row. So how do Confessionaires manage their mental game? We all want to play better right? Score our bests. So what is your "trick" to managing a little lower score when something important to you is on the line.

 

What inspired these questions was during my round yesterday we had a 2-2-2 Nassau going, front, back, and 18 hole match with two-man teams. We got out ahead early with my partner making two birdies, then I sunk a birdie putt to tie, and we had the KP on the first par 3. I hit the closest approach on the second par 3, but it was a very awkward putt and not particularly close, probably 22 or 23 feet. I 3-putted lost the KP and the hole to go from 2 up to 1 up in the match. That led to a domino-effect three hole stretch of pretty poor playing. So, we make the turn having lost the front 1 down. I go grab a candy bar at the clubhouse and am determined to turn it around. I would have liked to press the front bet, but partners says, no. I pipe a drive on 10 and can feel myself get back into it mentally. Opponent barely stays out of the hazard actually the ball is inside but not wet and he stuffs an approach to a couple of feet, kick-in territory. So, I measure and I'm about 100 out no discernible wind or elevation difference, front pin. I would usually hit a 52 degree, but it's like my brain is cut off and I'm just playing golf to win and beat this approach shot. Grab my 56, put a great swing on it and turn it right back at the flag about 3 paces long but it spins back 2 feet and leaves me a 7 or 8 footer. I miss the putt and we lose the hole to the birdie but I'm still in the zone and sand save a birdie on the next par 5 to win that hole. Two holes later and another three putt kills my momentum. So, obviously working on lag putting and not 3-putting is high priority, but how do we let go of bad shots and refocus and step it up instead of crumble? And, why all of a sudden do you feel free and make a "feel" based club choice. If it goes well does it spike you confidence, if it goes poorly does it hurt your confidence? Golf is about decision making as much as hitting the ball, so how do YOU make the best decisions possible and process the outcome either good or bad to improve your round?

Based on my divots, I'd say path is better with the Pings. I have a steeper AoA with the Mizunos, which counters the more left-ward path. I really need to have both sets lie/loft tested. I re-shafted both over the winter, trying to get get a higher launch with the Mizunos (DG -> KBS Tour) and a little lower launch in the Ping short irons (CFS -> PX5.5 flighted). Shafts didn't change anything that I can tell, lol. When it comes to equipment I think I'm an idiot savant. Hmm, yeah, probably not so much a savant. It always comes out the same.

 

I'm with you on the disconnect philosophy, Matt. I have always disagreed with the notion of being disassociated from the outcome. That mindset, to me, leads to disassociation from the process. If it isn't a big deal whether or not you hit a fairway or green, etc..., then it isn't worth putting in the effort to make sure you have proper alignment. IMO, you need to establish things like alignment as a comfortable, familiar habit so as not to let it become a source of tension. I think alot of it is confidence - the greats embraced the situation and the pressure. They never said, "Eh, whatever happens, happens". You have to believe you're going to achieve the outcome you want. When that doesn't happen, you need something to break the flow - turn your back to the situation, change gloves, whatever, but something physical to signal a need to re-focus and not let yourself get caught up in negative momentum.

If things are going good or bad, I try to use a "check list" of decisions to make sure I don't rely on emotion. The ball is in the trees - go for green or punch out? 1. lie good or bad? 2. clear path for ~30 degrees? 3. trouble between ball and green? etc... have a plan so you don't let a bad shot multiply. The converse happened to me the other day (too much preachin', not enough practicin', LOL). I was in between my GW and PW (yeah, I know, but it's there) on a par 5 w/trouble in front and in back of the green. I was playing well, so I "decided" to go with the "feel" shot of backing off my PW - chunk into the junk. Ugh! Check list says, "Trouble in play, so choke down an inch and swing normally". Drop, choke down, hit it to 6' (pushed it past on the bogey putt). I had no business trying to finesse a shot in that situation.

Another thing I try to do is feed off my fellow players who are playing well. Most of the time they are friends, so it's pretty easy to cheer them on. Good mental image. Focus is on success. I think it tends to rub off and helps to re-focus after a bad stretch.

I try never to get caught up in the ebb and flow of the match. I know what the score is, but I rarely stand on the tee box thinking I need to make a certain number or that I've got this hole in the bag after my opponent hits a poor shot. Focus on the goal, then the process.

Now if I'm swinging like crap, then... pfffft! who knows... I need a beer.

[Matt J]

Good thoughts, CrabDaddy! Thanks for playing. I agree fully with much of what you wrote. I, too, rely on technical course management to refocus before my pre-shot routine. It's all about lining the brain up into a sequence that it can begin and execute a swing while processing and reacting to a billion little pieces of feedback, separating the important from the minutiae. Amazing we even hit the ball, and equally amazing how poorly we can hit it.

 

I've found the same thing as far as minor changes with shafts. I wouldn't tweak and pay much for a shaft change again without using a Trackman or something similar. I believe you need real apex and spin data preferably off of real grass to truly find the right combo. Must admit I'm giddy about playing these Steelfibers in the near future. It was a weird path to end of with this set and no telling how the local shop's build is going to go, but I prefer to think positive and hope for the best.

 

BTW, my real question, which I stated poorly, is which iron in each set do you think you hit the straightest? Path not spin.

 

I wonder if you're noticing the smaller soles dig more with the Mizzy's or if you really get that much more steep. If you feel you can change your AoA a little it would seem the reverse would benefit you, get steep and use the bounce with the PING's and try and sweep or pick the 62's. Any idea what the dot code is on the PING's?

[Palauan Hammer]

Matt, some of my mental game "methods"

 

The mental game for me was a big challenge. It kept me from getting to that next level. I would basically not let go of anything I did poorly on the golf course. I was the type that would talk about a shot I hit 4 holes ago, not good LOL. I would mentally check out, or fight hard, not get the results and feel "sad" and slump my shoulders LOL. Way too much emotional variance.

 

I had to learn how to accept anything that happened before I hit my next shot. Let it sink in, move on, it's over! Then I think alright, quality shot on the next one. Once I was able to have "no emotion" even while watching a tee shot sail OB I knew I was improving. Mistakes on the course are INEVITABLE, it's gonna happen, I expect it. A round is 18 holes not one shot, or 1 hole.

 

I don't like trying to trick your brain into not knowing your score or where you stand to protect yourself from a mental collapse. It's golf were playing, it's not life and death. No fear, focus on the shot at hand but don't be scared to know where you stand. Plus you'll find after a while going low isn't scary, it's an opportunity to make a new personal best. This is why I like playing from the whites or even reds, I go out and try to make as many birdies as possible, it starts to become "normal" then when you move back to your normal tees and make a few birdies in a round your heart rate goes nowhere. No big deal.

 

As for wheels falling off, I had to learn that there are "no wheels" it's all in your head. It's a state of mind, a few bad shots (rationally) don't mean you'll hit every shot the rest of the round that way, unless you let your mind think that way. We make one swing, and hit one shot at a time. We decide when we swing too. Take a step back, breathe, remember all the good shots you've hit in your life or that day haha, and step up and stripe it. Take control, there are no wheels. If you still feel like something is off, I guarantee it's tension. Breathe, relax, don't squeeze the grip, focus on the target, swing with balance. That seems to work for me.

 

So these are some of the things that work for me, I'm a terrible writer and have a hard time organizing my thoughts in order. Lastly, when I have a real important putt or shot where I'm nervous I usually say "F#ck it" (mentally of course LOL) while walking into the shot, look at the target and hit the shot or stroke the putt like I really mean it.

 

Hope this helps LOL :)

[Matt J]

Good stuff, TJ. Thanks!

[glk]

Cultivate not giving a s***. Seriously. I don't care where I hit it or score. No expectations. Talk about anything but golf. Especially not your game. Enjoy the challenge of a recovery shot. Enjoy the day. Hit it find it hit it again. At my best at this, during our annual Ryder cup two years ago in 2 9 hole single matches where I was giving 2 and then 4 strokes I went 38/38 to close out in 5 and 7 holes. Joked on the first tee about gettingmy a** kicked cause the dude I was giving 2 strokes was down to a 1 earlier in the summer so my paltry 5 stood no chance. Then in the afternoon matches me and my partner closed out both our matches early. 4-0 has only been done a few times by anyone in our 12year cup -16 guys. Honored to have done it once. We're all decades long friends. All good fun.

 

All easily said but hard to do consistently. I really do work on blanking my mind and have gotten pretty good at removing pre round score expectations, smiling after all shots, and not standing over the ball with swing thoughts swirling - monte added play with the swing you started with rather than change it on every hole or after every shot. Hit if poorly for 3 or more holes the practice afterwards or before you play next but don't screw around during the round.

[CrabDaddy]

 

BTW, my real question, which I stated poorly, is which iron in each set do you think you hit the straightest? Path not spin.

 

I wonder if you're noticing the smaller soles dig more with the Mizzy's or if you really get that much more steep. If you feel you can change your AoA a little it would seem the reverse would benefit you, get steep and use the bounce with the PING's and try and sweep or pick the 62's. Any idea what the dot code is on the PING's?

Ah, which iron within each set. The obvious answer would seem to be 8-PW, but I really have no idea - haven't been on TM with either.

It could very well be the narrow sole digging more that gives the impression of a steeper AoA. I had been working on shallowing my swing (VSP) over the winter, and started taking some Trevino-like beaver pelts with the short irons, lol.

Lie and loft should be standard specs in both sets.

I took a couple of the 62s to the range today. It took a while to get anything close to good contact, but when I did, I was pulling most of the shots. So, 1. I'm probably adjusting my swing to match specs (although, it was easy going from 62s to 20s a couple weeks ago) and 2. I really need to get them measured. May do the sharpie test tomorrow.

Everything is always a work in progress, lol. A friend noticed my alignment was too far right a while ago, and that changed everything - I was dead pulling all my irons for more than a week until I adjusted. Get 'em bent and start all over again, lol.

[DeNinny]

... in the realm of proving things to statistical validity, you need more than 5 "data points" to make a conclusion. I can tell you that if a scientist is going to prove something outright, he will generate up to 30 data points under the exact same conditions to prove the exact same result in order to make a conclusion.

 

I have more to say, but it's late. I almost noted my N=5, but did not... actually, N should depend on the variance and is likely to be much higher than 30 - there are too many variables to get replicate samples.

At this point, my experience is merely anecdotal, but I was still surprised to see the difference in play - significant or not. As we say in fisheries, it has to pass the "smell test" first, LOL.

 

30 is just a rule of thumb (from my job) and absolutely variance needs to be considered. LOL the only way to truly make a 100% statistically valid conclusion is to collect an infinite number of data points.

 

Those mp62s are really nice irons. You CAN game them...fine!

As a worthless aside, an infinite, or, more realistically, too large of a sample creates it's own problems, where the true variance of the sampled population gets lost, allowing for a false conclusion. This year wigeons had a mean height of 264 mm, last year they were 263 mm tall - if this was a statistically significant finding (alpha=0.05), N was too high.

 

Anyway... I played my G20s for two or three years, and picked up the MP62s last year to see what the fuss was about regarding forged Mizunos. What I experienced was such: My surprise on the upside was that I could hit the MP62s reasonably well. I committed to them (except for a one week stint with a set of Hogans) and played pretty good golf - always felt good to card a sub-80 score with them. My surprise on the downside was that the "buttery soft" forgings didn't really feel much different than my cast shovels. A ball hit with the sweet spot gave the same pleasant sensation. The ball was much more of a determinant of feel than was clubhead material - Wilson Duo, Precept Lady IQ+ were like hitting marshmallows with both clubs; Callaway Warbird, or similar, not so much.

 

I've read quite a bit of what has been written regarding the wonderfullness of blades, particularly regarding consistency of launch conditions (launch angle, spin, etc...), and I have no doubt it's all true .... when you hit the ball with the center of the clubface. BUT, when I get too far from the sweet spot, which as a mid cap I am prone to do, there was a significant loss of distance with the MP62s relative to the G20s. Descriptive "significant" :victory: , in this case meaning 10+ yds. Shots with a poor face to path orientation (aka slice) went farther off line with the MPs, as well. (LOL, I like to classify "workability" as a euphamism). Given all the impact situations, the G20s have produced more consistent results - meaning left me closer to the hole on average.

Another difference between the two has been launch. The MPs launch much lower - if they spin more, it's not enough to off-set the trajectory. Typical roll out with the Mizunos has been ~5-8 yds as opposed to 2-3 ft with the Pings. A big part of that is my swing speed and shaft lean (not enough and, at times, too much), but I need an iron that matches my impact conditions. The lack of carry distance is sometimes mitigated by the roll out, but the roll out hurts when the pin is up front or the contour takes the ball away from the pin, essentially leaving me with a smaller landing area.

The "jacked lofts" of SGI irons are often scoffed at. The explanantion I read was that the lofts needed to be lowered (maybe not TM low :taunt: ) to counter the more rear-ward CG, otherwise they would launch sky high. Based on my limited experience with these two sets, that explanation seems to be borne out. I hear the argument that it doesn't make any difference what the number on the bottom of the club is - doesn't matter if you hit a 7i or 5i from xyz yds. Well, it would matter if the number on the club was shaft length. You know where I'm going with that...

The negative I find with the G20s comes when I have uneven lies. The offset and loft combine to launch the ball more sideways from sidehill lies (it seems). I had two funky lies last week (same hole, same spot, a day apart, lol) - hardpan under patchy grass - where the ball came out much more left than I expected.

Bottom line: I really, really wanted the MP62s to be my #1 set of irons, I enjoyed playing them, and I have had some really good rounds with them. The scores I've posted using both sets of irons are about the same. But, I have had more birdie looks with the G20s this season, and it's more confidence-inspiring to hit my number with the irons and be hole high rather than have inconsistent carry and hope the roll out gets me close.

I have no doubt when people of any handicap level talk of the success they have had with players' irons or blades (well, maybe a little doubt - we're all human). If I had a higher swing speed, needed to work the ball more (high and low), and more consistently hit the sweet spot, that iron type would be a better fit for me. It may be in the future, and I always like to tinker, so I'm not going to let the Mizunos collect dust - we'll see. But, my experience tells me that blades do not perform better for everybody, and that "forgiveness" is not all marketing hype. To reiterate what I posted a few pages back, Karsten Solheim was an awfully smart dude and was better at engineering than marketing.

LOL to continue the worthless aside, unless you know the standard deviation of the data that determined both the mean heights of 264 mm and 263 mm, it is impossible to determine if their difference is statistically significant or not. Is the standard deviation of either mean +/-0.000001 mm or +/-10 mm? Knowing that makes a huge difference as to whether or not 264 vs 263 is statistically different. And the value of N for either mean simply puts a confidence level around how much you can "trust" that both the mean and standard deviation represent the same values...***AS IF***... they were based on N = infinity. As I understand statistics, the higher N, the lower the probability of the null hypothesis being true and thus the higher confidence that your data set represents the "truth" statistically in terms of mean and standard deviation.

 

Anyway, thanks so much for sharing your background on the G20s and the MP-62s. Also thanks too for coming back to the thread and having a discussion on this.

 

On your point about their feel, technically the MP-62s still aren't true blades and that cavity that they still have is damping the feel no different (but maybe not to as much of a degree) as your G20s. I can tell you from personal experience hitting hundreds to thousands of comparison balls, comparing the feel of an MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67 3i and 4i, with the same exact shafts, that a cavity damps the feel of impact and it isn't until you get to the blade, which doesn't have a cavity at all, where impact starts to feel significantly different. Enough where "buttery" starts having a tangible meaning. So I totally get that your MP-62s may feel rather "meh" better compared to your G20s.

 

Also I totally think that feel is subjective from person to person. I have read enough posts from all WRXers on feel and what I have noticed is that there are some that simply don't feel club differences as much as others.

 

So I have to eat and also I've been pretty busy at work and at home, BUT...I do WANT to continue the technical discussion over all your points, so forgive me if I come back to them in later and later posts. For now I will just leave you with this in regards to your last points about marketing hype and Solheim....

 

I completely understand that there are situations like yours where you benefitted from "forgiving" technology. My point is that unless it is universal, then you cannot call it forgiving. If we can assume (for now) that both of our experiences with "forgiving" technology, in your case it helped your game and in my case it hurt mine, is true and absolutely true by some "science" that is justifiable in BOTH of our cases (meaning we are both "right" about our real world experience), then at best the "forgiving" technology is subjective based on the golfer. It is NOT universal, so therefore the manufacturers have no business claiming it as such. Again without going into the details (yet), I'll just say that there are several features about blades that are theoretically universally "forgiving" for all golfers and regardless of their skill level and also there are features with forgiving clubs that are absolutely detrimental. So who's to decide what is "forgiving" for ALL golfers? When it is marketed as 100% forgiving, then to me that is HYPE.

 

And on Solheim to me it is a brilliant marketing "schtick" to play the "engineer over marketer" card. Of course he is going to project himself as such! And laugh all the way to the bank...

[CrabDaddy]

LOL to continue the worthless aside, unless you know the standard deviation of the data that determined both the mean heights of 264 mm and 263 mm, it is impossible to determine if their difference is statistically significant or not. Is the standard deviation of either mean +/-0.000001 mm or +/-10 mm? Knowing that makes a huge difference as to whether or not 264 vs 263 is statistically different. And the value of N for either mean simply puts a confidence level around how much you can "trust" that both the mean and standard deviation represent the same values...***AS IF***... they were based on N = infinity. As I understand statistics, the higher N, the lower the probability of the null hypothesis being true and thus the higher confidence that your data set represents the "truth" statistically in terms of mean and standard deviation.

The implication was that the standard errors were known, and that, if the data were normally distributed, the higher the N, the lower the estimate of SE, to the point where the estimated means become point estimates. In the example of the ducks, a <0.4% difference between means is meaningless (measurement error would account for more than that), so over-sampling would lead to a Type I error.

[CrabDaddy]

Anyway, thanks so much for sharing your background on the G20s and the MP-62s. Also thanks too for coming back to the thread and having a discussion on this.

 

On your point about their feel, technically the MP-62s still aren't true blades and that cavity that they still have is damping the feel no different (but maybe not to as much of a degree) as your G20s. I can tell you from personal experience hitting hundreds to thousands of comparison balls, comparing the feel of an MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67 3i and 4i, with the same exact shafts, that a cavity damps the feel of impact and it isn't until you get to the blade, which doesn't have a cavity at all, where impact starts to feel significantly different. Enough where "buttery" starts having a tangible meaning. So I totally get that your MP-62s may feel rather "meh" better compared to your G20s.

 

Also I totally think that feel is subjective from person to person. I have read enough posts from all WRXers on feel and what I have noticed is that there are some that simply don't feel club differences as much as others.

 

So I have to eat and also I've been pretty busy at work and at home, BUT...I do WANT to continue the technical discussion over all your points, so forgive me if I come back to them in later and later posts. For now I will just leave you with this in regards to your last points about marketing hype and Solheim....

 

I completely understand that there are situations like yours where you benefitted from "forgiving" technology. My point is that unless it is universal, then you cannot call it forgiving. If we can assume (for now) that both of our experiences with "forgiving" technology, in your case it helped your game and in my case it hurt mine, is true and absolutely true by some "science" that is justifiable in BOTH of our cases (meaning we are both "right" about our real world experience), then at best the "forgiving" technology is subjective based on the golfer. It is NOT universal, so therefore the manufacturers have no business claiming it as such. Again without going into the details (yet), I'll just say that there are several features about blades that are theoretically universally "forgiving" for all golfers and regardless of their skill level and also there are features with forgiving clubs that are absolutely detrimental. So who's to decide what is "forgiving" for ALL golfers? When it is marketed as 100% forgiving, then to me that is HYPE.

 

And on Solheim to me it is a brilliant marketing "schtick" to play the "engineer over marketer" card. Of course he is going to project himself as such! And laugh all the way to the bank...

I have a feeling that what this will boil down to is your/my/Noah Webster's/Ping's definition of "forgiving". A hunk of steel will obviously have the same properties for everybody that uses it. Everybody will not gain the same benefit, though.

As far as Solheim is concerned. I am not familiar with his story to any level of detail. My point is that he developed something that was quite different from the norm... and ugly. To gain acceptance, it had to perform as "advertised". How many drivers, irons, putters, wedges have been produced and then relegated to the scrap heap because they either flat out didn't live up to the billing or weren't a true alternative to what was already available?

"Laugh all the way to the bank"? "Schtick"? He developed a product, sold it, and built a company around it (the last one that manufactured clubs in the U.S.). Who wouldn't cash in? A true entrepreneur, and my hat's off to him. He succeeded, and then had to watch Scotty Cameron rip off his designs.

[DeNinny]

Anyway, thanks so much for sharing your background on the G20s and the MP-62s. Also thanks too for coming back to the thread and having a discussion on this.

 

On your point about their feel, technically the MP-62s still aren't true blades and that cavity that they still have is damping the feel no different (but maybe not to as much of a degree) as your G20s. I can tell you from personal experience hitting hundreds to thousands of comparison balls, comparing the feel of an MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67 3i and 4i, with the same exact shafts, that a cavity damps the feel of impact and it isn't until you get to the blade, which doesn't have a cavity at all, where impact starts to feel significantly different. Enough where "buttery" starts having a tangible meaning. So I totally get that your MP-62s may feel rather "meh" better compared to your G20s.

 

Also I totally think that feel is subjective from person to person. I have read enough posts from all WRXers on feel and what I have noticed is that there are some that simply don't feel club differences as much as others.

 

So I have to eat and also I've been pretty busy at work and at home, BUT...I do WANT to continue the technical discussion over all your points, so forgive me if I come back to them in later and later posts. For now I will just leave you with this in regards to your last points about marketing hype and Solheim....

 

I completely understand that there are situations like yours where you benefitted from "forgiving" technology. My point is that unless it is universal, then you cannot call it forgiving. If we can assume (for now) that both of our experiences with "forgiving" technology, in your case it helped your game and in my case it hurt mine, is true and absolutely true by some "science" that is justifiable in BOTH of our cases (meaning we are both "right" about our real world experience), then at best the "forgiving" technology is subjective based on the golfer. It is NOT universal, so therefore the manufacturers have no business claiming it as such. Again without going into the details (yet), I'll just say that there are several features about blades that are theoretically universally "forgiving" for all golfers and regardless of their skill level and also there are features with forgiving clubs that are absolutely detrimental. So who's to decide what is "forgiving" for ALL golfers? When it is marketed as 100% forgiving, then to me that is HYPE.

 

And on Solheim to me it is a brilliant marketing "schtick" to play the "engineer over marketer" card. Of course he is going to project himself as such! And laugh all the way to the bank...

I have a feeling that what this will boil down to is your/my/Noah Webster's/Ping's definition of "forgiving". A hunk of steel will obviously have the same properties for everybody that uses it. Everybody will not gain the same benefit, though.

As far as Solheim is concerned. I am not familiar with his story to any level of detail. My point is that he developed something that was quite different from the norm... and ugly. To gain acceptance, it had to perform as "advertised". How many drivers, irons, putters, wedges have been produced and then relegated to the scrap heap because they either flat out didn't live up to the billing or weren't a true alternative to what was already available?

"Laugh all the way to the bank"? "Schtick"? He developed a product, sold it, and built a company around it (the last one that manufactured clubs in the U.S.). Who wouldn't cash in? A true entrepreneur, and my hat's off to him. He succeeded, and then had to watch Scotty Cameron rip off his designs.

 

That's my whole point about "forgiveness"! It is not a universal definition. Some of the very same features that were forgiving for your game were detrimental for mine. The "marketing hype" is simply that the manufacturers will tout only a few "forgiving features" which, based on the marketing, somehow apply to all golfers that want it, but *may* only apply to certain swings/games. I will get to details on this eventually.

 

I have no idea about Solheim's story or marketing "schtick". All I'm saying is that it would be bad business, regardless of how "technological" the product really is, to appear as a marketer over an engineer. It was more a comment to your specific statement that he was a better engineer than marketer than whether or not he had a schtick. And if I got rich over a product that only works well for SOME people but not others, even though it was marketed to the masses without discretion, I would probably laugh on the way to the bank.

[CrabDaddy]

Anyway, thanks so much for sharing your background on the G20s and the MP-62s. Also thanks too for coming back to the thread and having a discussion on this.

 

On your point about their feel, technically the MP-62s still aren't true blades and that cavity that they still have is damping the feel no different (but maybe not to as much of a degree) as your G20s. I can tell you from personal experience hitting hundreds to thousands of comparison balls, comparing the feel of an MP-FliHi, MP-60, and MP-67 3i and 4i, with the same exact shafts, that a cavity damps the feel of impact and it isn't until you get to the blade, which doesn't have a cavity at all, where impact starts to feel significantly different. Enough where "buttery" starts having a tangible meaning. So I totally get that your MP-62s may feel rather "meh" better compared to your G20s.

 

Also I totally think that feel is subjective from person to person. I have read enough posts from all WRXers on feel and what I have noticed is that there are some that simply don't feel club differences as much as others.

 

So I have to eat and also I've been pretty busy at work and at home, BUT...I do WANT to continue the technical discussion over all your points, so forgive me if I come back to them in later and later posts. For now I will just leave you with this in regards to your last points about marketing hype and Solheim....

 

I completely understand that there are situations like yours where you benefitted from "forgiving" technology. My point is that unless it is universal, then you cannot call it forgiving. If we can assume (for now) that both of our experiences with "forgiving" technology, in your case it helped your game and in my case it hurt mine, is true and absolutely true by some "science" that is justifiable in BOTH of our cases (meaning we are both "right" about our real world experience), then at best the "forgiving" technology is subjective based on the golfer. It is NOT universal, so therefore the manufacturers have no business claiming it as such. Again without going into the details (yet), I'll just say that there are several features about blades that are theoretically universally "forgiving" for all golfers and regardless of their skill level and also there are features with forgiving clubs that are absolutely detrimental. So who's to decide what is "forgiving" for ALL golfers? When it is marketed as 100% forgiving, then to me that is HYPE.

 

And on Solheim to me it is a brilliant marketing "schtick" to play the "engineer over marketer" card. Of course he is going to project himself as such! And laugh all the way to the bank...

I have a feeling that what this will boil down to is your/my/Noah Webster's/Ping's definition of "forgiving". A hunk of steel will obviously have the same properties for everybody that uses it. Everybody will not gain the same benefit, though.

As far as Solheim is concerned. I am not familiar with his story to any level of detail. My point is that he developed something that was quite different from the norm... and ugly. To gain acceptance, it had to perform as "advertised". How many drivers, irons, putters, wedges have been produced and then relegated to the scrap heap because they either flat out didn't live up to the billing or weren't a true alternative to what was already available?

"Laugh all the way to the bank"? "Schtick"? He developed a product, sold it, and built a company around it (the last one that manufactured clubs in the U.S.). Who wouldn't cash in? A true entrepreneur, and my hat's off to him. He succeeded, and then had to watch Scotty Cameron rip off his designs.

 

That's my whole point about "forgiveness"! It is not a universal definition. Some of the very same features that were forgiving for your game were detrimental for mine. The "marketing hype" is simply that the manufacturers will tout only a few "forgiving features" which, based on the marketing, somehow apply to all golfers that want it, but *may* only apply to certain swings/games. I will get to details on this eventually.

 

I have no idea about Solheim's story or marketing "schtick". All I'm saying is that it would be bad business, regardless of how "technological" the product really is, to appear as a marketer over an engineer. It was more a comment to your specific statement that he was a better engineer than marketer than whether or not he had a schtick. And if I got rich over a product that only works well for SOME people but not others, even though it was marketed as such, I would probably laugh on the way to the bank.

LOL, what is a universal definition? Beauty? Tastes great? Less filling?

I think at issue is less about how it is marketed, and more about understanding what a club actually does. It's the job of the OEMs to sell their product. In this day and age, there are enough "third party" outlets that could critically analyze the features and performance of various types of clubs, but NOBODY does! Crossfield's attempt was pretty lame. I spent more time than I should admit to searching YT and Google for Trackman results (or any measurement) with off-center vs. center-faced contact. I'm not saying it isn't out there, because my wife will find the jar of mustard in 10 seconds that I just spent 10 minutes looking for.

For an industry that seems to want to associate itself with science (Trackman, biomechanics, pressure plates, etc...), it does a lousy job of putting science to use.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, a club can be "forgiving", by whatever definition is attached to the word, but those properties may not benefit everybody. My definition is that I can get away with poor shots - there's a larger margin for error and poor contact doesn't mean an awful outcome. Now, does that make me a better golfer? Again, it depends on how you define it, but probably not. It reminds me of when I swam with a Masters' group. We had a coach who was a former Olympic swimmer, and I learned a tremendous amount about technique and competing. I always joked that I was a better swimmer because of it - not any faster, but better.

[DeNinny]

CrabDaddy, just want to say I am loving this convo. I have so much to respond to, but dangit, I'm cooking for the wife tonight!

 

Just a quick note on scientific data or rather lack thereof...the manufacturers don't WANT there to be any fully conclusive scientific and statistically valid data on comparing "forgiving" vs "players" clubs! Why? Because the very same "forgiving" technology DOES NOT universally apply to all golfers (regardless of skill level)! And moreover, there are detriments that accompany them. Any data may actually reveal this and highlight that the "forgiving" feature has some "unforgiving" issues. BUT...if you go to each major OEM website and peruse their marketing from "forgiving" iron to "players", they largely say the same (universal) things. This is my point about "hype".

[Matt J]

Selling new equipment to inexperienced golfers is a fallacy in and of itself. If you've never played the game, get some decent used clubs and start grooving a swing. After that you can start experimenting with how design effects flight. I'd actually like to see the equipment even more specific to swing style. If the manufacturers are going to make a club for an over-the-top steep move then add even more offset and bounce and admit to yourself that no decent golfer is going to play them. It's the way they market clubs to such a wide range of players that kills me. Guys who think the fact that they get super quick about every third shot and hit the turf 4 inches behind the ball is going to be fixed by a golf club.

 

CrabDaddy, you jinxed me, buddy. When you asked about the Byron I started really thinking about what has been going on with my putting. I put that SuperStroke Pistol grip with the counterbalance weight on it about a month ago. I like the shape of the grip and the counterweight, but I simply cut the shaft too short. So, I've got to break my single putter streak and put my backup into play while I figure out if I can get this 30 dollar grip off the shaft to glue in an extension. I didn't tape the bottom of the grip real good on original installation so hopefully I can get some solvent in there and break the bond. I'm going to try very hard because I don't want to lose this one. That being said, I have the shaft and grip from the Betti still in the basement so I have an acceptable grip and shaft for each putter, just need to go pull and switch them.

 

I'll be better off in the long run. Something about the little Ultra Slim 1.0 that helps my stroke a lot. I think it's these little lines at the top that I use to align my lead hand. If I get that hand up high on the longer grip then it forces me to stand up straighter, get closer to the ball, get my line of sight over the ball and make a more erect turn.

 

Have any of you ever thought about what's actually going on anatomically when you really "rock" the shoulders trying to keep your hands and wrists quiet? I was joking with this guy on the putting green about it the other day because he was getting crazy analytical about it. You're really rotating your pectoral girdle by twisting your spine which involves a lot of vertebrae turning a little at a time. I don't know that it's ever going to be the most consistent thing in the world, but I also think that's why setup is so important. If your setup isn't consistent I don't think you could make a very consistent turn through the putt hence my problems on the greens.

 

I could have posted a few rounds around par lately if I could just stay a little more consistent, chip and pitch a little better, and make a few putts. Those are the three things I'm working on at the moment. By the time I get that figured out my driver will have gone back in the toilet, and I'll be consistently hitting bad shots with my irons. Gotta love this game!

[CrabDaddy]

CrabDaddy, just want to say I am loving this convo. I have so much to respond to, but dangit, I'm cooking for the wife tonight!

 

Just a quick note on scientific data or rather lack thereof...the manufacturers don't WANT there to be any fully conclusive scientific and statistically valid data on comparing "forgiving" vs "players" clubs! Why? Because the very same "forgiving" technology DOES NOT universally apply to all golfers (regardless of skill level)! And moreover, there are detriments that accompany them. Any data may actually reveal this and highlight that the "forgiving" feature has some "unforgiving" issues. BUT...if you go to each major OEM website and peruse their marketing from "forgiving" iron to "players", they largely say the same (universal) things. This is my point about "hype".

And that's why I said "third party" - somebody not affilliated with an OEM. It doesn't matter what the product is - selling is almost always over-promising. My laundry detergent, for instance, is not really April Fresh - true story. I don't look to the OEMs for unbiased information. Why is nobody else interested in producing it?

When you buy a car, do you only look at the Chevy website? Or do you look at KBB, or Edward's, or Consumer Reports, or Car and Driver?

 

[DeNinny]

CrabDaddy, just want to say I am loving this convo. I have so much to respond to, but dangit, I'm cooking for the wife tonight!

 

Just a quick note on scientific data or rather lack thereof...the manufacturers don't WANT there to be any fully conclusive scientific and statistically valid data on comparing "forgiving" vs "players" clubs! Why? Because the very same "forgiving" technology DOES NOT universally apply to all golfers (regardless of skill level)! And moreover, there are detriments that accompany them. Any data may actually reveal this and highlight that the "forgiving" feature has some "unforgiving" issues. BUT...if you go to each major OEM website and peruse their marketing from "forgiving" iron to "players", they largely say the same (universal) things. This is my point about "hype".

And that's why I said "third party" - somebody not affilliated with an OEM. It doesn't matter what the product is - selling is almost always over-promising. My laundry detergent, for instance, is not really April Fresh - true story. I don't look to the OEMs for unbiased information. Why is nobody else interested in producing it?

When you buy a car, do you only look at the Chevy website? Or do you look at KBB, or Edward's, or Consumer Reports, or Car and Driver?

I completely agree! And my point was that ignorant golfers are the ones that fall for manufacturer's "science" and "data" based on HALF-TRUTHs...hook, line, and sinker. I can only surmise that there is no market for third party evaluators and honestly it would take some resources to conduct such evaluations.

 

LOL I think it was an earlier confessions thread where I stated that I would LOVE to be a third party evaluator, but I would need three "bizhub swing vision" slow motion cameras, the best launch monitor and Trackman, and a reliable Iron Byron. Maybe also some pressure sensors and motion capture devices. If I had all this, I promise I would be able to "prove" everything that I have (and will) ever technically explained on WRX.

 

Also I mean you ZERO offense by this, but you were the one that started this convo challenging my statements on manufacturer's marketing hype. So up until now I thought it was you that bought off on all of it. It turns out we are more on the same page than not!

[scotee]

Stumbled onto this in a WRX email: http://www.golfwrx.com/374934/forgiving-irons-a-perspective-you-might-not-like/

 

Looks like more of the same arguments. Lots of comments at the end. I confess it interests me but does not keep me up at night. I'm more in the hit it with what you like and go find it camp :)

[DeNinny]

...

I've read quite a bit of what has been written regarding the wonderfullness of blades, particularly regarding consistency of launch conditions (launch angle, spin, etc...), and I have no doubt it's all true .... when you hit the ball with the center of the clubface. BUT, when I get too far from the sweet spot, which as a mid cap I am prone to do, there was a significant loss of distance with the MP62s relative to the G20s. Descriptive "significant" :victory: , in this case meaning 10+ yds. Shots with a poor face to path orientation (aka slice) went farther off line with the MPs, as well. (LOL, I like to classify "workability" as a euphamism). Given all the impact situations, the G20s have produced more consistent results - meaning left me closer to the hole on average.

...

 

Ok CrabiusDaddius, let's start diving a little deeper now. I will keep coming back to the rest of this post, but I really want to discuss all your points in detail. And first t was hoping to understand how you "see" all this from a technical perspective. So to start, based on this quote only, can you please specifically explain, to the best of your technical understanding...

 

1) Why do your G20s give you farther and straighter mishits? What is it about the head design that makes them lessen the severity of a mishit based on a face to path swing issue?

 

2) What is it about the head design that lessens the severity of a mishit based on distance from the sweetspot?

 

3) Can you estimate the different sizes in both sweetspots of your irons? And what it is it about the head designs that define their sizes as such?

[DeNinny]

Selling new equipment to inexperienced golfers is a fallacy in and of itself. If you've never played the game, get some decent used clubs and start grooving a swing. After that you can start experimenting with how design effects flight. I'd actually like to see the equipment even more specific to swing style. If the manufacturers are going to make a club for an over-the-top steep move then add even more offset and bounce and admit to yourself that no decent golfer is going to play them. It's the way they market clubs to such a wide range of players that kills me. Guys who think the fact that they get super quick about every third shot and hit the turf 4 inches behind the ball is going to be fixed by a golf club.

...

Have any of you ever thought about what's actually going on anatomically when you really "rock" the shoulders trying to keep your hands and wrists quiet? I was joking with this guy on the putting green about it the other day because he was getting crazy analytical about it. You're really rotating your pectoral girdle by twisting your spine which involves a lot of vertebrae turning a little at a time. I don't know that it's ever going to be the most consistent thing in the world, but I also think that's why setup is so important. If your setup isn't consistent I don't think you could make a very consistent turn through the putt hence my problems on the greens.

 

I could have posted a few rounds around par lately if I could just stay a little more consistent, chip and pitch a little better, and make a few putts. Those are the three things I'm working on at the moment. By the time I get that figured out my driver will have gone back in the toilet, and I'll be consistently hitting bad shots with my irons. Gotta love this game!

I was that inexperienced and ignorant golfer once and yes I agree a used set is fine to start out. And to me they don't have to be SGI clubs. As I stated, I think the MP-60 and later series of this class of iron is perfect for the beginning golfer (or any golfer for that matter.) Furthermore, I'm a simple believer now that after you get your "feet wet" in the game with your starter set, then very soon after, you can simply buy the set of the golfer that you eventually WANT to be. Get that set and then GO BE that golfer that (you think) deserves it. It really doesn't need to be that complicated.

 

I totally agree that marketing and science behind it should be geared toward specific swing styles and types. This is a simplistic view of mishits, but I once broke them down into the following classes based on this schematic:

 

 

 

The arrows represent the path and direction of the clubface coming into a ball. The top ball of each type is the pure strike and the two balls below it are the mishits in a single direction. The off center mishit means that the face angle and path were in the proper directions but the ball was simply offset either towards the toe or heel of the clubhead. The angled mishit means that the path and/or face was not at the proper angle. This mishit could be broken up into two separate types but really the physics would work out the same in terms of asymmetric ball compression because of either. The last turf mishit is simply hitting it too fat or too thin to be a good shot.

 

So based on all these ways of mishitting a ball, how can there be clubs classified for a specific skill level? Also how can a specific design feature be good, and thus "forgiving", in ALL cases? For example a wide sole *may* be better for the fat mishit but it has the opposite effect on a thin mishit, making it both forgiving and unforgiving. With many design features there are going to be pros and cons. The marketing would have golfers believe that there are ALWAYS pros.

 

I think rocking the shoulders is only a theoretical ideal. I agree the biophysics of It and the way the spine and vertebrae are shaped is not conducive to a perfectly vertical rocking motion. To me rocking the shoulders just means minimize the horizontal rotation of the putting stroke as much as possible. I like the thought of it, but I recognize it is an ideal only.

 

LOL I have proven this season that short game must NEVER be neglected. Besides that, I am still working the most on stable feet and good balance in the swing. Like you I still like the weight more over the heels than the balls of my feet.

[benden]

...

I've read quite a bit of what has been written regarding the wonderfullness of blades, particularly regarding consistency of launch conditions (launch angle, spin, etc...), and I have no doubt it's all true .... when you hit the ball with the center of the clubface. BUT, when I get too far from the sweet spot, which as a mid cap I am prone to do, there was a significant loss of distance with the MP62s relative to the G20s. Descriptive "significant" :victory: , in this case meaning 10+ yds. Shots with a poor face to path orientation (aka slice) went farther off line with the MPs, as well. (LOL, I like to classify "workability" as a euphamism). Given all the impact situations, the G20s have produced more consistent results - meaning left me closer to the hole on average.

...

 

Ok CrabiusDaddius, let's start diving a little deeper now. I will keep coming back to the rest of this post, but I really want to discuss all your points in detail. And first t was hoping to understand how you "see" all this from a technical perspective. So to start, based on this quote only, can you please specifically explain, to the best of your technical understanding...

 

1) Why do your G20s give you farther and straighter mishits? What is it about the head design that makes them lessen the severity of a mishit based on a face to path swing issue?

 

2) What is it about the head design that lessens the severity of a mishit based on distance from the sweetspot?

 

3) Can you estimate the different sizes in both sweetspots of your irons? And what it is it about the head designs that define their sizes as such?

 

The reality - He prefers G20's.

 

Physics aside, marketing aside, arguments aside.

 

He prefers G20's. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

His 'golfing journey' is not the same as yours. There's nothing wrong with both your 'journeys'.

[CrabDaddy]

Matt & DeNinny, You guys are taxing my nanoseconds-long attention span, LOL! J/K, but busy and will get back when I can.

[DeNinny]

Matt & DeNinny, You guys are taxing my nanoseconds-long attention span, LOL! J/K, but busy and will get back when I can.

 

Take your time with my stuff. LOL it is only the beginning! I hear you too about being busy.

[bscinstnct]

I know this was one of you guys ; )

 

 

 

"Champion Thief Stole More Than $3,000 of Provolone From Pizza Parlor

 

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/food-cocktails/news/a56558/provolone-poacher-stealing-pizza-cheese/

 

The real question is: Why the provolone and not the mozz? "

 

 

They think the cheeseburglar may be workimg with an accomplice,

 

 

http://youtu.be/GsGUDpboJbg

[Matt J]

Steelfibers in passenger seat, review forthcoming!

 

Waiting at the bank, so not texting and driving btw :)

 

Edited to add:

 

Didn't go all that well. I wasn't that impressed really. First, I tended to hit everything fat, something about the way they release. Then I found I needed to wind up a lot more to get the flight right. A slight mishit would result in a lower trajectory than I'm used to. I might be 5 yards longer with them. Made me realize how bad our range is for measuring distance. I didn't go down to the member end which is actually better.

 

Jury's not out. I'm vested and will try them for a month or so, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't end up on the BST before too long.

 

Edit #2:

 

So, sitting at the MRI office waiting on my wife who hurt her knee last week and decided to count up some stats on my round today. I was typical Jekyll and Hyde with a 38 on the front and 45 on the back. But, even the front was very hot and cold. Counted up the putts with the BB1 in the bag for the first time and I had 14 putts on the front with 2 three putts. Two huge bombs, three other reasonable short saves, one good old fashioned two putt, and two 3 putts. Too funny. I'm truly a mental midget.

[mdgboxx]

It's July 3rd, and my bag still hasn't seen the parking lot of any regular course. I really feel bad for not being able to contribute to this thread as much as I would like.

 

This year, so far, I've been to the Putt-Putt three times and the range four.

 

I really miss Golf.

 

But, I did change my 2 1/4" solid wood front door for one of those *newer* insolated metal do-dahs. After checking, I was the last one on my street. LOL

[Gauchograd99]

Apologies for being out of the loop for a while again. Washer died last Sunday night (3:30am) and I spent the early morning hand bailing the machine to get my clothes out... and most of the week looking for a new washer. It is finally in place but ate up all my "fun" money so not sure when I will be getting out to play golf again. Then again, after the horrible ball striking and "quack city" golf I played last time out I am probably in a good place to not play. At the same time, the putter was working so that makes me annoyed.

 

Maybe my cousin will want to buy me a round this week. He went out to Palm Springs last week in the 114+ heat to play golf for his birthday. He pulled out of playing the Stadium Course as the humidity hit while he was there and he decided against playing 36 holes that day. I don't know how he does it! I play 18 in that heat and I am in an ice box to cool the internal temp down after the round... he goes out for 36!