Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[Matt J]

A couple of quick confessions:

 

First, with the Steelfiber / MP-60 combination, I had a new awareness. I've been intrigued by the top pros, like Tiger and Phil, saying that they hit a club once to determine if it works for them, by the second or third shot you've changed your swing. I think there's something to this and I think that attitude is part of what makes them so good. So, with my Miura / Nippon SPO irons, I've gone to a swing that for me I consider the equivalent to a flighted down low trajectory draw. And I've mentioned I've had a lot of success with that shot. It's more consistent, the misses are smaller, distance control is good, and to an instructor or hitting it on a Trackman the trajectory readings would be "medium" somewhere between 85 and 100 feet on most shots. When I changed to this shot pattern my only concern was that I can't flight anything any lower with these clubs without hitting a full 3/4 knockdown with a sawed off finish, which I do regularly and it plays about 70 feet of trajectory and is a club or so short. So, basically, I committed to these irons a few months back and have created a whole "game" around playing them, but the obvious analysis is that the shafts are a little too soft. Next, enter the Steelfibers...

 

They're a half a flex or so too stiff. I really have to wind up and release the club hard to get them to "medium to medium high" trajectory which is what I like to play. If they were the only irons I owned I would get used to them, but would I be better? That's a hard thing to answer without trying it and I don't know if I'm willing to get worse for that long. I'll probably continue to work them into some range sessions and see if I can simply try and hit another stock shot with them and make it work. That's pretty much where I was at after the last session. If I try and hit a high, full, 105% shot on every swing they fly pretty straight, but the misses are terrible, like probably ruin a round terrible.

 

This experience with these clubs and my last several scores have pushed me to a difficult realization. I can make every shot and have the game right now to shoot under par or at par every time out, but the only thing holding me back and causing me to be trending back up to a 7 or 8 index is my mental game. I have to soul search and find a new approach to "money games" and tournament rounds. Here's how I came to that realization, I'll try and keep it brief...

 

My relatives are so much fun, but they don't practice or play much, and they are in-town for the holiday. We went out yesterday at 8 AM (my usual time) in order to get back to a party at 1 PM. They're always late so I don't really get to hit but 15 or 20 balls before helping them check-in and load carts so we make the tee time. We get on the first tee, playing from a tee box at about 5,800 yards, same as one of my money match groups play. I pull a new club on the first tee to experiment with laying back a little further and dead hook it into a waste area, unfindable, lost ball territory. Everyone skulls or chunks and their tee balls and we all take another. So, I go into these rounds knowing I won't post it because we'll be so far from playing in regulation, they walk all over your line, knock your ball back to you from 3 and 4 feet, etc.

 

So, call that mulligan a provisional, we don't find the lost ball, and I made double bogey. I went onto my 14 pars and 3 birdies for a gross score of one under. That's four strokes lower than my lowest round in regulation. Now I would never post that because I very well could have missed some of those putts that they gave me. I played four balls off the 10th tee box because half the group went to the club house for 10 minutes during the turn although all four shots would have been fine to play, I made birdie with the best one not the first one. I holed putts out with the flagstick in the hole. All kinds of things you wouldn't normally do, but the realization was that I went out and made 70 good to great strokes and one bad swing because I totally didn't care at all. I was 100% relaxed. So, banging range balls and hammering the short game area, is not what's going to lower my scores at this point. I hate to say it but it's the worst feeling since I took up the game. I'm completely embarrassed that my mental weaknesses are costing me that many strokes. Essentially I am the guy that simply can't figure out how to get it in the hole most of the time. Choke city. Now, that's not going to get any better without focusing on the positive so I'm spinning it as congratulations you've developed the game of a scratch player, but deep inside I know I'm mentally a duffer. True confession. Pretty pathetic.

 

TL:DR - nevermind. Go back to the Grill Room :)

[DeNinny]

Matt J, nice confessions. And how do you think those mp60s w/steelfibers are going to be for your elbow pain? Significantly better than steel shafts?

 

I hear you about adjusting to your set. That's another reason I don't buy the physics of forgiveness. A golfer is going to eventually tailor his game and swing to get the most out of whatever clubs he is playing. Then it will be his skill that holds him back.

[Matt J]

Matt J, nice confessions. And how do you think those mp60s w/steelfibers are going to be for your elbow pain? Significantly better than steel shafts?

 

I hear you about adjusting to your set. That's another reason I don't buy the physics of forgiveness. A golfer is going to eventually tailor his game and swing to get the most out of whatever clubs he is playing. Then it will be his skill that holds him back.

 

Hey Ninja! Happy 4th.

 

I was wondering the same thing about the arthritis pain today. Obviously that's the whole reason I built the irons, but I'm not in such a bad place that I can't play and probably won't get there for some time. I took them, my TaylorMade blades, and some other odd clubs to the range today and had an interesting session. I don't carry a 5 iron any more, so I was hitting the Miura 5, the Steelfiber 5, and the blade 5 back-to-back-to-back. The trajectory in the 5 iron isn't a problem with the Steelfiber MP-60's because I'm going after a 5 so hard anyways. So, that started making me feel better that I can just go after the short irons, but I'm just not consistent with them. I'm thinking that during the heat of the summer I cut back my playing some, so I might just take a week or two and only hit the Steelfibers and see if my wrist and elbow feels better. It's almost harder on my back because I'm swinging harder at everything.

[Matt J]

Weird development, but yesterday I just went ahead and took the Miuras out of the bag and put the Steelfiber MP-60's in for awhile.

 

I don't have anything competitive lined up before the big match play tournament at the end of summer, so I figure it's as good a time as any to experiment. I really need to get rid of at least one set of irons, so I don't feel good about sitting these in the basement and vetting them later.

 

Worked a quick nine in yesterday evening which was their first time on course. Ironically, I noticed that I don't hit a lot of short irons on the course I play. Maybe even could call that a design flaw of the golf course. I seem to be holding a hybrid or a wedge on most holes. 9 holes and I only hit the 6-PW three times. I sprayed a drive into some hay behind some trees and hit a pretty great hook with a 7 iron onto the front apron. A few holes later I had a 6 iron in my hand, it was probably a little too much club and I hit it about 60% of what I intended, pulled and cut a little and ended up about 8 feet. Then I hit a knockdown 7 into a short par 3 with about 2 clubs of wind at my back. These shafts have a reputation for responding poorly to knockdowns, but it was the best of the three shots I hit with my irons.

 

I'll probably continue to work them real hard for another two or three weeks and then delegate them to first string, back ups, or chopping block.

 

Quick confession, I'm tempted to sell my old PING ZING 2's to clear out a set of irons I'm not very likely to ever play again. The only club in the set I want to keep is the 2 iron. Does that make me a bad guy to break the 2 iron off the top end of the set? I kinda hate it when guys split sets up because you know it will never be put back together, original serial numbers and all, but the whole set's only worth about $75 and that's not going to be effected by the presence of the 2 iron. Thoughts?

[DeNinny]

Matt J I don't (and won't) split up irons from an original set. I'm just OCD like that.

[CrabDaddy]

...

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?

Seems to me it would be having the mass less concentrated and spread toward the perimeter of the clubhead, and a more rear-ward CG. The same features that make a 460cc Ti driver more forgiving than a persimmon.

How big is the sweetspot? No clue. Effective hitting area? G20s at least twice the size of the MP62s. Of course the heads are a good bit larger to begin with - there would be a lot of "dead" area in the G20s if the effective hitting areas were the same.

 

By effective hitting area, I mean where there is no to minimal loss in performance (which would include the sweetspot). I can tell when I hit the sweetspot vs. close vs. near the edge in all my irons.

[CrabDaddy]

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.

Dude! Just... dude! :help: LOL! The last two sentences, however, I am in perfect agreement with. I was missing a lot of short putts recently - to the point of being more comfortable over a 6-10 footer than a 3-4 ft putt. I started working on my alignment, which opened up my stance some, and saw marked improvement over the last couple rounds. When alignment is right, the rest comes pretty naturally. The only thing I think about when putting is getting the visual of the line through the ball that I want the ball to start on and the putter head to travel along, as well. I try to feel my right side - hand, arm, shoulder - powering the stroke. Not a shoulder rocker.

 

BTW, sorry about the jinx. I've been doing it to myself for years.

[CrabDaddy]

 

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.

 

But, the sole never comes into play on a thin mishit, unless I'm thinking about this differently. When I catch a ball below the sweetspot with no divot, I get the same results regardless of the iron.

[DeNinny]

 

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.

 

But, the sole never comes into play on a thin mishit, unless I'm thinking about this differently. When I catch a ball below the sweetspot with no divot, I get the same results regardless of the iron.

 

Understood. I forgot to add that the wider sole often has a more rounded leading edge which causes more skulled shots when hit thin. This is my experience with mp60s compared to mp67s. Also my experience with mpFliHis compared to either of the two.

 

Also although this is opposite of what I stated earlier, my experience with mpFliHis was simply MORE fat and skulled shots than mp60s or mp67s due to their HUGE soles. I have a sweeper swing and that is why the sole interferes with the ground more too.

 

By contrast, you mentioned you have a steep(ish) swing and so that is why you don't have as much of an issue with turf interaction with your G20s.

 

My bigger point was that one's idea of forgiveness is subjective. Yet that wide sole is marketed as 'universally forgiving'.

 

BTW thanks about answering those technical questions. I will get back to them. Contrary to popular belief, I actually think I can break down the physics of both of our real world experiences and 'golf journeys' WITHOUT argument! All it takes is two OPEN MINDS (to the other's views) and NOT making any ASSumptions about one another's posts!

[Gauchograd99]

Anyone out there found a good golf shoe that has a high arch/instep and wide toe box? I tried on everything in the local store today and nothing fits anymore. The new toe boxes seem to cut in on the tiny toe and crush the arch. Sketchers changed their design to be more like this and that is sad.

 

In other news: could we get the shoe companies to agree on sizing?? Sketchers = 8 (old ones were 9), FootJoy would be 8, Ecco would be a 7 (what in the flying spaghetti monster world is that about??), and "wide" seems to mean "normal foot" these days. My tennis shoes are 9 EEEE to get a toe box/foot width correct... and my Red Wing work shoes are 9 D (standard width).

 

... confusing to say the least. Maybe I have to find someone who sells another brand besides Ecco/FJ/Sketchers/New Balance/Nike/etc.

[DeNinny]

Anyone out there found a good golf shoe that has a high arch/instep and wide toe box? I tried on everything in the local store today and nothing fits anymore. The new toe boxes seem to cut in on the tiny toe and crush the arch. Sketchers changed their design to be more like this and that is sad.

 

In other news: could we get the shoe companies to agree on sizing?? Sketchers = 8 (old ones were 9), FootJoy would be 8, Ecco would be a 7 (what in the flying spaghetti monster world is that about??), and "wide" seems to mean "normal foot" these days. My tennis shoes are 9 EEEE to get a toe box/foot width correct... and my Red Wing work shoes are 9 D (standard width).

 

... confusing to say the least. Maybe I have to find someone who sells another brand besides Ecco/FJ/Sketchers/New Balance/Nike/etc.

 

LOL standards? That's just crazy talk! I'll take a shaft flex standard while we are in a fantasy land.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_size

[Gauchograd99]

Anyone out there found a good golf shoe that has a high arch/instep and wide toe box? I tried on everything in the local store today and nothing fits anymore. The new toe boxes seem to cut in on the tiny toe and crush the arch. Sketchers changed their design to be more like this and that is sad.

 

In other news: could we get the shoe companies to agree on sizing?? Sketchers = 8 (old ones were 9), FootJoy would be 8, Ecco would be a 7 (what in the flying spaghetti monster world is that about??), and "wide" seems to mean "normal foot" these days. My tennis shoes are 9 EEEE to get a toe box/foot width correct... and my Red Wing work shoes are 9 D (standard width).

 

... confusing to say the least. Maybe I have to find someone who sells another brand besides Ecco/FJ/Sketchers/New Balance/Nike/etc.

 

LOL standards? That's just crazy talk! I'll take a shaft flex standard while we are in a fantasy land.

 

http://en.m.wikipedi.../wiki/Shoe_size

 

I know that Ecco is European, but the sizing for their shoes is the same as my hockey skates... 2 sizes down from street shoes. As my daughter would say, "THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!" :)

[Matt J]

Gaucho, I just picked up a pair of the 2015 Tiger Woods:

 

The toe box is as big as any standard shoe I've tried on in ages, and I'm pretty sure they sell them in wide. I always liked "dressier" golf shoes like Footjoys especially with pants in the fall and winter, but just bought these to wear with shorts. Today was the first day and they're awesome. They have replaceable spikes and are the real deal as far as performance while being as comfortable as a running shoe. I found them on sale at Nike.com a week or two back because I wanted the gray color in the picture, but there's a big thread about guys finding them super cheap at ROSS and Burlington Coat Factory in the Red color - like 29.99 cheap. Dudes are even sending them to each other in the thread, so you could probably try the 9 Wide and if it doesn't work out sell it for what you paid minus the shipping. Here's the thread:

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1343124-nike-claytons-and-tw-masters-30/page__st__690

 

When you see them saying LC3, that's the Lunar Command 3 and I have a pair of those too, also a pretty big toe box.

 

For the high arch I'd just put a high arch Superfeet insole in whatever you buy.

[CrabDaddy]

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.

 

But, the sole never comes into play on a thin mishit, unless I'm thinking about this differently. When I catch a ball below the sweetspot with no divot, I get the same results regardless of the iron.

 

Understood. I forgot to add that the wider sole often has a more rounded leading edge which causes more skulled shots when hit thin. This is my experience with mp60s compared to mp67s. Also my experience with mpFliHis compared to either of the two.

 

Also although this is opposite of what I stated earlier, my experience with mpFliHis was simply MORE fat and skulled shots than mp60s or mp67s due to their HUGE soles. I have a sweeper swing and that is why the sole interferes with the ground more too.

 

By contrast, you mentioned you have a steep(ish) swing and so that is why you don't have as much of an issue with turf interaction with your G20s.

 

My bigger point was that one's idea of forgiveness is subjective. Yet that wide sole is marketed as 'universally forgiving'.

 

BTW thanks about answering those technical questions. I will get back to them. Contrary to popular belief, I actually think I can break down the physics of both of our real world experiences and 'golf journeys' WITHOUT argument! All it takes is two OPEN MINDS (to the other's views) and NOT making any ASSumptions about one another's posts!

You can tell the difference in the roundness of the leading edge between the 60s and 67s based on ball flight? They have practically identical specs. I would think the roundness of the leading edge would account for <1 mm of the vertical profile that could produce different ball flights. (Did that make sense?)

Fats and thins sounds like more of a swing issue than a design issue. Could be swingweight, overall weight, or length, buuuut perimeter weighting? Hmm, not seeing that.

Steep swing = shallow angle of attack. This spring I've managed to shallowed my VSP, which would steeped my AoA. I notice the MPs taking bigger divots, but possibly the one thing I do well, lol, is taking a divot in front of the ball, so turf interaction, as it relates to ball flight for me, is minimal. I've played with guys (some good players, too) who hit every shot "fat" with no shaft lean - that's who has to really worry about turf interaction.

You're focusing on "forgiving" as being a "universal" thing. It's the manufactuers' job to sell clubs, and they're not going to sell many with the tagline of "It might help you ... or it might not", lol. If somebody gets 50.1% of the vote, everybody refers to them as President. It's just like a company saying their product tastes great - it's not going to for everybody, but it's okay for them to market it that way. What is the definition of forgiving? If one club mitigates performance loss on most off-center hits, relative to some benchmark, why not call it forgiving.

As mentioned before, I'd like to see actual performance data, because the properties of a club are going to be the same for everybody. Marketing different features for different swing types would make sense.

Honestly, I'm not terribly worried about the "physics" of the situation - I will leave that to the club designers. I am concerned about performance, which is noticeably different between the "shovels" and the most blade-like irons I have played.

[Matt J]

Played from our "white" tees today at about 6,400 yards rated at 71.0 with a slope of 125. Used the Steelfiber 60's. Nothing worse than a bogey on the card but a slew of them. I went for the first par 5, the second hole and lined up for a draw and hit a big push cut for a lost ball, but I dropped one and put it on the surface from 230 or so to two putt for bogey. Ball striking was reasonable with 10 fairways and 9 greens, but I had 6 three jacks for an 84. I had three up-and-down saves early and then fell apart and went 0 for 6 for the rest of the round. The greens were as slick as I've ever seen them as we were the first tee time right behind the mower and roller. I had fun, but I'm definitely trending in the wrong direction.

 

So, I posted a differential 3 or 4 strokes over my index, while if I could eliminate the 3 putts then I go a stroke or so under my index. Lame.

[DeNinny]

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.

 

But, the sole never comes into play on a thin mishit, unless I'm thinking about this differently. When I catch a ball below the sweetspot with no divot, I get the same results regardless of the iron.

 

Understood. I forgot to add that the wider sole often has a more rounded leading edge which causes more skulled shots when hit thin. This is my experience with mp60s compared to mp67s. Also my experience with mpFliHis compared to either of the two.

 

Also although this is opposite of what I stated earlier, my experience with mpFliHis was simply MORE fat and skulled shots than mp60s or mp67s due to their HUGE soles. I have a sweeper swing and that is why the sole interferes with the ground more too.

 

By contrast, you mentioned you have a steep(ish) swing and so that is why you don't have as much of an issue with turf interaction with your G20s.

 

My bigger point was that one's idea of forgiveness is subjective. Yet that wide sole is marketed as 'universally forgiving'.

 

BTW thanks about answering those technical questions. I will get back to them. Contrary to popular belief, I actually think I can break down the physics of both of our real world experiences and 'golf journeys' WITHOUT argument! All it takes is two OPEN MINDS (to the other's views) and NOT making any ASSumptions about one another's posts!

You can tell the difference in the roundness of the leading edge between the 60s and 67s based on ball flight? They have practically identical specs. I would think the roundness of the leading edge would account for <1 mm of the vertical profile that could produce different ball flights. (Did that make sense?)

Fats and thins sounds like more of a swing issue than a design issue. Could be swingweight, overall weight, or length, buuuut perimeter weighting? Hmm, not seeing that.

Steep swing = shallow angle of attack. This spring I've managed to shallowed my VSP, which would steeped my AoA. I notice the MPs taking bigger divots, but possibly the one thing I do well, lol, is taking a divot in front of the ball, so turf interaction, as it relates to ball flight for me, is minimal. I've played with guys (some good players, too) who hit every shot "fat" with no shaft lean - that's who has to really worry about turf interaction.

You're focusing on "forgiving" as being a "universal" thing. It's the manufactuers' job to sell clubs, and they're not going to sell many with the tagline of "It might help you ... or it might not", lol. If somebody gets 50.1% of the vote, everybody refers to them as President. It's just like a company saying their product tastes great - it's not going to for everybody, but it's okay for them to market it that way. What is the definition of forgiving? If one club mitigates performance loss on most off-center hits, relative to some benchmark, why not call it forgiving.

As mentioned before, I'd like to see actual performance data, because the properties of a club are going to be the same for everybody. Marketing different features for different swing types would make sense.

Honestly, I'm not terribly worried about the "physics" of the situation - I will leave that to the club designers. I am concerned about performance, which is noticeably different between the "shovels" and the most blade-like irons I have played.

 

What I'm saying is that I hit more "good" thin mishits with my mp67s than my mp60s. And yes it was marginally better but I can definitely tell that I get a better thin mishit with the mp67s. And then when I add the mpFliHi to the equation, then it gets significantly worse compared to both.

 

In regards to telling all the differences between mp60s and 67s, it takes A LOT of balls and rounds. They are similar in specs but just by looking at them there are differences. And Mizuno released both clubs at the same time and geared for different skill levels. And the same as telling the difference between their leading edges and soles, I can also tell the difference in their workability and feel...the mp67s are better in this regard too. But again the differences are marginal and again it takes A LOT of comparison testing. (LOL but yet Mizuno will have you think that an 8 cap would play the mp60s better...not in my experience...)

 

Also you mentioned my swing is an issue, which it is, but what I'm saying is that when I compare the two clubs with the same swing, the mp67s are better clubs for me with MY swing (just like you say your G20s are better for you and your swing) as compared to that same swing, errors and all, with using mp60s or mpFliHis instead. Again, I know all this and the differences because I hit all the clubs in side by side testing. I also played all types of clubs during all states of my swing and game, good and bad, and also at varying handicaps.

 

I'm focusing and ranting about the manufacturers marketing "forgiveness" as universal and something that has some sort of relationship with handicap. That's how this whole convo started. I claimed it as hype, and at best we have come to mutual agreement that it is not universal and only applicable to some swings. This was my point. The same things you claim as "forgiving" are not to me. What you stated about off-center mishits is also NOT universal. It really depends on the direction of the mishit. As I stated, for MY game, an off-center mishit is WORSE with a wide soled club when the mishit is vertical. The physics supports this. A wider sole (due to perimeter weighting) simply has a higher chance of ground interference compared to a thinner sole and also a more rounded leading edge has a higher chance of skulling the ball. Also to your point, a CB club on an open faced toe mishit will take off some sidespin and will not slice as bad as an open faced toe mishit with a blade. The physics also supports this. (Note also there are physics that support that on center hits will be MORE accurate/forgiving with a blade/MB...)

 

Besides, you claim that my fat shots issue is not the club and I could claim the same thing about your mishits with the mp62s. ...Maybe it isn't the club...

 

So you support the marketing that supports your real world "forgiving" experience, and by contrast I'm ranting about the marketing that doesn't exist to support my real world "forgiving" experience. This is my point and why I have a rant and you don't! The marketing physics just happens to line up to YOUR experience but it is not universal. (And by the way, the "physics" is entwined with performance to me. I cannot separate the two since they go hand in hand. It also supports BOTH of our golf journeys and real world experiences. And for me I'm very glad I no longer have to rely on the club designers to explain the physics. They ALWAYS leave out the negative physics when it comes to the clubs they are selling.)

 

Also for sure I had a performance issue with using my SGI mpFliHi hybrid irons than my more blade-like mp60s and mp67s. I had MORE mishits with the mpFliHis and their workability and distance control and dispersion was WORSE. The physics supports this because again it DEFINES the performance.

[Matt J]

Another little tidbit about the "journey."

 

The Byron's top line keeps showing this scratches. I think they're from the velcro on the cover. I've tried a few times to polish them out, but now I've accidentally buffed the top line into a shiny finish. I'm considering running by the Harbor Freight and picking up a gravity feed abrasive gun and some glass beads. I've never used a sandblaster, but I've got a few things to practice on before giving it a go on my putter. I don't think there's any other way to get the right matte finish.

[Gauchograd99]

Gaucho, I just picked up a pair of the 2015 Tiger Woods:

 

The toe box is as big as any standard shoe I've tried on in ages, and I'm pretty sure they sell them in wide. I always liked "dressier" golf shoes like Footjoys especially with pants in the fall and winter, but just bought these to wear with shorts. Today was the first day and they're awesome. They have replaceable spikes and are the real deal as far as performance while being as comfortable as a running shoe. I found them on sale at Nike.com a week or two back because I wanted the gray color in the picture, but there's a big thread about guys finding them super cheap at ROSS and Burlington Coat Factory in the Red color - like 29.99 cheap. Dudes are even sending them to each other in the thread, so you could probably try the 9 Wide and if it doesn't work out sell it for what you paid minus the shipping. Here's the thread:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...0/page__st__690

 

When you see them saying LC3, that's the Lunar Command 3 and I have a pair of those too, also a pretty big toe box.

 

For the high arch I'd just put a high arch Superfeet insole in whatever you buy.

 

Thanks man! I will check the local stores first as fit for me is always an issue. All my tennis shoes are New Balance (2E or 4E due to toe cup issues) so Nike usually gets an immediate pass, but I have heard they are wider these days.

 

I tried on just about everything else in the world so I'll take a look hopefully tomorrow. We have a Burlington Coat Factory near here and then I can run up to Santa Ana and the "big" Roger Dunn store.

[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?

Seems to me it would be having the mass less concentrated and spread toward the perimeter of the clubhead, and a more rear-ward CG. The same features that make a 460cc Ti driver more forgiving than a persimmon.

How big is the sweetspot? No clue. Effective hitting area? G20s at least twice the size of the MP62s. Of course the heads are a good bit larger to begin with - there would be a lot of "dead" area in the G20s if the effective hitting areas were the same.

 

By effective hitting area, I mean where there is no to minimal loss in performance (which would include the sweetspot). I can tell when I hit the sweetspot vs. close vs. near the edge in all my irons.

 

CrabDaddy, this is good to understand your perspective and with this I can explain the physics behind both of our real world experiences.

 

So yes the perimeter weighting does play a role in the physics of "forgiveness". Besides what this does to the clubhead MOI and also the CG placement and all the other marketed physics, what also happens is that the thickness of the face wall gets thinner and thinner as you perimeter weight the head more and more. And what happens when the face wall gets thinner and thinner is that the amount the face flexes gets proportionally more and more given the same force from impact. Approximately, if you halved the face wall thickness, the same force would flex the thinner face wall twice as much. Also, the flex of the face is VARIABLE based on the location of the force on the face. The dead center of the face will flex the most and as you go toward the weighted perimeter, in ALL directions, the face will flex less and less. The face is basically like a trampoline except that it is in the shape of a triangle. Regardless, what happens with a flexing face like this is that there is going to be a slightly different ball compression and thus spin no matter where on the face that you strike it since the flex changes based on where as well. Also the more the face flexes, the more the differences in the spins. Also there is a face angle bias from this too. The bias always angles toward the center which again is where there is the MOST flex given the same force. This is universal physics since all materials are flexible (and compressible and stretchable). The amount of flex is simply a mathematical formula based on the material properties and physical shape. So assuming the materials are the same, a CB shovel face flexes proportionally more than a blade face based on their relative difference in face wall thickness.

 

This is the physics of why the open faced toe mishit is "forgiving" with a more perimeter weighted club. If you hit a flexing clubface with toe mishit, the face angle goes to a closed position dynamically AND the ball compression is MOST out at the toe, so ultimately the ball will have some draw or hook spin bias that will counter the effect of the open face at impact. So to your point, the physics of the CB face will result in a straighter and longer mishit based on an open face and strike on the toe side of the sweetspot.

 

Also this is the physics of why CBs launch the ball higher too. When there is loft angle on the face, the lower half of the clubface will ALWAYS flex more from impact with the ball, relative to the upper half of the face. The lower half of the ball is simply contacted first. And so what happens is that, again because of the flexing face, the face has loft dynamically added during impact. Relative to the less flexing face, this face will launch the ball higher. Note also that this physics is independent from the CG location which also can cause the ball to launch higher too.

 

But also this very same physics is what makes the CB face inconsistent from shot to shot and also what makes it harder to work the ball than a blade face that has much LESS flex. With a less flexible face, the spin is going to be MORE consistent from shot to shot since the ball compresses more consistently by having a consistent surface to rebound against. And when you add to this the fact that a wider sole (due to perimeter weighting) has a higher chance of ground interference, then it begs the question as to whether or not the CB club is more forgiving than NOT.

 

Also the physics of the trampoline face is why mishits don't feel as bad with the CB club too. The vibrations from impact are staying contained down in the head because the trampoline face vibrates like a drum instead of transmitting those vibrations up the shaft and into the hands.

[CrabDaddy]

...

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?

Seems to me it would be having the mass less concentrated and spread toward the perimeter of the clubhead, and a more rear-ward CG. The same features that make a 460cc Ti driver more forgiving than a persimmon.

How big is the sweetspot? No clue. Effective hitting area? G20s at least twice the size of the MP62s. Of course the heads are a good bit larger to begin with - there would be a lot of "dead" area in the G20s if the effective hitting areas were the same.

 

By effective hitting area, I mean where there is no to minimal loss in performance (which would include the sweetspot). I can tell when I hit the sweetspot vs. close vs. near the edge in all my irons.

 

CrabDaddy, this is good to understand your perspective and with this I can explain the physics behind both of our real world experiences.

 

So yes the perimeter weighting does play a role in the physics of "forgiveness". Besides what this does to the clubhead MOI and also the CG placement and all the other marketed physics, what also happens is that the thickness of the face wall gets thinner and thinner as you perimeter weight the head more and more. And what happens when the face wall gets thinner and thinner is that the amount the face flexes gets proportionally more and more given the same force from impact. Approximately, if you halved the face wall thickness, the same force would flex the thinner face wall twice as much. Also, the flex of the face is VARIABLE based on the location of the force on the face. The dead center of the face will flex the most and as you go toward the weighted perimeter, in ALL directions, the face will flex less and less. The face is basically like a trampoline except that it is in the shape of a triangle. Regardless, what happens with a flexing face like this is that there is going to be a slightly different ball compression and thus spin no matter where on the face that you strike it since the flex changes based on where as well. Also the more the face flexes, the more the differences in the spins. Also there is a face angle bias from this too. The bias always angles toward the center which again is where there is the MOST flex given the same force. This is universal physics since all materials are flexible (and compressible and stretchable). The amount of flex is simply a mathematical formula based on the material properties and physical shape. So assuming the materials are the same, a CB shovel face flexes proportionally more than a blade face based on their relative difference in face wall thickness.

 

This is the physics of why the open faced toe mishit is "forgiving" with a more perimeter weighted club. If you hit a flexing clubface with toe mishit, the face angle goes to a closed position dynamically AND the ball compression is MOST out at the toe, so ultimately the ball will have some draw or hook spin bias that will counter the effect of the open face at impact. So to your point, the physics of the CB face will result in a straighter and longer mishit based on an open face and strike on the toe side of the sweetspot.

 

Also this is the physics of why CBs launch the ball higher too. When there is loft angle on the face, the lower half of the clubface will ALWAYS flex more from impact with the ball, relative to the upper half of the face. The lower half of the ball is simply contacted first. And so what happens is that, again because of the flexing face, the face has loft dynamically added during impact. Relative to the less flexing face, this face will launch the ball higher. Note also that this physics is independent from the CG location which also can cause the ball to launch higher too.

 

But also this very same physics is what makes the CB face inconsistent from shot to shot and also what makes it harder to work the ball than a blade face that has much LESS flex. With a less flexible face, the spin is going to be MORE consistent from shot to shot since the ball compresses more consistently by having a consistent surface to rebound against. And when you add to this the fact that a wider sole (due to perimeter weighting) has a higher chance of ground interference, then it begs the question as to whether or not the CB club is more forgiving than NOT.

 

Also the physics of the trampoline face is why mishits don't feel as bad with the CB club too. The vibrations from impact are staying contained down in the head because the trampoline face vibrates like a drum instead of transmitting those vibrations up the shaft and into the hands.

How much does the face flex in irons without face inserts? How much difference in flex is there between a muscle cavity like an MP25/64 and a G15/20 or Eye2?

Why would the lower half of an iron's face flex more than the upper half? If this flexing has a significant impact on ball flight, why don't flier lies come out as low line drives?

As for inconsistency, what is the range of distance and spin for balls struck with the same launch conditions for a CB vs. a blade? Given just center face contact (eventhough contact is pretty variable for 99% of golfers).

[Matt J]

The sand blasting of the Byron went swimmingly. The mirrored top line has been exchanged for a much less distracting and more visually appealing frosted stainless.

 

I grabbed a $20 gravity feed gun and about 25 pounds of 70 grit glass bead medium from the local Harbor Freight store and went to town. I didn't shoot any "before" pictures, but you can see from the last picture of the sole how shiny the top line was before the blasting. It looked identical to the sole. I actually went ahead and shot a lot of the bumpers and the cavity just to make it look uniform. I'm super pleased with the result. Also, jammed a coat hanger down the bottom of the opening on that SuperStroke Pistol GT and poured a bunch of mineral spirits down there and got it to slide off. I really wanted to keep that grip, extend the shaft and try it again, so I was stoked that worked too. Good day in the tinkering department and I passed my test to start work, so a great day overall!

 

DH89, BB1 and Newport - the naked threesome!

 

 

Cavity shot (I think I'll go get a needle paint applicator from the Michael's later in the week so I can reapply the paint fill)

 

 

Much improved address position:

 

 

Picture of the sole to compare sheen:

 

[CrabDaddy]

The sand blasting of the Byron went swimmingly. The mirrored top line has been exchanged for a much less distracting and more visually appealing frosted stainless.

 

I grabbed a $20 gravity feed gun and about 25 pounds of 70 grit glass bead medium from the local Harbor Freight store and went to town. I didn't shoot any "before" pictures, but you can see from the last picture of the sole how shiny the top line was before the blasting. It looked identical to the sole. I actually went ahead and shot a lot of the bumpers and the cavity just to make it look uniform. I'm super pleased with the result. Also, jammed a coat hanger down the bottom of the opening on that SuperStroke Pistol GT and poured a bunch of mineral spirits down there and got it to slide off. I really wanted to keep that grip, extend the shaft and try it again, so I was stoked that worked too. Good day in the tinkering department and I passed my test to start work, so a great day overall!

 

DH89, BB1 and Newport - the naked threesome!

 

 

Cavity shot (I think I'll go get a needle paint applicator from the Michael's later in the week so I can reapply the paint fill)

 

 

Much improved address position:

 

 

Picture of the sole to compare sheen:

 

Nice job! That's a big difference in finish - I could never have played something that glossy on a sunny day, LOL.

Are you going to re-finish or leave it raw?

 

Good to hear you got the SS grip off. I've got an old Ping Darby putter that needs a new shaft and grip, and this may be the motivation I need to finish that project, lol.

[Matt J]

One day I might get some SS blackener, but I doubt I'll torch it.

 

Thanks for the compliment!

[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?

Seems to me it would be having the mass less concentrated and spread toward the perimeter of the clubhead, and a more rear-ward CG. The same features that make a 460cc Ti driver more forgiving than a persimmon.

How big is the sweetspot? No clue. Effective hitting area? G20s at least twice the size of the MP62s. Of course the heads are a good bit larger to begin with - there would be a lot of "dead" area in the G20s if the effective hitting areas were the same.

 

By effective hitting area, I mean where there is no to minimal loss in performance (which would include the sweetspot). I can tell when I hit the sweetspot vs. close vs. near the edge in all my irons.

 

CrabDaddy, this is good to understand your perspective and with this I can explain the physics behind both of our real world experiences.

 

So yes the perimeter weighting does play a role in the physics of "forgiveness". Besides what this does to the clubhead MOI and also the CG placement and all the other marketed physics, what also happens is that the thickness of the face wall gets thinner and thinner as you perimeter weight the head more and more. And what happens when the face wall gets thinner and thinner is that the amount the face flexes gets proportionally more and more given the same force from impact. Approximately, if you halved the face wall thickness, the same force would flex the thinner face wall twice as much. Also, the flex of the face is VARIABLE based on the location of the force on the face. The dead center of the face will flex the most and as you go toward the weighted perimeter, in ALL directions, the face will flex less and less. The face is basically like a trampoline except that it is in the shape of a triangle. Regardless, what happens with a flexing face like this is that there is going to be a slightly different ball compression and thus spin no matter where on the face that you strike it since the flex changes based on where as well. Also the more the face flexes, the more the differences in the spins. Also there is a face angle bias from this too. The bias always angles toward the center which again is where there is the MOST flex given the same force. This is universal physics since all materials are flexible (and compressible and stretchable). The amount of flex is simply a mathematical formula based on the material properties and physical shape. So assuming the materials are the same, a CB shovel face flexes proportionally more than a blade face based on their relative difference in face wall thickness.

 

This is the physics of why the open faced toe mishit is "forgiving" with a more perimeter weighted club. If you hit a flexing clubface with toe mishit, the face angle goes to a closed position dynamically AND the ball compression is MOST out at the toe, so ultimately the ball will have some draw or hook spin bias that will counter the effect of the open face at impact. So to your point, the physics of the CB face will result in a straighter and longer mishit based on an open face and strike on the toe side of the sweetspot.

 

Also this is the physics of why CBs launch the ball higher too. When there is loft angle on the face, the lower half of the clubface will ALWAYS flex more from impact with the ball, relative to the upper half of the face. The lower half of the ball is simply contacted first. And so what happens is that, again because of the flexing face, the face has loft dynamically added during impact. Relative to the less flexing face, this face will launch the ball higher. Note also that this physics is independent from the CG location which also can cause the ball to launch higher too.

 

But also this very same physics is what makes the CB face inconsistent from shot to shot and also what makes it harder to work the ball than a blade face that has much LESS flex. With a less flexible face, the spin is going to be MORE consistent from shot to shot since the ball compresses more consistently by having a consistent surface to rebound against. And when you add to this the fact that a wider sole (due to perimeter weighting) has a higher chance of ground interference, then it begs the question as to whether or not the CB club is more forgiving than NOT.

 

Also the physics of the trampoline face is why mishits don't feel as bad with the CB club too. The vibrations from impact are staying contained down in the head because the trampoline face vibrates like a drum instead of transmitting those vibrations up the shaft and into the hands.

How much does the face flex in irons without face inserts? How much difference in flex is there between a muscle cavity like an MP25/64 and a G15/20 or Eye2?

Why would the lower half of an iron's face flex more than the upper half? If this flexing has a significant impact on ball flight, why don't flier lies come out as low line drives?

As for inconsistency, what is the range of distance and spin for balls struck with the same launch conditions for a CB vs. a blade? Given just center face contact (eventhough contact is pretty variable for 99% of golfers).

 

So as mentioned when the material is the same, the RELATIVE amount of flex is roughly proportional to the RELATIVE difference in the wall thickness. Double the thickness, roughly half the amount of flex. The core physics (or materials science) of this has to do with the basic properties of all materials, which in this case are the Young's (or elastic), bulk, and shear moduli:

 

https://en.wikipedia...g's_modulus

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Bulk_modulus

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Shear_modulus

 

Assuming the material does NOT reach the point of permanent deformation, these moduli define how much a material will deform under a given force. The deformation is defined in three ways. The Young's or elastic modulus defines the deformation in the stretch direction. The bulk modulus defines it in the compression direction. And the shear modulus defines it in the "twist" direction. In all cases, the math works out where under a given force there is a 'delta' (i.e. change) in deformation from the original shape. Also in the math the modulus is a given value based on the material itself. In the links above there are tables for some materials that show their differences. (But again to reiterate, ALL materials behave the same mathematically and within the range of force before permanent deformation of the material can take place...point being is that this physics is ALWAYS happening at impact...)

 

So now to answer your first question about how an insert changes the flex, the answer is that it depends on the overall shape of the insert and what is its base material. If you look at the link for the Young's modulus, there is a table of common materials and for discussion purposes, let's say the insert is made of polypropylene and the iron is basic steel. Respectively, the Young's modulus for each of these materials is 1.5-2 GPa and 200 GPa. These are two orders of magnitude different and so what this means is that it will take at least 100 times more force to deform steel in the 'stretch' direction as compared to polypropylene, assuming the materials are both the same size and shape.

 

Without inserts and assuming the materials are the same, like 1020 carbon steel for example, the flex difference in two irons like an MP25/64 and a G15/20 or Eye2 is going to be roughly and inversely proportional to the relative differences in their wall thicknesses. This isn't 100% exact but it gives a rough approximation.

 

Also remember too that the difference in flex is not a 1:1 relationship with the amount of spin difference. Doubling the flex doesn't necessarily double the spin, but it will for sure change the spin. For every amount of additional flex, there will for sure be some proportionate amount of less ball compression that results in less spin.

 

The reason that the lower half of an iron's face simply flexes more than the upper half is (as mentioned) because of the LOFT. With loft angle, the lower half of the iron's face ALWAYS contacts the ball first relative to the upper half. If the loft was zero, then contact would be at the perfect middle of both halves. First contact with the ball would be exactly at its equator. And if the loft was negative (i.e. the face is angled downward instead of upwards) then the upper half of the face would start flexing first since ball contact would start above the equator instead. Again with loft, contact is ALWAYS at the lower half of the ball and therefore the lower half of the iron face starts flexing first (and MORE).

 

As to the impact on flier lies and why they aren't always low line drives, the answer depends on a lot of other factors. It would depend on where the golfer makes contact with a flier lie RELATIVE to how he makes contact with a normal lie. Also it would depend on whether or not the flier lie included there being some grass between the ball and the club face. To really get into the details of answering this, you/we would have to really define all the things that are different between the flier lie and the normal lie. But off the top of my head and based on personal experience, a flier lie doesn't really change the ball's launch angle. This would not change if I were using a club with low face flex or high face flex.

 

So your last question is also another highly variable one and is difficult to answer simply because I'm not sure yet on what you are getting at AND the answer of how flex EXACTLY changes spin and distance is highly variable. What I can say is that if the RELATIVE amount of flex on a face is more variable from one club vs another, then for sure the different face flex will change the spin from shot to shot. Also it will slightly change the launch angle from shot to shot. The more flexible the face, the more these differences, even given the exact same launch conditions. Moreover, you can have the same exact launch conditions but if you vary the hit location on the face, the resulting ball flight (spin and distance) will start changing slightly. The reason is because there is ALWAYS face flex and the shape and the material(s) itself define it.

 

But even without getting into the details, have you ever noticed that forgiving iron manufacturers will always emphasize that there is not much difference in shot dispersion when comparing a blade and a CB based on a DEAD CENTER pure strike? They always like to emphasize this fact, which is the theoretical ideal of where ball flight is the most consistent. But as we have been discussing, WHERE IS THE DATA as you start deviating from this ideal? Where is the data in ALL directions away from sweetspot? I can only speculate but based on physics, the data would show that the dispersion (distance and spin) would change based on the amount of clubhead face flex. This is the "dirty secret" of forgiveness and manufacturers would rather focus the ignorant golfer's attention on things like CG placement and "clubhead MOI". And also only on the ideal situation of dead center contact. As we both have been discussing, the emphasis in the marketing is only the beneficial physics. The physics that includes detriments is not good marketing.

[DeNinny]

Matt J, nice work on the putters. I was going to suggest that really fine sandpaper may also do the trick but it looks like your bead blast did just fine.

 

I've been looking at some Piretti putters myself. The other day I dropped of my Retro Miura heads and MP-60s with Rifle 5.0s with my fitter so that he can put the 5.0s in the Retros, and while I was in the shop I hit some putts. And wow Pirettis feel pretty awesome. I hit some putts with Miura putters too. I confirmed once again that I just can't get used to how a blade putter feels, and also I realized that putter symmetry is important to me visually. The putter has to be visually the same above the sight line as it is below it. I am a mallet guy and I realized that I don't like mallets that have a different toe shape than heel shape. Some mallets, like the Miura one, have more mass at the toe than heel and that messes with me visually. The symmetry is one thing I like about blade putters too, but again I cannot get into how they feel.

 

And here's some paintfill eye candy just before I put epoxy over the top of it (the blue looks better in person and with the epoxy on top)...

 

 

...my fitter is going to put some yellow ferrules on them too.

[jbhawx]

So I have a few confessions that would probably cause some exploding heads.

 

Confession 1: Fixing the swing

 

Since I track every shot I know what distance I get with each club every time (Thanks Gamegolf, lol) This also runs the risk of trying to fix stuff on the fly. Not a good idea. Lately I've been noticing a lack of distance. For example I normally hit a 7 iron 155-160 yards. Over the past few games I've been getting 135 yards tops. Without diagnosing the problem correctly I just try to swing harder or faster, and that doesn't help either. It took a while and a third eye to figure out that at the top of my swing I started the transition and went into my downswing with my arms and shoulders first, and would then rotate my hips around. So if I would have taken the time the first time to slow down and diagnose the root cause I would have saved myself from confession 2 lol. The good news is I am back on track with my swing training and starting the swing with the hips first.

 

Confession 2: Throwing money at it.

 

As much as I advocate buying what you want and not letting someone talk you into something, I failed...With confession 1 above lingering in my mind, and my wife and kids out of town, it became a receipt for disaster. With nothing to do I'd spend hours at the pro shop hitting clubs, trying this, and trying that. On this particular occasion, frustrated over confession 1, I broke down and listened to the pro shop employee and bought a set of new clubs recommended for my handicap. I immediately hated the look, size, and everything about them. However; after getting so much crap on how I play clubs that are suited for players better than me, I bought the set out of spite (bad idea, don't ever do this). I immediately took them home and hit the course. Walked off the course half way through because they were just horrible. Lousy feel, light, etc, etc, etc. The next day I call to see if I can return them. Of course since I used them to hit even just 1 ball, I couldn't get all my money back. Ticked over it, I went to a retail store that had a 150% trade in value on select clubs. All I had to do was buy one of the select clubs. I tried several drivers over several hours with help and input from the staff (very helpful actually, much better than my go to pro shop). At the end of everything I managed to only find my swing again. The results on the launch monitor matched what I get with my current driver (Thanks to gamegolf again for having these stats to compare), and I had no need to get a new driver. So I looked at putters (The other great way to improve your game). I tried out many different putters, even Jason Day's putter (Awesome feel, but wasn't sold on it). Eventually I kept gravitating towards a specific Scotty and I was able to control putts and putt very consistently stroke after stroke. I was able to make the same putt 2, 3, and even 4 times in a row, and misses were very consistent. To me that was a good sign. However; a Scotty putter wasn't part of the 150% trade in value bonus, so I also grabbed a new hybrid that was. Didn't even try it out. I got it more for the 150% value than to actually use it. In the end I spend $500 on new clubs that were absolutely horrible based on bad advice, and managed to get $650 out of them as trade towards a new Scotty and hybrid. I later exchanged the hybrid and my bag for a new bag as well (Turns out the silencer concept is cool, but very impractical, and heavy to carry). Only thing I lost in all of it was a set of MP-60s that I haven't played with since building my current set of irons.

 

So there is my two confessions. I'm sure this will explode some heads. At least the ending is positive and I'm much happier with where things are now.

[DeNinny]

LOL jb find me one golfer that DOESN'T have both of those confessions. BTDT × 99.99% of all golfers!

 

Every time I am in a big name golf store and I am quietly minding my own business and trying their blades, invariably a sales guy will bring over the latest club with the latest greatest "forgiving technology" and ask me to hit it.

 

We play a carney game. Don't be the 'mark'!

[CrabDaddy]

DeNinny, I'm going to have to respond in parts due to time. So, face flex is proportional to material and thickness. That's intuitive, but proportional only means there is a linear relationship. The slope of that relationship could be 20 or 0.05.

(I will have to see what the face thickness is on my G20s and MP62s)

I took your wording of flex regarding top vs bottom half as a measurement separate from the golf ball's point of contact. But.....

With the 62s, for sure, the bottom half of the club is thicker than the top half, which leads me to believe that the bottom half doesn't flex more.

 

More later.

[DeNinny]

CrabDaddy, again take your time. No worries if you bring up something from weeks/months ago.

 

To be clear, that proportion is roughly linear. Under the ideal deformation conditions it is exactly an inversely linear proportion (as proven by the formulas in those links...'delta x' is directly proprtional to a given force), but since impact is a complicated 3d mathematical mess then it is not exactly an inverse linear proportion. But for purposes of a conceptual discussion it is close enough.

 

Yes the mp62 lower half DOESN'T flex more because of that muscle. I meant the point more based on ALL THINGS EQUAL which would include the face thickness between the upper and lower half of the ball. And also I meant the point more to explain why an SGI club with little to no muscle launches the ball higher relative to one with a muscle. With a muscle or insert, the flex for sure changes.

 

I'm really glad we are taking the time to SEEK TO UNDERSTAND each other without exploding heads over miscommunication or unnecessary ASSumptions.

[CrabDaddy]

I will have to come back to relative flex later since, evidently, I have homework, lol. I think it is a side issue, though, that may or may not feed into the bottom line.

However, I did measure the thickness of the cavities of my irons. Rough without calipers, but two pencils and a ruler got me: G20 7mm (topline, had to assume even thickness due to badge), MP62 13mm, and Apex Plus 13mm (~13mm above sole). So, how many blades are >13mm thick? ...with those super thin soles...hmmm.

 

But, the bottom line is what is the dispersion of shots between a CB and blade for an "average" golfer (a muddier definition than "forgiving")? FWIW, I've never heard a manufacturer state that dispersion was identical between club types on center contact shots. Regardless, if there is a difference in dispersion, is it significant? If it is or is not significant, is there a bias? Again, just starting with center face contact and identical impact conditions, because that is where blades are supposed to shine.

No, manufacturers don't put out this data, but data goes both ways. If it is not available to prove an hypothesis, it isn't available to disprove it either. Some of their reasoning for not putting it out could be due to the cut-throat environment regarding patents in the industry.