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

[BIG STU]

@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.

Reality backs up the math in this case-- That is why cavity backed thin faced clubs are so hot faced----- and inconsistent-- now forged one piece CBs that is another different animal not as hot and more predictable

[BIG STU]

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.

Now to be honest I did hit a shot the other day that violated all Laws of Physics as I interpret them. Had a hook lie in a fairway bunker but did not need the draw. Hit a cut with a 22* Adams hybrid. Amazed my running partner Bear in fact he remarked that it violated all laws of physics known to man.Of course the physics can be explained if you have not already figured it out. Firmly planted and level in the sand no lower leg movement outside in swing with the face open more than likely 4* or so. Now I did not hit it as far as I normally hit that club but I got it far enough to get a wedge under it. LOL guys apologize for the threadjack but I had to throw that one on De Ninny :taunt:

[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.

Reality backs up the math in this case-- That is why cavity backed thin faced clubs are so hot faced----- and inconsistent-- now forged one piece CBs that is another different animal not as hot and more predictable

If you observe the spectrum of irons from the most "players" to "forgiving" design in relative sequence from any "forgiving" club manufacturer, you will notice that the face wall thickness gets thinner and thinner. Observe the iblade to the Gmax and all their iron types in between by PING or any blade to SGI club by any other manufacturer. In all cases they keep thinning that face wall making it harder and harder for the golfer to be able to produce a consistent spin. And OMFG it is so carney that they do this because they sell the absolute worst performing club to the golfer that needs the most "help".

 

And then to make matters worse, in order to have consistent spin and launch angle results from shot to shot with the hot and flexing faced clubs, that golfer has to consistently hit that same exact precise spot in order to be consistent with that club.

 

The most SGI clubs are truly the worst possible clubs for any golfer to play. LMAO by the math and true science of course.

 

When I played between my mp67s and mp60s which are both single piece forged steel, every now and then but not often I would nuke the mp60 a club longer than it normally went. This never happened with my mp67s.

[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.

Now to be honest I did hit a shot the other day that violated all Laws of Physics as I interpret them. Had a hook lie in a fairway bunker but did not need the draw. Hit a cut with a 22* Adams hybrid. Amazed my running partner Bear in fact he remarked that it violated all laws of physics known to man.Of course the physics can be explained if you have not already figured it out. Firmly planted and level in the sand no lower leg movement outside in swing with the face open more than likely 4* or so. Now I did not hit it as far as I normally hit that club but I got it far enough to get a wedge under it. LOL guys apologize for the threadjack but I had to throw that one on De Ninny :taunt:

 

OMFG what do you take me for, some two-bit engineer that doesn't understand that a clubhead will NEVER rotate around its CG?

 

Open face by 4* explains it all. Not to mention being an excellent shot maker.

 

BIG STU my buddy the only reason you are a thread jacker is because you still play those MACs instead of BBs. Come back when you get your own set!

[BIG STU]

De Ninny I do have the Mizuno 68s in the bag for now. Love those things but I will concur I may slip the 1957 Diamond Back Macs in the bag tomorrow. We are supposed to play TPC MB but I think we are going to be Monsooned out

[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.

 

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.

 

I seriously hit them better than any irons I have ever had. My All time low round is with another set, but I have more 70s rounds with these than any other. I don’t care why. They feel awesome and do what they are supposed to and F up when I F up. It is what is, an iron that has sick feedback and unfortunately does what the user dictates.

[rebby]

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.

 

Just get your chrome ones good and worn then have them refinished in black oxide. That's what I did.

[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.

 

I seriously hit them better than any irons I have ever had. My All time low round is with another set, but I have more 70s rounds with these than any other. I don’t care why. They feel awesome and do what they are supposed to and F up when I F up. It is what is, an iron that has sick feedback and unfortunately does what the user dictates.

 

My 75 with my first set (Cal Hotties) two years ago still stands as my best round ever. My short game has fallen off since then so I haven't been breaking 80 as much lately, but my black borons (Porn Stars), my gamers, are the best irons ever.

 

I've had a few years with both of my sets and my Retro TBs and mp67s and it's to the point now that playing with any other irons is a bit lackluster. And still with all my scientific analysis as to why they are so good, at the end of the day after I hit a great shot with them, I always think back to the first description of them that I ever read, and it was from you. You simply said, "these irons are the truth.". After all that's said about the science and quality workmanship in them, that's what they come down to - The Truth.

[zigfread]

Noticed a BB 3 iron on fleabay for a good price in great condition this morning if anyone needs one

[dmeeksDC]

What Miura wedges are players generally pairing with the BB? The Y grind is one I like the look of.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

Noticed a BB 3 iron on fleabay for a good price in great condition this morning if anyone needs one

 

Not anymore ;)

[DeNinny]

What Miura wedges are players generally pairing with the BB? The Y grind is one I like the look of.

I play the Y grind 53* and 60* with my Cal Hotties set and the black wedges 54* (bent to 53*) and 60* with my Porn Stars set.

Both are great wedges. I like the black wedges the best.

[zigfread]

Lol nice on the 3 iron, real miura dealer too

[dmeeksDC]

What Miura wedges are players generally pairing with the BB? The Y grind is one I like the look of.

I play the Y grind 53* and 60* with my Cal Hotties set and the black wedges 54* (bent to 53*) and 60* with my Porn Stars set.

Both are great wedges. I like the black wedges the best.

 

Thanks. I am taking the CB57’s to the course today. Very wet here in the DMV. Eager to see how they play. This will be the first time I have struck a Miura club on the course.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

Lol nice on the 3 iron, real miura dealer too

 

Made the decision a little easier because the shaft and length work for me. The rest of my set is shafted in px6.0, but the 5.5 in this 3i should work just fine. Also noticed it doesn't have the circle k on it in the pics... does that mean it has non conforming grooves?

[DeNinny]

What Miura wedges are players generally pairing with the BB? The Y grind is one I like the look of.

I play the Y grind 53* and 60* with my Cal Hotties set and the black wedges 54* (bent to 53*) and 60* with my Porn Stars set.

Both are great wedges. I like the black wedges the best.

 

Thanks. I am taking the CB57’s to the course today. Very wet here in the DMV. Eager to see how they play. This will be the first time I have struck a Miura club on the course.

 

I hope you have a great day out there with them. And if you enjoy it with the CB57s because the Miura forged steel feels so good, it will be even better when you (finally) take some BBs to the course. There's a huge jump in the feedback and feel department when you go from a CB design to a blade design. By design the thinner CB face wall absorbs and spreads the force of impact out a bit because the thinner wall forms more of a 'valley' in the shape of the compressed curved ball around it during impact. Also this serves to compress the ball less as well. By contrast the thicker face wall of a blade has all that solid mass behind the ball that does not deform and form as much of that 'valley'. It maintains that consistent flat surface better which produces better and more consistent spin while also compressing the ball more too. But at the same time that mass literally "smashes" the ball at a concentrated point (as opposed to spreading it out with a CB thinner face) it also concentrates or rather focuses the feedback and feel. It amplifies everything such that all different quality of shots feel even more different from each other.

 

So when you come back and think about how great those CB57s feel, please note that when you (finally) get those BBs on the course, it's going to feel as if you were having condom sex with the CB57s compared to bareback sex with the BBs (in my professional opinion).

 

When I demoed the Miura BB, TB, mb001, and CB501, the CB501 felt almost as good as any non-Miura blade, but compared to the Miura blades it was a step down (as described). I had the same experience with feedback and feel playing mp60s and mp67s built exactly the same. mp60 felt like condom sex, mp67 felt like bareback (relatively speaking).

[Bigmean]

What Miura wedges are players generally pairing with the BB? The Y grind is one I like the look of.

I am playing the OnOff shingo S forged wedges and they really fit very well. Also my first foray into the 52/58 system and I like it. Use the 52 so much more than a 50. These are no longer in production but they fit well and wedges fitting is hard. My buchi wedges are on eBay now and they are good but did not setup right. I am sure 57 wedges all work with them too, but I like really soft wedges.

[DeNinny]

I think bladehunter also has a custom made BB 52*. Buy a PW and have it bent 5* strong and then grind the sole. It's a potential future project for me. The thought being once again you can never have too many BBs in the bag. And for all the same science reasons, short game shots are easier with a BB head just like regular shots are. I love chips and pitches with my BB PW over my regular wedges. A 52* BB gap wedge would be just as sweet, I bet. (Right, bladehunter...?)

[EaglesGolf99]

I think bladehunter also has a custom made BB 52*. Buy a PW and have it bent 5* strong and then grind the sole. It's a potential future project for me. The thought being once again you can never have too many BBs in the bag. And for all the same science reasons, short game shots are easier with a BB head just like regular shots are. I love chips and pitches with my BB PW over my regular wedges. A 52* BB gap wedge would be just as sweet, I bet. (Right, bladehunter...?)

 

I've got two Raw Hand Grind "Baby Blade 52° GW" ...

 

Blade got an extra PW, ground it, welded the sole, adjusted loft / lie, etc. I'll let him tell the story.

 

I requested a custom one off from Mr. Miura of a 52° Baby Blade GW. I got a, "No."

 

[rebby]

I think bladehunter also has a custom made BB 52*. Buy a PW and have it bent 5* strong and then grind the sole. It's a potential future project for me. The thought being once again you can never have too many BBs in the bag. And for all the same science reasons, short game shots are easier with a BB head just like regular shots are. I love chips and pitches with my BB PW over my regular wedges. A 52* BB gap wedge would be just as sweet, I bet. (Right, bladehunter...?)

 

I've got two Raw Hand Grind "Baby Blade 52° GW" ...

 

Blade got an extra PW, ground it, welded the sole, adjusted loft / lie, etc. I'll let him tell the story.

 

I requested a custom one off from Mr. Miura of a 52° Baby Blade GW. I got a, "No."

 

Any pics??? I'd love to see this.

[DeNinny]

I think bladehunter also has a custom made BB 52*. Buy a PW and have it bent 5* strong and then grind the sole. It's a potential future project for me. The thought being once again you can never have too many BBs in the bag. And for all the same science reasons, short game shots are easier with a BB head just like regular shots are. I love chips and pitches with my BB PW over my regular wedges. A 52* BB gap wedge would be just as sweet, I bet. (Right, bladehunter...?)

 

I've got two Raw Hand Grind "Baby Blade 52° GW" ...

 

Blade got an extra PW, ground it, welded the sole, adjusted loft / lie, etc. I'll let him tell the story.

 

I requested a custom one off from Mr. Miura of a 52° Baby Blade GW. I got a, "No."

 

Any pics??? I'd love to see this.

 

Yes pics and more importantly a report on how it plays. Pretty please.

[EaglesGolf99]

HUNTER ....

 

They are calling your name, Sir ......

 

[DeNinny]

HUNTER ....

 

They are calling your name, Sir ......

 

I'm talking about yours too!

[dmeeksDC]

Well, tbese Miuras CB57’s are so much fun. On course was just like the range — excellent. Powerful trajectory with great bite. They felr really good and I hit them well, really much better than I hoped for in a first round. I was driving it well so I did not hit a lot of long irons — 6 was the longest off turf — but hit a lot of 8 through wedges. I had no problem with them. I hit 3 full shots with my irons that were awful all day — one a 7 iron from deep grass (lot of rain here, it was US Open rough) that I just did not get solid contact, one a slightly heavy 8 iron that went straight but 5 yards short, and the other a wedge on soggy turf I hit fat (Mizuno S5, not Miura). The irony: The Mizuno was the largest head of any iron I hit all day and I hit the worst shot of the day.

 

But I hit many excellent shots from fairway and rough. Definitely noticed it was easier to hit these from the rough than others. You can still get nice launch as they will cut through rough and go down and get it. I was impressed. Stuck some irons, hitting 10 greens in reg on the day. Hit a 6 iron to 10 feet and made it for birdie. My short game waa pretty average. But had only one double and shot a 78. Tee shots and irons were a strength. I was not particularly sharp around the greens. But that’s a good score for me. I felt like I hit it well enough to be 2-3 shots better if I was a more precise wedge player. Zero balls in a hazard or out of play.

 

Course was really soft and wet. These were no problem even with lower bounce. Very quick in and out of the ground and I liked that.

 

My buddy thought I looked quite comfortable and liked the trajectory, more of a driving flight. I was very pleased with the irons. Felt like they were not quite as long as some others, but perfect for their lofts, and very precise. The Modus 125 really suits them.

 

As I said, they are just fun to play. You look forward to hitting shots. If the Baby Blades are even better... my oh my.

 

[EaglesGolf99]

HUNTER ....

 

They are calling your name, Sir ......

 

I'm talking about yours too!

 

:blush:

 

You guys got it .... Give me through the week to get some pics together.

[PopIt&DropIt]

Got the BBs reshafted and decided to have a little fun with the ferrules too. I'm generally not into really busy ferrules on my clubs (enjoy them on others) but these were understated enough that I thought they would look good and I'm really happy with how they turned out.

 

Regarding wedges I too use the miura blacks and I'm really happy with them. Don't expect the finish to last very long but it's a great shape that works well with the bbs and a comparable feel. I bought some back ups after a month of using them because I don't want to use anything else. With that said of all the clubs in the bag I'm the least picky with wedges and think I could play any wedge from any of the major brands with little issue. So my opinion probably shouldn't weigh as much as some others here.

 

Regarding BB 52 deg, man I would love one of those! Love pitching with the bb pw. Looking forward to seeing them!

[PopIt&DropIt]

HUNTER ....

 

They are calling your name, Sir ......

 

I'm talking about yours too!

 

:blush:

 

You guys got it .... Give me through the week to get some pics together.

 

What's with the Eagles stuff? Lose a bet?

[DeNinny]

Got the BBs reshafted and decided to have a little fun with the ferrules too. I'm generally not into really busy ferrules on my clubs (enjoy them on others) but these were understated enough that I thought they would look good and I'm really happy with how they turned out.

 

Regarding wedges I too use the miura blacks and I'm really happy with them. Don't expect the finish to last very long but it's a great shape that works well with the bbs and a comparable feel. I bought some back ups after a month of using them because I don't want to use anything else. With that said of all the clubs in the bag I'm the least picky with wedges and think I could play any wedge from any of the major brands with little issue. So my opinion probably shouldn't weigh as much as some others here.

 

Regarding BB 52 deg, man I would love one of those! Love pitching with the bb pw. Looking forward to seeing them!

 

Those ferrules are sweet. And also the blue is very nice.

 

I say we all email Miura about the 52* BB GW. Although I do like my 53* black a lot, if I had a 52* BB I would get a 58* instead of using my 60*. One sand wedge is all I need. LOL it's always more BBs with me.

[EaglesGolf99]

HUNTER ....

 

They are calling your name, Sir ......

 

I'm talking about yours too!

 

:blush:

 

You guys got it .... Give me through the week to get some pics together.

 

What's with the Eagles stuff? Lose a bet?

 

W O R L D C H A M P I O N S

[EaglesGolf99]

Got the BBs reshafted and decided to have a little fun with the ferrules too. I'm generally not into really busy ferrules on my clubs (enjoy them on others) but these were understated enough that I thought they would look good and I'm really happy with how they turned out.

 

Regarding wedges I too use the miura blacks and I'm really happy with them. Don't expect the finish to last very long but it's a great shape that works well with the bbs and a comparable feel. I bought some back ups after a month of using them because I don't want to use anything else. With that said of all the clubs in the bag I'm the least picky with wedges and think I could play any wedge from any of the major brands with little issue. So my opinion probably shouldn't weigh as much as some others here.

 

Regarding BB 52 deg, man I would love one of those! Love pitching with the bb pw. Looking forward to seeing them!

 

Those ferrules are sweet. And also the blue is very nice.

 

I say we all email Miura about the 52* BB GW. Although I do like my 53* black a lot, if I had a 52* BB I would get a 58* instead of using my 60*. One sand wedge is all I need. LOL it's always more BBs with me.

 

Go ahead! Get down on the 52° BB Train! If you get 10-15 guys, you could probably get some arm twisting done. Not saying it's a Slam Dunk but you'd likely be heard. Your best shot may be to start a petition through a social media platform (ex. Twitter) and get a chain of guys committed to purchasing one too.