Miura 1957 Small Blade/Baby Blade enthusiasts thread! (Lots of enabling and physics lessons inside)

[dan360]

If y'all are gonna turn this baby blade thread into a discussion of physics, here's my take.

 

 

The door swings both ways. Gravity, centrifugal force, resistance, et al. E=MC squared.

 

Or, in layman terms. Shut up.

 

 

 

 

lol

[DeNinny]

If y'all are gonna turn this baby blade thread into a discussion of physics, here's my take.

 

 

The door swings both ways. Gravity, centrifugal force, resistance, et al. E=MC squared.

 

Or, in layman terms. Shut up.

 

 

 

 

lol

 

But as you skim by my technical dissertations, know that it is somehow getting absorbed by your brain subconsciously and getting stored up in there just waiting to be validated by you when you eventually get out to play and hit your White Trash Sluts. And then when you finally experience it on the course and that validation hits you in the form of the proverbial light bulb going off in your head, know that I'm going to be standing there grinning at you and knowing that all of your enjoyment is...

 

...wait for it...

 

...100% based on the physics!

[DeNinny]

Hey PopIt there's nothing we are in disagreement on. I totally understand that there are intangibles and psychology* that override a lot of technology.

 

All I'm really saying is that you can't use a technical reason to play a CB over a blade and you can't claim a BB is technically "demanding" over its alternatives. All other things equal of course.

 

*The reason I name my sets and why I paint fill them so pretty is precisely for my own psychology. I want nothing but happy thoughts and pretty visuals as I pull a club.

 

You are right, disagreement wasnt the right word. I would just communicate the information with a bit of a different emphasis or perspective but it's nothing more than different people experiencing things differently. I believe the intangibles both in the swing and the equipment carry a greater weight than any of the known tangibles ever could. Of course I would never expect a science minded engineer to see it exactly that way ;) Of course I appreciate and agree with all of the great information you shared. Most of which cant be argued other than how relevant it is to playing better golf.

 

I actually have a golfing buddy who is an engineer and while he's a pretty good player he should be a lot better but he simply wont acknowledge variables that he cant directly measure and it is killing his potential. We butt heads about things all the time ;) Not accusing you of that as you seem much more grounded in that area. Just a barely relevant side note lol.

 

I actually don't see golf as having any intangibles anymore. The entire game is a physics problem. At its core and the most simple way of looking at it, it is a collision between the clubface and ball. And everything about that collision is definable and dictated by the laws of physics. So ultimately there really aren't any "intangibles". To me "intangibles" is anything in a golfer's mind about the swing or his equipment that he simply doesn't understand. In other words, EVERYTHING in golf truly is "tangible". It really is a great big physics or engineering problem. Everything that happens to the ball as it flies through the air and lands on the ground is fully definable by the laws of physics. And for me it wasn't until I completely understood the physics of golf in its entirety before I could put it to practice and actually use it to my advantage.

 

In the area of equipment it has allowed me to engineer and build the best set of clubs that I could possibly build for me and my game. My BB irons, Miura black wedges, TEE CB2 woods and driver, and Piretti putter are all meticulously put together based on my "fit" of myself based on my own engineering and past experiences of what I play best with. I would not have the bag that I have today, and therefore would not enjoy the game and play the game as well as I do today, if it weren't for me understanding the physics to the level that I do.

 

In the area of the swing it has been as equally helpful, I truly have broken down the ideal swing based on my physics observations of what all good golfers do to produce a good swing and have been able to apply this knowledge to my own swing and it has been paying off in spades for me and my game over the last several years. Just like equipment, I broke it all down as an engineering physics problem and now I know how to "engineer" my own swing and have been able to determine a lot of cause and effect relationships between how I produce both a good and bad swing (and chip, pitch, and putt). My swing is to the point that I know exactly what I need to do with it, and now my issues with my game are simply mental and execution of the right motions issues. And again it is all because I can break down the physics of any part of my swing or in general any part of the motions my body needs to make to produce the proper hit (or collision) on the ball.

 

So for me and my game, I have benefitted from exploring and "solving" every technical aspect of this game to the best of my engineering ability and technical knowledge. I play the game better the more I keep engineering it my own way. I also enjoy the game tremendously better, with the exception that I abhor and detest the "forgiving" golf industry because it is ruining the game for golfers in the long run, because of my technical exploration. So in short, I don't see the game anymore as having "intangibles" because in reality it is all physics. There's no magic to any of it. It really is a complicated physics problem in every single aspect of it. And it took my entire education and willingness to apply it for me to see all of this properly.

 

Even typing my dissertations out to you and fellow WRXers helps me get better. I love explaining everything in my head about the physics of golf because I have found that it truly does help me and my game. It "hardens" my knowledge in my brain as I explain it and type it all out and makes me understand and see it even more clearly in my brain. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain a technical problem simply, then you don't really understand it. So to me when I type up my stuff and then someone like you comes along and gets everything that I'm saying and you understand it logically and without any misunderstanding of what I'm typing, it is a tremendous validation that what I'm saying is coming through to someone that hasn't studied the game to the level that I have. It tells me that I can explain this complicated game in simple terms (LOL contrary to what my buddy dan360 thinks). It tells me that I do understand what I'm saying to the level that I can explain it simply. So ultimately I'm 'all in' on golf physics and use it constantly to my advantage. Nothing in the game is "intangible" to me other than my ability to properly execute the swing that I know I'm supposed to. And it is a good place to be. The game is much less confusing and simple to me and it is all because I explore and engineer the game to the best of my technical ability and knowledge. It has completely minimized if not eliminated what I consider "intangible" in the game.

[DeNinny]

@MysteryV I'm quoting specific lines that you posted earlier in italics so it is easier to respond to each point...

 

"As I mentioned - I haven't done real math for many, many years, as the most I do these days is calculate discount percentages and derived pricing.

 

I'm not super adamant about either side of the topic as, in theory, there are valid points both ways. That said, the answers to what has the greatest impact on performance - MOI / deformation / ability to close the face, are almost certainly in the finite element analysis that I no longer have the time (or chops) to do."

 

As I mentioned, there is zero validity to the high MOI model because the basis of it requires several false assumptions (I mentioned two already but there are more). So no amount of finite element analysis of high MOI will have any merit because the merits of the theory of high MOI being "forgiving" (any way that we agree to define it) is completely false. I promise you, it is a complete carney technical sham and I can completely refute any supposed theory that it is "helping" a miss hit. Again, just make your opening problem statement on how it supposedly helps the clubhead "deflect" less at impact and I promise you that I will point out exactly where in your theory there is a false assumption. High MOI = carney sham(e) in terms of "forgiveness". And again if you indulge me I can explain it.

 

"My suspicion, based on nothing more than a hunch, is that your deformation argument applies to "new distance GI irons" (thinking squarely Callaway here) - particularly with anecdotal reports of some extreme flyers and their "360 Face Cup Technology" However, when you look at any one-piece CBs, I don't expect that deformation has almost any impact on ball flight."

 

I highly advise that you look into your "hunch" in more detail and simply go back to the basic formulas of the math behind temporary deformation (i.e. the application of the Young's, bulk, and shear moduli). The deformation is 100% mathematically relatable to the relative thickness of the clubface wall. This is how the math of the Young's, bulk, and shear moduli work. The amount of deformation of an object is directly proportional to the starting thickness of the object before the deformation. This is a 100% true fact. So in the area of deformation of a clubface, the thinner the clubface, the more it deforms. And this effect has a direct effect on how the ball spins. The ball spins from a biased deformation on one hemisphere of it vs the other. One side of the ball literally compresses more than the other and that is what puts an imbalanced force on the ball which makes it "spring" off the clubface with spin. And this spin is directly definable based on how much the face wall of the clubface has deformed while in collision with the ball.

 

So by the laws of physics and temporary materials deformation, the issue of thinning the clubface and what it does to spin on the ball will mathematically get worse and worse as the wall thickness gets thinner and thinner. It is not a digital issue like you claim. It is a proportional math issue where the more GI you make the club and the thinner and thinner you make the face wall, the more and more this produces inconsistent and variable spin.

 

And it absolutely has an impact on ball flight (and spin) as soon as the wall thickness starts varying. It just gets the most extreme and both ends of the spectrum. The thickest face wall club produces the most consistent spin from shot to shot and the thinnest face wall club produces the most inconsistent spin from shot to shot. This is how the mathematics works out and this is why a GI club is the least controllable and worst club to play for all golfers and why the blade will always produce a more consistent result from shot to shot.

 

I mean you zero disrespect with this response but by your post above you immediately made a false assumption that my issue only matters with GI clubs of the extreme kind. That is not at all how I see the issue and not at all how the math actually works. The impact of deformation is huge based on just understanding the math formulas and knowing that the varying face wall thickness will vary the spin on the ball. The math dictates this! You cannot assume it is negligible in all but the most GI case like you just did.

 

"With regards to MOI - again, I think you're changing the definition of "forgiving" - which is ok - it's just important to note."

 

Again, please note that I can easily refute any way that you try to justify that high MOI "forgives" a miss hit. Define it any way that you want and I can refute it. The "deflects less" theory is flawed and requires false assumptions and I will explain where they all are based on your own view of it. All I ask is that you indulge me by defining it in your own scientific terms so we don't get caught up in assuming how the other looks at it and get bogged down in misunderstandings.

 

The piece that's missing with the "deflects less" versus "squaring the clubface" point is simply the forces involved (which again, I can no longer measure or do the math for). The question would be how much rotational force is the average golfer putting on the handle through the swing, and how much additional force would be necessary to turn X additional mass in a CB vs MB. I can't imagine it's significantly more - but I could very well be wrong.

 

To me the piece that's missing is simply the understanding of where the flawed and false assumptions are in the "deflects less" theory. There's no need to evaluate the "deflects less" theory when the flawed false assumptions invalidate the theory to begin with. LOL and I promise you there are flawed assumptions in it!!!

 

But regardless and just to indulge your point, the same math and theory to state that a higher MOI clubhead "deflects less" at impact actually applies to the "squaring the clubface". The calculation of both is dictated by the MOI itself as the clubhead rotates around the shaft (and to get nitpicky by the MOI of the entire club as it rotates around the wrists). And furthermore, the entire force is also dictated by the golfer himself. He's the energy source behind the "square clubface" and "magnitude of deflection". So my point to you is that they are intertwined in the physics. If you calculate how much a clubhead deflects less, ultimately you can (and must) use a lot of those same calculations to determine how much the clubhead is not square at impact. The higher you make the MOI, the more it will be naturally deflected by and at impact simply because that higher MOI was harder to rotate back to square. You are trying to decouple the physics and my point was that you can't. It's all tied together. (LOL but again it doesn't matter because high MOI already has inherent false assumptions behind it.)

 

"Another strong piece of anecdotal evidence that the "MOI = forgiveness (in the conventional definition)" - is that there is no marketing messaging from OEMs to the contrary. With all the completely false BS they put out there - if there was any hint of truth that a baby blade design was more forgiving than a CB - wouldn't SOMEONE have jumped on that by now? Wouldn't PXG come out with some crazy ad campaign about how they'd designed the worlds first blade as forgiving as a CB?"

 

That SOMEONE is Miura-san by designing and selling the BB! He just doesn't need a carney sham(e) ad campaign like Parsons needs with his carney sham(e) PXG clubs! The baby blade performance speaks for itself and in the anecdotal experience and observation of numerous golfers, the baby blade is truly the best design for many (but not all!) golfers of any skill level that try them.

 

Plus, if you are going to make such a leap of faith conclusion based on "anecdotal evidence", where is there any evidence that any of these "forgiving" clubs are actually doing anything "forgiving"? There's so much "anecdotal evidence" to the contrary with guys playing all kinds of clubs all over the map and scoring the same with any of them.

 

Here's the deal with the "forgiving" club industry, they have created their own "science" about their "forgiving" club designs and it is simply selling to the ignorant public that can't sift through all the BS behind it. So they keep up the model and profiting from it.

 

And the detrimental technology is only incrementally bad as you go more and more GI and the detriments are within the normal error from shot to shot from all golfers. It won't kill your game to the point that you notice the issues. This is why good players can play even the worst GI clubs half way decently and why a hack golfer can play blades as fine as he can GI. The issues with GI and CBs are marginal. And the manufacturers know this and can get away with it.

 

And so their end game is to create a (sham) market that is segmented by handicap so that the golfer is motivated to keep buying clubs based on that handicap. They set up a market geared towards buying more and more clubs over time (as a golfer improves or gets worse) and they have created a "science" to justify it. On top of this they produce the more and more GI clubs with lesser quality and cheaper materials so that they can attain greater profit margins from the ignorant masses of golfers that flock towards the carney sham(e) "forgiving technology" and buy it all in the false hope that it will "improve" their game.

 

And now they can't stop this. There is too much profit for them at stake and also to revert back to a BB design for all golfers to play (because it truly is more forgiving and superior in every way) would discredit everything done to date. So the industry simply has to keep proliferating the myth that their "technology" is "forgiving" and they have to keep at it to sustain the model that got them here today.

 

And in the end it all works because golfers are ignorant and have a burning desire to constantly play better. And also as long as the technology isn't that detrimental the golfer will never notice it because it is all marginal and within his own personal error anyway. But also in the end, golfers (at any skill level) are not playing any of these "forgiving" clubs any better than their blade alternatives. LOL the true science supports this.

 

"Again - I agree with a lot of your points, and my actual position on this is that for a mid / high capper - it probably doesn't matter what you play for the most part as long as you're comfortable and enjoying yourself."

 

My position is really not any different in that you should just play what makes you personally feel better to play. But also my position from a pure technical standpoint is that the blade and BB design is the best design for all golfers of all skill levels to play and that the "forgiving" designs are a complete CARNEY SHAM(E). This is 100% backed by all the science that I have put forth and I challenge anyone to put forth any science to the contrary and I will refute it.

 

Also just added a BB 4 iron to my order. Was only going to go 5-P but figured I may never be able to get a new 4-iron again.

 

Good move! The way I see it, you cannot go wrong (and should) with replacing as many of your clubs as possible with BBs. They are going to be superior in every way to its alternate club.

[DeNinny]

...

 

I know the Baby Blade will be more demanding,

 

...

So I'm just curious how you "know" this when you have yet to actually play them. By the science, everything in the BB design demands less from a golfer than the CB57. (Forgiveness is a carney sham!)

 

Seriously, if you are happy with how you are striking the CB57s, expect nothing but it getting easier when you switch to the BBs. Have confidence that they will make clean ball contact and overall control of the ball easier than any CB you will ever play. And add the high quality forged steel to the equation and you get both the best performing and feeling irons.

 

And yeah I can't go back to playing anything else but my BBs because they are the LEAST demanding of any club and because the steel feels so good. I don't even care to play my Miura Retro TBs anymore.

 

I don't doubt you. You are undoubtedly the greatest English-speaking Baby Blade evangelist living in the world today. I will amend my comment to say I know many players and fitters SAY the BB is more demanding, because that is what many players say. The whole point is that one smaller head already has been easier to hit than I expected, so perhaps that will be the case again.

 

I have hit a Baby Blade, twice. Only one real session and I hit it only decently and I know why. I did it when I had not hit balls for a month and at an indoor hitting stall that was cramped and felt like I was going too close to a wall on my backswing. I never seem to hit it well on an indoor simulator; I really don't like them.

 

I later got to hit a few shots outdoors with a 7 iron at an outing and that is when I felt the magical impact and went looking for heads, which I found on this site. They look so cool, I almost hate to put a mark on them. Shaft indecision also has been a factor. It has to be just right and I have been mulling mainly Nippon and could test a Shimada. I don't do well with lighter shafts but I also don't want shafts that wear me out. So in addition to Modus 125, am fond of NS 1150 and also the Super Peening Blues, which my buddy believes is the best choice for me in the BB because he saw me play them well in a old set of Mizunos.

 

And I don't think a set of DG Tour Issue 120 S400's would be a bad call either. Kind of a lighter cousin of the Modus 125.

 

Thanks for the context and clarification. LOL and please note that my "evangelism" is 100% science based, so when I see posts claiming that the BB is "demanding" I tend to get technical and nitpicky as to exactly why one feels that way because it is nonsense once you truly understand the physics. And no offense to you, those golfers, and those fitters that claim that BB, and blades in general, are supposed to be "demanding", but it is 100% technical malarkey, based on technical ignorance, to make that claim. And it is all ultimately based on carney "forgiving" club manufacturers (and their shills) that keep proliferating that nonsense all because they want to profit from said ignorance. And as an engineer that fell for the carney sham(e) of it myself, it gets to me from a pride standpoint and I tend to get a little "evangelical" about the rare clubs that actually do have scientific merit. Hence my fanatic love for the BBs and FG59s and blades in general.

 

So anyway, I too had a similar experience as you with BBs the first time. Hitting them off a mat and under a sim indoors was completely underwhelming. (And I never swing a club well indoors.) But then trying them off real turf at an outdoor range was one of the most memorable and enjoyable moments in my golf life. Magical is a good description. And yeah once you see and feel your own beautiful heads brand new for the first time, you don't want a scratch on them.

 

Also you will get no arguments from me if you go NS Pro 1050s or Modus. And if you want something lighter than the Modus 125, don't forget the 120 and the 105.

 

I intended evangelist as high praise. There is nothing wrong with passion. The world needs more of it. I enjoy your posts. We should start a podcast together called, "It's the Opposite of What You Think."

 

Range session 2 today, off grass. i was piping the 6 iron so well I wanted to keep hitting it. Addictive feel and sound. That never happens to me, that I hit the 6 that consistently.

 

So far, your assertions have matched my experiences. The CB57 is the smallest head I have hit so far, yet I did not hit it worse than larger heads, I hit it better. The smaller head made my miss smaller. There really was not a lot of wandering around the clubface, which was pretty much square or close to square on every impact. If it was a little open it would be a slight push, a little closed caused a slight pull.

 

But nothing drastic. It definitely feels easier to square. The only times it didn't, that was my hands manipulating the clubface, tension in my hands or shoulders or wrists. If you can keep it all supple and let the club swing, especially in your first move down, these clubs want to square up. It really reminds you of how tension is the No. 1 swing killer. (Here is my one on-course thought on golf: "Are you mentally tough enough to relax?"

 

The Modus 125 also can handle any tempo. So smooth and stable.

 

Next I take these to the course.

 

I appreciate the praise and kind words and enjoy your posts too. There's so much in this last one that I can relate to. And LOL if I had all the right monitor equipment, an Iron Byron, and a variety of clubs to test I would for sure want to do a podcast with you! I would turn "forgiving" golfers' heads upside down with it!

 

By design a lower MOI clubhead (defined as it rotates around the shaft) is always going to be easier on your hands to square. And yeah you don't need as much tension in your hands to do it. I cannot wait to hear how your transition from CB57 to BB goes. And if you want to get a gauge on how much the BB will be better than the CB57, all you have to do is compare the two heads side by side in your hands and observe the differences in things like the sole width, head length, and face wall thickness where the ball impacts the face. How different all of these things are relative to each other will give you an idea of how different you will experience ball striking with either. You can do the same with comparing the CB57 with all your other clubs it is beating.

 

LOL my on the course thought to relax is "smooth as silk". And I usually am humming a song I just heard in my head at the start of my routine.

 

Nippon shafts overall are smooth and stable. I love the Modus, but the NS Pro GH's come in the lighter total weight that I like.

[zigfread]

Thanks for the ferrule leads, I’m kind of looking for something like the “buttered toast” ones that Boyd sells, the name even sounds fitting. May grab a set to just see, could use them in another build...

I’m swapping my ctapers out for some modus 105x today. Should be an interesting experiment, I’m sure they will be a bit smoother. Ctapes have been my goto since they came out

[A.G. Pennypacker]

I love ctapers, would have loved to get them in my baby blades... but with how many cases there are of them bending, no thanks.

[MysteryV]

 

By design a lower MOI clubhead (defined as it rotates around the shaft) is always going to be easier on your hands to square. And yeah you don't need as much tension in your hands to do it. I cannot wait to hear how your transition from CB57 to BB goes. And if you want to get a gauge on how much the BB will be better than the CB57, all you have to do is compare the two heads side by side in your hands and observe the differences in things like the sole width, head length, and face wall thickness where the ball impacts the face. How different all of these things are relative to each other will give you an idea of how different you will experience ball striking with either. You can do the same with comparing the CB57 with all your other clubs it is beating.

 

 

One interesting thing here is that MOI is defined around a specific axis. When squaring a club head, the head rotates around the shaft, so blade length is the major contributing factor.

 

As applied to forgiveness / CBs - the axis is going to run through the sweet spot, or center of mass.

 

While your thought that the BBs are easier to square, in theory, makes sense based on the shorter blade length (though total mass would play into it as well - but I feel pretty good about you being right there) - the implied assertion that CBs are more difficult to square based on a higher MOI is not.

 

The higher MOI of a CB is measured around a different axis and is not necessarily applicable to MOI as measured around the shaft.

 

That said - in most cases I'd venture to say you're right when speaking about the BBs here - but not for the reasons implied. :D

[zigfread]

I’ve been lucky and never had an issue with bent tips on my c tapers, I have 3 sets of irons with them no issues. And I’m Canadian, I’ll play on frozen ground even lol

[DeNinny]

 

By design a lower MOI clubhead (defined as it rotates around the shaft) is always going to be easier on your hands to square. And yeah you don't need as much tension in your hands to do it. I cannot wait to hear how your transition from CB57 to BB goes. And if you want to get a gauge on how much the BB will be better than the CB57, all you have to do is compare the two heads side by side in your hands and observe the differences in things like the sole width, head length, and face wall thickness where the ball impacts the face. How different all of these things are relative to each other will give you an idea of how different you will experience ball striking with either. You can do the same with comparing the CB57 with all your other clubs it is beating.

 

 

One interesting thing here is that MOI is defined around a specific axis. When squaring a club head, the head rotates around the shaft, so blade length is the major contributing factor.

 

As applied to forgiveness / CBs - the axis is going to run through the sweet spot, or center of mass.

 

While your thought that the BBs are easier to square, in theory, makes sense based on the shorter blade length (though total mass would play into it as well - but I feel pretty good about you being right there) - the implied assertion that CBs are more difficult to square based on a higher MOI is not.

 

The higher MOI of a CB is measured around a different axis and is not necessarily applicable to MOI as measured around the shaft.

 

That said - in most cases I'd venture to say you're right when speaking about the BBs here - but not for the reasons implied. :D

 

Fully understood regarding defining the axis of rotation. I would expect you to clarify me on that which is precisely why I made my point clear on defining it myself. It was also why I asked you to clarify your position on your own definition of forgiveness. So anyway point well taken and well understood by yours truly. This is straight out of my physics book for sure.

 

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

[DeNinny]

Thanks for the ferrule leads, I’m kind of looking for something like the “buttered toast” ones that Boyd sells, the name even sounds fitting. May grab a set to just see, could use them in another build...

I’m swapping my ctapers out for some modus 105x today. Should be an interesting experiment, I’m sure they will be a bit smoother. Ctapes have been my goto since they came out

I love ctapers, would have loved to get them in my baby blades... but with how many cases there are of them bending, no thanks.

 

FWIW when I was trying out shafts during my BB demo phase I tried the C-taper and other KBS shafts. And I chose the NS Pro 950GH because it was smoother feeling and had a really nice feeling kick in comparison to the KBSs.

[MysteryV]

[

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

 

I don't know if there's a polite way to say it, but this is my best attempt. Unfortunately your "science" and understanding of the general principles at play are wrong here. You've also started to misquote me in an attempt to "prove" your point which is when I stop participating in these types of discussions.

 

I'm glad you enjoy your baby blades, and I look forward to enjoying mine as well.

[DeNinny]

[

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

 

I don't know if there's a polite way to say it, but this is my best attempt. Unfortunately your "science" and understanding of the general principles at play are wrong here. You've also started to misquote me in an attempt to "prove" your point which is when I stop participating in these types of discussions.

 

I'm glad you enjoy your baby blades, and I look forward to enjoying mine as well.

 

The feeling is 100% mutual.

 

And by the way in my professional opinion that was a very poor technical refutation.

What I just told you is 100% reality. I'm only trying to help and good luck to you. And whenever you want to actually use the laws of science to refute me instead of resorting to "you're wrong" I'll gladly continue this technical discussion with you.

[MysteryV]

LAWL. Almost everything you've said has been wrong. I've been trying to be polite about it and steer you in the right direction, but it's pretty clear there's no teaching a truther.

 

Did you say you had some type of technical background? What is your degree in? From where? How long did you work as a mechanical engineer again?

 

"Very poor technical refutation"? It's like trying to explain thermodynamics to a goldfish here - you clearly aren't going to get it, so I'm done wasting my time.

 

Nice sticks tho. We can certainly agree on that.

[DeNinny]

LAWL. Almost everything you've said has been wrong. I've been trying to be polite about it and steer you in the right direction, but it's pretty clear there's no teaching a truther.

 

Did you say you had some type of technical background? What is your degree in? From where? How long did you work as a mechanical engineer again?

 

"Very poor technical refutation"? It's like trying to explain thermodynamics to a goldfish here - you clearly aren't going to get it, so I'm done wasting my time.

 

Nice sticks tho. We can certainly agree on that.

 

Have you even read this thread from the beginning? My background is already posted. As I stated earlier I am a chemical engineer with my BS from UC Berkeley. Been working as one for 20 years now too. And by the way I love talking thermodynamics.

 

And I'll stack all of what I said in this thread about the physics of golf and the carney sham(e) of "forgiveness", including everything that I said about high MOI being a part of that carney sham(e), against any post of yours. Still you find excuses to avoid having a technical discussion. You've done nothing to justify using the laws of physics that a clubhead can somehow rotate around its CG when the shaft, attached at the heel, is holding the clubhead in place and is the only thing that is supporting the clubhead. It's pretty simple to me that this is all you need to do to refute what I just said, and that you try to question my credibility by not being able to justify this simple point makes me question yours and what you truly know about the laws of physics. In my professional opinion only and no offense meant.

[MysteryV]

Chemical engineering ...

[DeNinny]

Chemical engineering ...

 

...from a top 5 in the nation school...

 

(...continues to find excuses to avoid a technical discussion using the laws of physics...)

 

(...continues to attack credibility rather than provide credible technical justification for his points...)

[MysteryV]

Lol. I get it - you want to be right - but you're not.

 

It's not attacking credibility - you simply HAVE no credibility. You exposed yourself several times during the conversation as having no mechanical engineering background which is why I eventually asked (which is btw, different than attacking).

 

You're laughable at this point. In your mind - you're the only one on earth who has uncovered a conspiracy - but in truth - you're just unable to accept being wrong.

 

I wouldn't challenge you on chemical engineering - but when it comes to dynamics - you're out of your element and look a bit silly.

[DeNinny]

Lol. I get it - you want to be right - but you're not.

 

It's not attacking credibility - you simply HAVE no credibility. You exposed yourself several times during the conversation as having no mechanical engineering background which is why I eventually asked (which is btw, different than attacking).

 

You're laughable at this point. In your mind - you're the only one on earth who has uncovered a conspiracy - but in truth - you're just unable to accept being wrong.

 

I wouldn't challenge you on chemical engineering - but when it comes to dynamics - you're out of your element and look a bit silly.

 

More excuses for not being able to refute anything that I have ever posted. All of what we are discussing is completely understandable by mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, chemists, materials science engineers, structural engineers, and various other technical disciplines. It's not super advanced mechanical engineering that other technical disciplines cannot understand. I call BS on you making that point. A UC Berkeley graduate in any of those disciplines will completely understand and be able to technically evaluate the physics of golf and clubhead design. Especially if they are a graduate from UC Berkeley. So for you to assume a chemical engineer won't understand anything that you can technically explain just further undermines your own credibility. As I stated earlier, I would submit all of what I state technically to any mechanical engineering PhD and have them align with everything that I'm claiming.

 

In fact, if you really want to be on the same page with me and at the level of what I'm explaining, I challenge you to read these two books and use all the science within them to talk about how a clubhead will ever rotate around its CG when the shaft is clearly what is supporting it:

 

"Physics for Scientists and Engineers", by Giancoli

 

and

 

"Introduction to Materials Science Engineering" by Shackleford.

 

These books cover just about everything that explains the physics of golf, including why high MOI is a carney sham (which you still cannot refute). If you can read and understand these two books and solve the example problems at the end of each chapter, then rest assured that we will be on the same page about all knowledge to have our technical discussion. FYI they are the same books from classes at Cal that I attended alongside mechanical engineers. All engineers from Cal have to take core classes that cover the science behind everything in golf. To think that knowing this information is exclusive to mechanical engineers simply exposes your own lack of credibility. Further enforced by your continued inability to discuss anything technical specifically.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

 

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

 

You aren't 100%. To think that you can explain every aspect, in it's entirety, of a system with multiple elements.... all in a couple paragraphs, is perhaps a bit optimistic. You, as en engineer, should know that.

 

One example that I haven't seen you write about yet (perhaps I missed it), but greatly factors into this, is the ball: at the moment of impact on a mishit, the shaft is not always the rotational axis... the only guarantee is that the rotational axis is influenced by an outside force - the ball. If you've ever seen a super slow mo of a toe-impact, this is visibly apparent - you can see the whole club (shaft included) rotate, more or less, around the ball. The things you're stating are not physics mistakes, they just are just oversimplified. How can you possibly neglect the force that the ball imparts on the system, end expect to have a "100%" answer? I'm an engineer by trade as well, and I know enough to know that this is not simple math.

 

 

 

All that being said, can we try to steer back to just talking about small blades? haha this thread is going pretty sideways.

I have a 4-pw set, but now that I'm able to dial in my 4i, I'm thinking about getting a 3i.

[DeNinny]

 

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

 

You aren't 100%. To think that you can explain every aspect, in it's entirety, of a system with multiple elements.... all in a couple paragraphs, is perhaps a bit optimistic. You, as en engineer, should know that.

 

One example that I haven't seen you write about yet (perhaps I missed it), but greatly factors into this, is the ball: at the moment of impact on a mishit, the shaft is not always the rotational axis... the only guarantee is that the rotational axis is influenced by an outside force - the ball. If you've ever seen a super slow mo of a toe-impact, this is visibly apparent - you can see the whole club (shaft included) rotate, more or less, around the ball. The things you're stating are not physics mistakes, they just are just oversimplified. How can you possibly neglect the force that the ball imparts on the system, end expect to have a "100%" answer? I'm an engineer by trade as well, and I know enough to know that this is not simple math.

 

 

 

All that being said, can we try to steer back to just talking about small blades? haha this thread is going pretty sideways.

I have a 4-pw set, but now that I'm able to dial in my 4i, I'm thinking about getting a 3i.

 

I'm only explaining one variable of the multiple variable system. In order to do that, you actually do have to simplify things and fix all the other variables so that you can discuss the effects of just that one. FYI this is how engineers and scientists break down a complicated multi-variable system. I only focused on those few points because they are the variables pertinent to the discussion.

 

I completely understand that there are other forces and 'moments' and overall variables at play in the complex system of impact between a clubhead and ball at impact. So when I say I'm 100% I mean I can talk about any and all the variables that you or anyone wants to talk about. I can explain all if them if you want in lengthy detail.

 

I apologize profusely if you thought I meant just that one post and the few that I have mentioned are all my 100% of golf knowledge. That was not my intent. In my rush to summarize the issue with a clubhead rotating around it's shaft or CG I meant I was 100% about that only. Absolutely there's more than this in the physics if impact! I'm sorry if you thought otherwise.

 

I am just clarifying my points to anyone that wants to question and challenge my posts. I'm going where the conversation in the threads goes. If you want I can explain to you all the forces at play at impact, including all the forces between that ball and clubface, like you just called me out on but now don't want to discuss.

 

So to be clear, I'm 100% on all golf physics at impact and no I cannot explain this in a few paragraphs. I did not mean I'm 100% on just that post being everything at play. It was an intended isolated discussion.

 

Also absolutely at impact the clubhead NEVER rotates around the ball like you say. I have seen and studied all the super slow motion videos that you mention in detail. If you look closely enough, there is always an initial deflection at the shaft. Which is reality because that is from the ball stopping the face and the only thing supporting this is the shaft which is what I explained. Sorry but there is ZERO rotation around the ball. We can look at any videos that you want and I will point out exactly what is happening in all of them.

[zigfread]

Beer factor goes beyond physics, have a enough, doesn’t matter what you are swinging.

 

Let’s go back back to baby blades now

[Bigmean]

I hit my small blades very pure and well when I have been drinking. Had a charity best ball a few weeks ago, I was borderline sloppy and carved a few irons like a painter. My best ball striking day all year.

 

Smaller head, better contact, inhibited balance and muscle control, pure swinging. Right is wrong.

 

Deninny knows my take on this. I like science and math, but I fall 100% in the camp that loves these irons because o get along with them so well. I don’t care if it is science, hands of god forging, or mental block. They are not hard to hit, they setup perfect, they feel and feedback perfect, they are the best irons on the planet for me. And the fact that I shoot 78-84 on avg doesn’t mean I can’t play them. It mostly means I stugggle off the tee, but seriously, anyone who acts like most golfers that can make decent contact shouldn’t play small blades has never actually played the small blades. Not saying for everyone, but if you are decent enough, they are straighter, more consistent and just as far as anything else.

 

It is fun to guess why as it is such an enigma, and I am sure some math is behind it, but really, knowing reasoning for the B.B. is like knowing the reason for life. If I die never knowing the meaning, it doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy it any less while I have it.

[zigfread]

Lol I’m the same when I have a few, but was trying to lighten the mood.

 

Personally I’m much more accurate, and my misses aren’t nearly as bad as when I’ve tried a generous faced iron. Maybe I concentrate more who knows. I grew up on blades so they just fit me. And I can not stand offset, maybe an ingrained swing flaw but I pull them, and start changing my swing to deal. The only CB’s I played well ages ago where the Miura 202’s. Again near no offset.

 

 

[rebby]

I love how you can see the spin welded hosel so clearly in the first pic.

 

 

[A.G. Pennypacker]

If I could justify the cost, I would 100% have gone with some black ones. They are incredible.

 

Maybe for my next set. I've talked to a couple of different Miura reps that say they aren't actually discontinued, just going to a more limited production. Here's hoping they're right.

[PopIt&DropIt]

 

And thank you very much for defining your definition of high MOI as the head rotates around its CG or sweetspot because that is one of the various ways that I mentioned earlier when I said I can refute any definition you want on "forgiveness" because I have evaluated it in depth. And you don't even realize it but you just stated one of the other false assumptions in the carney sham(e) "theory" of high MOI = "forgiveness". The very act of assuming that the clubhead in any way can freely rotate around its CG or sweetspot is a huge FALSE ASSUMPTION. The base of stability in the system is the hands connection to the shaft, and furthermore the clubhead is VERY rigidly fixed to the shaft itself at the heel. So by the laws of physics there is no way (ever) that the clubhead will rotate around the CG or sweetspot. If there is any point of rotation at the frame of reference of the clubhead during impact, it will always be at the shaft because the shaft itself stops and prevents any other way that the head can rotate. Therefore the definition of MOI around any other point besides this is meaningless because it is based on a false assumption. Rotation of the clubhead around its CG or sweetspot during impact will NEVER happen in reality. You can bank on this.

 

This is just one way that high MOI = CARNEY SHAM(E) "forgiveness".

 

I hope soon that you'll realize that I'm 100% on all my physics explanations and it goes well beyond the BBs. This is my promise to all WRXers as mentioned earlier in this thread to PopIt. I'm not (ever) going to post anything that violates the laws of physics.

 

You aren't 100%. To think that you can explain every aspect, in it's entirety, of a system with multiple elements.... all in a couple paragraphs, is perhaps a bit optimistic. You, as en engineer, should know that.

 

One example that I haven't seen you write about yet (perhaps I missed it), but greatly factors into this, is the ball: at the moment of impact on a mishit, the shaft is not always the rotational axis... the only guarantee is that the rotational axis is influenced by an outside force - the ball. If you've ever seen a super slow mo of a toe-impact, this is visibly apparent - you can see the whole club (shaft included) rotate, more or less, around the ball. The things you're stating are not physics mistakes, they just are just oversimplified. How can you possibly neglect the force that the ball imparts on the system, end expect to have a "100%" answer? I'm an engineer by trade as well, and I know enough to know that this is not simple math.

 

 

 

All that being said, can we try to steer back to just talking about small blades? haha this thread is going pretty sideways.

I have a 4-pw set, but now that I'm able to dial in my 4i, I'm thinking about getting a 3i.

 

If you want to save some time and some mental energy trying to decide you can just skip ahead and order the 3 now ;) If you like the 4 and the 5 you will have no problems with the 3 and there is no better feeling in golf that puring a BB 3i at your target. If absolutely nothing else it's a great club to practice with!

[DeNinny]

Speaking of 3i's, I hit a pretty nice one today with fellow WRXers spud3, WishIPlayedMore, and kbuck. I was 180 yds away from a tight pin at the front of the green. My ball was in the rough with a slight uphill lie and above my feet. I just nutted the shot and it tracked towards the pin. Hit the fairway about 5 yards in front of the green. Took one bounce to hit the fringe and then rolled right into the cup. 'twas my first eagle on a par four and quite possibly the finest shot I've ever hit. And the feeling of the shot was OMFG orgasmic. No iron comes close to the feel of puring a BB. Just perfect golf bliss.

 

And playing any other club in place of a BB is just handicapping yourself from a pure science perspective. This includes the long irons. (Remember, "forgiveness" is a carney sham!)

[DeNinny]

I hit my small blades very pure and well when I have been drinking. Had a charity best ball a few weeks ago, I was borderline sloppy and carved a few irons like a painter. My best ball striking day all year.

 

Smaller head, better contact, inhibited balance and muscle control, pure swinging. Right is wrong.

 

Deninny knows my take on this. I like science and math, but I fall 100% in the camp that loves these irons because o get along with them so well. I don’t care if it is science, hands of god forging, or mental block. They are not hard to hit, they setup perfect, they feel and feedback perfect, they are the best irons on the planet for me. And the fact that I shoot 78-84 on avg doesn’t mean I can’t play them. It mostly means I stugggle off the tee, but seriously, anyone who acts like most golfers that can make decent contact shouldn’t play small blades has never actually played the small blades. Not saying for everyone, but if you are decent enough, they are straighter, more consistent and just as far as anything else.

 

It is fun to guess why as it is such an enigma, and I am sure some math is behind it, but really, knowing reasoning for the B.B. is like knowing the reason for life. If I die never knowing the meaning, it doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy it any less while I have it.

 

Welcome to the thread, my friend and BB enabler!!! I've been waiting for you to join us because you and Marand and rebby were truly my motivation and inspiration to get some for myself. I can't thank you enough for sharing your BB journey. They really do change your view of the game and further enhance the enjoyment of it.

 

And LMAO you know I'm going to tell you that the reason you get along with them so well is 100% based on the science of their design and construction. To me it's irony that you don't care for the science because that is precisely what makes them so good.

[DeNinny]

Lol I’m the same when I have a few, but was trying to lighten the mood.

 

Personally I’m much more accurate, and my misses aren’t nearly as bad as when I’ve tried a generous faced iron. Maybe I concentrate more who knows. I grew up on blades so they just fit me. And I can not stand offset, maybe an ingrained swing flaw but I pull them, and start changing my swing to deal. The only CB’s I played well ages ago where the Miura 202’s. Again near no offset.

 

Offset is yet another 100% carney sham(e) of "forgiveness". It has virtually zero* benefit. Besides the FUGLY things it does to just looking down at address, one issue with offset is that it truly creates a closed clubface dynamically at impact more than a less offset clubhead. Offset literally offsets the CG of the clubhead from the centerline of the shaft. And during the swing when tremendous centripetal force is pulling on that offset CG, the club face will literally be dynamically pulled to a closed face position because that is the easiest way for that offset CG to fall in line with the shaft. Centripetal force is always going to be pulling away from the golfer in the direction of the shaft line, so any offset mass will be pulled into this orientation as long as no other counter forces are present. It is only when a clubhead has its CG directly in line with the shaft when there is no closing of the clubface. The CG is already in the most ideal position. As you add more offset or as you weaken the shaft, this issue gets worse and worse.

 

The other issue is that it exacerbates your error when you have not squared the face. If you can imagine a baseball bat with and without offset, you will notice that with the normal bat you can rotate it about the grip and it won't move the position of the fat part of the bat. Now imagine doing the same thing to a bat with the fat part offset from the grip. Now the fat part literally moves up and down in relation to the level of the grip. This same issue occurs with offset clubs and once again gets worse the more offset there is. If that offset clubface is not perfectly square to the ball, then it will have moved and shifted the relative face position behind the ball more so than the less offset club.

 

For both of these technical issues and for the FUGLY look of it, offset is horrible and most definitely a carney sham(e) in terms of "forgiveness". And ironically it is always the most extreme with SGI clubs.

 

*The only amount of offset needed is enough to account for the mass of the ball while in contact with the face. I am posting this because someone might get nitpicky with when I say offset in terms of "forgiveness" is 100% a carney sham(e).