Dear blade,

[Nard_S]

Bubba does not use standard ground Ping's. His have higher COG and less offset. The same goes for Speith. The profile of their heads are blade like......shocking.

 

Bubba's clubs are very customized, but Spieth's arn't unless he did it very recently. Link to this?

 

Those two six irons look pretty much exactly the same amount of "blade-ness". One is Spieth's bag, one is Titleist's stock photo. The "profile of the heads" is identical.

 

Both fun facts picked up from the front page of this website in the last 2 years. Also from there, TM's driver heads for tour issue are different than retail. 10g lighter for tailoring weight but more significant COG is higher and more forward. DLIII commented a while back that one should never assume a tour pro is playing what you buy retail. He's right. The 681 is close but not Tiger's true grind. The "T" purportedly is but to my eye still does not look exact (but I could be wrong). Jack played pretty standard blades but how the weight was configured with dowels on both ends made them a lot less than standard. Hogan the same. Point is, at best it is half reality when you see a club carried by a tour player and often the deception is done to sell a line of clubs and keep them useful to average Joe.

 

I would also dispute the notion Tour guy stopped working the ball. They do it but it is far less dramatic than say Bubba or glory days of balata.The prime reason is the ball. Everyone has a stock shot but pro tracer is showing these guys deliberately alter bend more than one would think and often to get the desired kick into fairway or green.

 

I don't mean to be a crusty crab about this stuff (which I can often be) but it seems real acceptable to bash a choice of head and little consternation is ever shown when it comes to the shaft choices. On WRX, pick tour level head, blasphemy, pick a tour level shaft, hero. I maybe nuts using a blade but I'm rather conservative about shaft profile and weighting. Can't say I normal on that count also. :)

[nsxguy]

I play three sets of irons in one set.

 

MP 18 for 8-PW

MP 18 SC for 5-7

MP 18 Fli Hi for 3-4

 

Here's the logic behind it...

I am confident I can hit quality shots 8-10 times out of 10 swings with blades from 8 iron and down. However, with 5-7 iron, it's more like 7-8 so I went with more forgiving irons in that range, the MC. I felt like I could hit 3 and 4 iron in the MC well about 5-6 times out of 10. So I went with Fli Hi (hated the MP MMC heads).

 

Essentially, I feel like with every iron and wedge in my bag, I could hit 8-10 out of 10 full swings well enough to send the ball where I'm looking. All I can ask for.

 

Appreciate the post, and I only post this to point out that a lot of people think like you, and a lot of people (IMO) leave strokes on the table because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "quality" shot, unless it goes in the hole. A shot to 3 inches from the cup with an 8 iron and a shot to 10 feet from the cup with an 8 iron are both "quality shots"

 

PSG, while I agree in the main with much of what you say, ya really got to stop saying something in one sentence and then contradicting yourself in the next. :D

 

As for a quality shot (or "strike"), I guess *I* would call it one where I find the sweet spot AND hit in the general direction of where I'm aiming. Add to that the club "feels" right to me and that I can repeat the swing with regularity and the rest is just refinement; developing a better aim, more consistency of swing, perhaps some tweaking to the clubs themselves. But the point is the clubs work FOR ME.

 

While you're right in that 40 feet and 10 feet will usually result in the same score, Mr mahonie, as an 11 has different perceptions of what works for him.

 

My main problem with combo sets is that the different heads, for ME, resulted in the clubs feeling different from one to the other - and part of the point of an iron "set" is that they feel the same from club to club.

[pinestreetgolf]

I play three sets of irons in one set.

 

MP 18 for 8-PW

MP 18 SC for 5-7

MP 18 Fli Hi for 3-4

 

Here's the logic behind it...

I am confident I can hit quality shots 8-10 times out of 10 swings with blades from 8 iron and down. However, with 5-7 iron, it's more like 7-8 so I went with more forgiving irons in that range, the MC. I felt like I could hit 3 and 4 iron in the MC well about 5-6 times out of 10. So I went with Fli Hi (hated the MP MMC heads).

 

Essentially, I feel like with every iron and wedge in my bag, I could hit 8-10 out of 10 full swings well enough to send the ball where I'm looking. All I can ask for.

 

Appreciate the post, and I only post this to point out that a lot of people think like you, and a lot of people (IMO) leave strokes on the table because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "quality" shot, unless it goes in the hole. A shot to 3 inches from the cup with an 8 iron and a shot to 10 feet from the cup with an 8 iron are both "quality shots"

 

PSG, while I agree in the main with much of what you say, ya really got to stop saying something in one sentence and then contradicting yourself in the next. :D

 

As for a quality shot (or "strike"), I guess *I* would call it one where I find the sweet spot AND hit in the general direction of where I'm aiming. Add to that the club "feels" right to me and that I can repeat the swing with regularity and the rest is just refinement; developing a better aim, more consistency of swing, perhaps some tweaking to the clubs themselves. But the point is the clubs work FOR ME.

 

While you're right in that 40 feet and 10 feet will usually result in the same score, Mr mahonie, as an 11 has different perceptions of what works for him.

 

My main problem with combo sets is that the different heads, for ME, resulted in the clubs feeling different from one to the other - and part of the point of an iron "set" is that they feel the same from club to club.

 

In the first only quality is in quotes. In the other both words are in quotes. In the first I was questioning the word choice of quality and in the second I was using the entire phrase in the way he meant it. Don't @ me.

 

The point is that there are not two types of golf shots, and picking equipment based on putting your shots into one of two categories and choosing the equipment that generates the most shots that are categorized as positive is a bad way to pick golf equipment. This is the way our brain really, really, really wants to operate (black/white) but its a bad way to choose irons. It is much more likely that 9 out of 10 "good strikes" where you are aiming is worse for your score if the 1 bad one is really out of control than 7 out of 10 "good strikes" but the bad ones are improved enough that they arn't disasters.

 

Regardless of handicap, it is generally MUCH more important to your score to have your bad shots be less bad than hit more "quality strikes" on a 0-10 scale. Most of the people advocating for blades in this thread are talking about their best and average shots.

 

The *degree* of good and bad is way more important than the *frequency* of good and bad.

[mahonie]

"he has far more skill than I gave him credit for." Did you think YJS was skipping a hole now and again, or that his scores were the result of fluky bounces? Good grief. I've dipped into some of the one million blade threads, and the most common denominator is that "I bought blades, practiced a lot, worked hard on my game and my hdcp has gone down."

 

Sorry my humour seemed to have by-passed you. We all know YJS is one of the best ballstrikers and most skilful players on the planet and could probably play any club of any type at any time. My tests on Trackman proved to me that the AP2 is no more forgiving than the next ‘players’ club on off-centre hits and for me was less forgiving, particularly with shots high on the face. Spieth is cited in these threads as being an elite player who games GI clubs, but if he puts a bad swing on it the club isn’t going rescue the shot. That is why I credit him with extreme levels of skill as he rarely misses the sweetspot. When you do miss the sweetspot on an AP2 you will be severely punished as he was on the 12th at Augusta a couple of years ago. That is all.

[nsxguy]

"he has far more skill than I gave him credit for." Did you think YJS was skipping a hole now and again, or that his scores were the result of fluky bounces? Good grief. I've dipped into some of the one million blade threads, and the most common denominator is that "I bought blades, practiced a lot, worked hard on my game and my hdcp has gone down."

 

Sorry my humour seemed to have by-passed you. We all know YJS is one of the best ballstrikers and most skilful players on the planet and could probably play any club of any type at any time. My tests on Trackman proved to me that the AP2 is no more forgiving than the next ‘players’ club on off-centre hits and for me was less forgiving, particularly with shots high on the face. Spieth is cited in these threads as being an elite player who games GI clubs, but if he puts a bad swing on it the club isn’t going rescue the shot.

 

Yeah, he seems to have missed the humor. :D

 

But the whole point PSG and CB enthusiasts are trying to make is while the club isn't going to rescue the shot, the shot is more likely than not, not going to be as bad as it otherwise would have been with a less forgiving club.

 

That's really the only thing relevant issue and harkens back to DeHiney's original declaration "Blades are more workable, CBs are more forgiving".

 

I think it really IS just that simple. (cool)

[mahonie]

I play three sets of irons in one set.

 

MP 18 for 8-PW

MP 18 SC for 5-7

MP 18 Fli Hi for 3-4

 

Here's the logic behind it...

I am confident I can hit quality shots 8-10 times out of 10 swings with blades from 8 iron and down. However, with 5-7 iron, it's more like 7-8 so I went with more forgiving irons in that range, the MC. I felt like I could hit 3 and 4 iron in the MC well about 5-6 times out of 10. So I went with Fli Hi (hated the MP MMC heads).

 

Essentially, I feel like with every iron and wedge in my bag, I could hit 8-10 out of 10 full swings well enough to send the ball where I'm looking. All I can ask for.

 

Appreciate the post, and I only post this to point out that a lot of people think like you, and a lot of people (IMO) leave strokes on the table because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "quality" shot, unless it goes in the hole. A shot to 3 inches from the cup with an 8 iron and a shot to 10 feet from the cup with an 8 iron are both "quality shots"

 

PSG, while I agree in the main with much of what you say, ya really got to stop saying something in one sentence and then contradicting yourself in the next. :D

 

As for a quality shot (or "strike"), I guess *I* would call it one where I find the sweet spot AND hit in the general direction of where I'm aiming. Add to that the club "feels" right to me and that I can repeat the swing with regularity and the rest is just refinement; developing a better aim, more consistency of swing, perhaps some tweaking to the clubs themselves. But the point is the clubs work FOR ME.

 

While you're right in that 40 feet and 10 feet will usually result in the same score, Mr mahonie, as an 11 has different perceptions of what works for him.

 

My main problem with combo sets is that the different heads, for ME, resulted in the clubs feeling different from one to the other - and part of the point of an iron "set" is that they feel the same from club to club.

 

In the first only quality is in quotes. In the other both words are in quotes. In the first I was questioning the word choice of quality and in the second I was using the entire phrase in the way he meant it. Don't @ me.

 

The point is that there are not two types of golf shots, and picking equipment based on putting your shots into one of two categories and choosing the equipment that generates the most shots that are categorized as positive is a bad way to pick golf equipment. This is the way our brain really, really, really wants to operate (black/white) but its a bad way to choose irons. It is much more likely that 9 out of 10 "good strikes" where you are aiming is worse for your score if the 1 bad one is really out of control than 7 out of 10 "good strikes" but the bad ones are improved enough that they arn't disasters.

 

Regardless of handicap, it is generally MUCH more important to your score to have your bad shots be less bad than hit more "quality strikes" on a 0-10 scale. Most of the people advocating for blades in this thread are talking about their best and average shots.

 

The *degree* of good and bad is way more important than the *frequency* of good and bad.

 

PSG, I totally agree with your last sentence. My whole approach to playing golf is very conservative - I try to limit the really bad mistakes first and foremost. If a flag is on the right hand side of the green tight against a bunker, I’m not trying to hit a straight shot directly at the flag, I’m aiming for the middle of the green with a little fade which is my natural shot. If I hit it straight, or even pull it slightly, I’m still on the green and putting for birdie. If the flag is on the left, I go for the centre of the green and try and hit a draw which I find more difficult I admit. However, my miss is still in the vicinity of the green unless I hit it fat which is my big miss.h My issue is coming in too steep and hitting it fat...it’s a lost shot...and impacts more on my wedge game than anywhere else.

[pinestreetgolf]

I play three sets of irons in one set.

 

MP 18 for 8-PW

MP 18 SC for 5-7

MP 18 Fli Hi for 3-4

 

Here's the logic behind it...

I am confident I can hit quality shots 8-10 times out of 10 swings with blades from 8 iron and down. However, with 5-7 iron, it's more like 7-8 so I went with more forgiving irons in that range, the MC. I felt like I could hit 3 and 4 iron in the MC well about 5-6 times out of 10. So I went with Fli Hi (hated the MP MMC heads).

 

Essentially, I feel like with every iron and wedge in my bag, I could hit 8-10 out of 10 full swings well enough to send the ball where I'm looking. All I can ask for.

 

Appreciate the post, and I only post this to point out that a lot of people think like you, and a lot of people (IMO) leave strokes on the table because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "quality" shot, unless it goes in the hole. A shot to 3 inches from the cup with an 8 iron and a shot to 10 feet from the cup with an 8 iron are both "quality shots"

 

PSG, while I agree in the main with much of what you say, ya really got to stop saying something in one sentence and then contradicting yourself in the next. :D

 

As for a quality shot (or "strike"), I guess *I* would call it one where I find the sweet spot AND hit in the general direction of where I'm aiming. Add to that the club "feels" right to me and that I can repeat the swing with regularity and the rest is just refinement; developing a better aim, more consistency of swing, perhaps some tweaking to the clubs themselves. But the point is the clubs work FOR ME.

 

While you're right in that 40 feet and 10 feet will usually result in the same score, Mr mahonie, as an 11 has different perceptions of what works for him.

 

My main problem with combo sets is that the different heads, for ME, resulted in the clubs feeling different from one to the other - and part of the point of an iron "set" is that they feel the same from club to club.

 

In the first only quality is in quotes. In the other both words are in quotes. In the first I was questioning the word choice of quality and in the second I was using the entire phrase in the way he meant it. Don't @ me.

 

The point is that there are not two types of golf shots, and picking equipment based on putting your shots into one of two categories and choosing the equipment that generates the most shots that are categorized as positive is a bad way to pick golf equipment. This is the way our brain really, really, really wants to operate (black/white) but its a bad way to choose irons. It is much more likely that 9 out of 10 "good strikes" where you are aiming is worse for your score if the 1 bad one is really out of control than 7 out of 10 "good strikes" but the bad ones are improved enough that they arn't disasters.

 

Regardless of handicap, it is generally MUCH more important to your score to have your bad shots be less bad than hit more "quality strikes" on a 0-10 scale. Most of the people advocating for blades in this thread are talking about their best and average shots.

 

The *degree* of good and bad is way more important than the *frequency* of good and bad.

 

PSG, I totally agree with your last sentence. My whole approach to playing golf is very conservative - I try to limit the really bad mistakes first and foremost. If a flag is on the right hand side of the green tight against a bunker, I’m not trying to hit a straight shot directly at the flag, I’m aiming for the middle of the green with a little fade which is my natural shot. If I hit it straight, or even pull it slightly, I’m still on the green and putting for birdie. If the flag is on the left, I go for the centre of the green and try and hit a draw which I find more difficult I admit. However, my miss is still in the vicinity of the green unless I hit it fat which is my big miss.h My issue is coming in too steep and hitting it fat...it’s a lost shot...and impacts more on my wedge game than anywhere else.

 

For sure. You can only hook a sand wedge so far. A great musician once told me (living where I live everyone plays an instrument!) music is easy because there are only two mistakes: pitch or tempo. Well, in golf there are only two mistakes: contact and direction. The relative importance of each miss decreases as you go down through the bag. A contact miss with a sand wedge is a devastating mistake. A directional miss isn't, because it usually ends on the fringe. A contact miss with a 3 hybrid isn't that big a deal - typically you'll still gauge it out 70 yards or whatever and have a 8 iron for a bogie, but you can hook a 3 hybrid out of bounds. So contact misses become more and more devastating the shorter the club gets and directional misses get more and more devastating the longer the club gets. I adjust my set up with this in mind, putting way more weight on my left side with the short clubs at address and aiming right with the long clubs (which makes my hook not go into a parking lot).

 

Take a player testing irons on the range. He hits a set of blades and they feel incredible, he hits towering shots 8 out of 10 times, and loves it. Twice he hits it off the toe slightly fat and loses 20 yards as the sole bites into the ground. Then he tries some chunky SGI irons. They are muted. They ball flight varies, but isn't great. One or two go 8 yards longer, and the offset gives him a slight tail hook left. However, the worst shot he hits loses about 7.5 yards due to a slightly fat hit gliding through the ground.

 

That golfer should 100% play the SGI irons, if all he cares about is score. The worst shots are better. The number of "quality" versus the number of "non-quality" is completely irrelevant.

[gbartko]

i would think that a low handicapper (who is more likely to play blades) would see MORE benefit from CBs than a hacker because its more likely the low handicappers miss is significantly smaller and this is the space in which the CBs truly excel at making the shot behave like a dead solid perfect strike. but those blade lovers need their tough love ;-)

[Bad9]

I never understand why so many say they get inconsistent ball flight from GI and SGI clubs. With any kind of decent swing and decent face contact I get very predictable ball flight. I have never had random, inconsistent ball flights from any club that I put a decent swing on in my 35+yrs of playing golf.

[farmer]

Mahonie, my apologies, I did miss the humor. I attribute it to the number of truly idiotic posts I've seen over the years. Totally wrong on this one.

[towncryer]

I play three sets of irons in one set.

 

MP 18 for 8-PW

MP 18 SC for 5-7

MP 18 Fli Hi for 3-4

 

Here's the logic behind it...

I am confident I can hit quality shots 8-10 times out of 10 swings with blades from 8 iron and down. However, with 5-7 iron, it's more like 7-8 so I went with more forgiving irons in that range, the MC. I felt like I could hit 3 and 4 iron in the MC well about 5-6 times out of 10. So I went with Fli Hi (hated the MP MMC heads).

 

Essentially, I feel like with every iron and wedge in my bag, I could hit 8-10 out of 10 full swings well enough to send the ball where I'm looking. All I can ask for.

 

Appreciate the post, and I only post this to point out that a lot of people think like you, and a lot of people (IMO) leave strokes on the table because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "quality" shot, unless it goes in the hole. A shot to 3 inches from the cup with an 8 iron and a shot to 10 feet from the cup with an 8 iron are both "quality shots" but there is HUGE difference in the effect of those two results on your score. This is binary thinking - a shot is either "quality" or "non-quality". As you said, you hit 8 of 10 "well". What does that matter? What are you actually measuring? Serious question. Who cares?

 

Say you hit an 8 "well" to the middle for a 10 footer and you thin an awful 8 to the back fringe to a front pin for a 40 footer. Believe it or not, those two shots are basically the same (you two-putt both about 90% of the time) despite you putting one in the "quality" category in your brain and one in the "non-quality" part of your brain, they have resulted in the exact same score.

 

Unless you hit it close enough to turn 3 shots into 2 OR the iron helps you not turn 3 shots into 4, one being "quality" and one being "non-quality" is irrelevant. This is what I don't understand about combo sets. If I lined up 100 balls for MP-18s and 100 balls for SCs 8-PW it is incredibly unlikely you would hit the MP-18s closer to turn more 3 shots into 2 BUT it is very likely the forgiveness in the SCs would keep it from going from 3 to 4. So unless the MP-18s are giving you more one-putt chances than the SCs it makes zero sense to bag them, because they are worse on the other end.

 

I have no idea if your bag is correct for you or not. I just think looking at picking clubs through the lens of "quality shot" versus "not a quality shot" doesn't make sense. A "quality shot" with a 5 iron hits it to 30 feet, where you two-putt. A "non-quality shot" with a 5 iron might be in the parking lot. Those do not have a 1:1 ratio of "hey, one was quality, one was non-quality" to your scorecard.

 

"8 out of 10" is meaningless because if the two are OB and the other 8 arn't tight enough to one-putt, that's horrendous. Meanwhile, if the two "non-quality" are reasonable misses and four of the eight "quality" are one-putt range your playing on TV. So this whole "8 out of 10 are quality" doesn't actually mean anything in terms of your score because all good shots are not created equal and all bad shots are certainly not created equal. Erroring on the side of forgiveness throughout the bag makes sense because the non-quality has a MUCH better chance to add strokes than the high quality has of taking them away (unless you swish it, a quality shot can only ever be -1. A non-quality shot can be +16 as Kevin Na learned at the Houston Open).

 

The issue is whether the club, when compared to others, hits it tighter (to turn 3 into 2 more often) or if its bad shots arnt as bad (stopping 3 from becoming 4 more often). Comparing in binary form like a ton do on this forum (quality versus non quality) is an optical illusion. Thinking "It was an average day. I found $5 on the street, so that's quality, but my house burned down, so that's non-quality. I'd say all in all, its 50/50" would be insane, but that's how you are analyzing your golf game.

 

Only really good or really bad shots matter in golf. The rest are just two putts.

 

Okay...how about a working definition of "quality shot"? On center, high-efficiency contact. Someone with an index as low as yours should know what that means and what it should feel like. You know when you catch it well, and when you just miss it. That's where I was going with "quality shot." Not distance from the hole, not dispersion, not anything else. The closer you are to the ball, the easier it is to hit the center of the face. Plain and simple. I like a little more forgiveness in 5-7 because they're longer clubs. I like a lot of forgiveness in 3-4 with the Fli Hi irons because I'm even further from the ball. The cut off points might seem arbitrary, but it makes sense to me, so there it is.

 

I understand your points and appreciate the time you took to make them. I'll leave you with reply to your comment about not knowing whether my bag is right for me...my misses with the MP 18s would be misses with SCs...when I pay poorly, it's direction and not contact that is usually the culprit...lower body gets lazy sometimes and I pull as a pretty typical miss. My bad shots don't end up in the parking lot...and if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that a swing that does that with a blade would do that with a game improvement iron as well.

[Bye]

I never understand why so many say they get inconsistent ball flight from GI and SGI clubs. With any kind of decent swing and decent face contact I get very predictable ball flight. I have never had random, inconsistent ball flights from any club that I put a decent swing on in my 35+yrs of playing golf.

 

I wouldn’t describe it as an inconsistent ball flight, it’s more of a distance issue. Occasionally a shot will fly 5-10 yards too far with a GI type iron, which is not very helpful.

[Bad9]

I never understand why so many say they get inconsistent ball flight from GI and SGI clubs. With any kind of decent swing and decent face contact I get very predictable ball flight. I have never had random, inconsistent ball flights from any club that I put a decent swing on in my 35+yrs of playing golf.

 

I wouldn’t describe it as an inconsistent ball flight, it’s more of a distance issue. Occasionally a shot will fly 5-10 yards too far with a GI type iron, which is not very helpful.

 

As I said I’ve never had that kind of thing happen with a decent swing and decent contact

[Bye]

I never understand why so many say they get inconsistent ball flight from GI and SGI clubs. With any kind of decent swing and decent face contact I get very predictable ball flight. I have never had random, inconsistent ball flights from any club that I put a decent swing on in my 35+yrs of playing golf.

 

I wouldn’t describe it as an inconsistent ball flight, it’s more of a distance issue. Occasionally a shot will fly 5-10 yards too far with a GI type iron, which is not very helpful.

 

As I said I’ve never had that kind of thing happen with a decent swing and decent contact

 

It’s not useful with any type of contact. It’s one of the main reasons I stay away from that type of club.

[pinestreetgolf]

Okay...how about a working definition of "quality shot"? On center, high-efficiency contact. Someone with an index as low as yours should know what that means and what it should feel like. You know when you catch it well, and when you just miss it.

 

I know what a quality swing feels like. Whether or not that's a quality shot depends on a whole lot more, like aiming correctly and gauging the wind correctly, which are things most golfers who are average are very bad at, if they even think about them at all.

 

Most golfers are much worse than their talent because they define a good shot is a good swing (and only think about the swing while playing), like you have here.

 

I also know where I can miss it. i have different swing thoughts if the miss is left (have your left hand palm up at impact) than right (get as far forward as you can). Most golfers don't think about where to miss. They just think a miss is a miss and a make is a make. That's a good way to shoot 95.

 

my misses with the MP 18s would be misses with SCs...when I pay poorly, it's direction and not contact that is usually the culprit...lower body gets lazy sometimes and I pull as a pretty typical miss. My bad shots don't end up in the parking lot...and if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that a swing that does that with a blade would do that with a game improvement iron as well.

 

Depends how far away the parking lot is aka Its is a matter of degree. One might not end up in the parking lot while the other one might. It doesn't matter the MP-18 toe hit only goes 5 yards shorter than the SC toe hit miss, unless you happen to hit it 140 over a 140 yard lake. In which case the MP-18 miss is atrocious and ruins the round and your SC miss gives you a pitch. There is no such thing as a "miss". It doesn't exist, if you are talking about score. All that matters is strokes, and strokes arn't measured in true or false.

 

So, i have no idea what you should play, I'm just cautioning that this method of equipment evaluation is a great way to optimize your bag for a range session but a poor way to optimize your bag for a scorecard.

[1Mordrid1]

I never understand why so many say they get inconsistent ball flight from GI and SGI clubs. With any kind of decent swing and decent face contact I get very predictable ball flight. I have never had random, inconsistent ball flights from any club that I put a decent swing on in my 35+yrs of playing golf.

 

It's a myth that has been busted time and time again. Some even use it as an excuse to play blades....."When I strike a ball perfectly in the fairway I get 25 yard jumpers !".

 

The reality is that GI and SGI clubs can produce crazy longer than usual shots, but they are not "perfectly struck jumpers". They generally occur on toe strikes that reduce spin.

[towncryer]

Okay...how about a working definition of "quality shot"? On center, high-efficiency contact. Someone with an index as low as yours should know what that means and what it should feel like. You know when you catch it well, and when you just miss it.

 

I know what a quality swing feels like. Whether or not that's a quality shot depends on a whole lot more, like aiming correctly and gauging the wind correctly, which are things most golfers who are average are very bad at, if they even think about them at all.

 

Most golfers are much worse than their talent because they define a good shot is a good swing (and only think about the swing while playing), like you have here.

 

I also know where I can miss it. i have different swing thoughts if the miss is left (have your left hand palm up at impact) than right (get as far forward as you can). Most golfers don't think about where to miss. They just think a miss is a miss and a make is a make. That's a good way to shoot 95.

 

my misses with the MP 18s would be misses with SCs...when I pay poorly, it's direction and not contact that is usually the culprit...lower body gets lazy sometimes and I pull as a pretty typical miss. My bad shots don't end up in the parking lot...and if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that a swing that does that with a blade would do that with a game improvement iron as well.

 

Depends how far away the parking lot is aka Its is a matter of degree. One might not end up in the parking lot while the other one might. It doesn't matter the MP-18 toe hit only goes 5 yards shorter than the SC toe hit miss, unless you happen to hit it 140 over a 140 yard lake. In which case the MP-18 miss is atrocious and ruins the round and your SC miss gives you a pitch. There is no such thing as a "miss". It doesn't exist, if you are talking about score. All that matters is strokes, and strokes arn't measured in true or false.

 

So, i have no idea what you should play, I'm just cautioning that this method of equipment evaluation is a great way to optimize your bag for a range session but a poor way to optimize your bag for a scorecard.

 

No. You know what? I was going to leave a short crass response, but I'm in the mood to talk it out...

 

Again, I get what you're saying, but I think you're either talking about something different than I am or you don't understand what I'm saying. If it's the latter, it's probably my fault for not being clear.

 

While I get and agree with the distinction you're going for between quality swing/quality shot, I would argue that executing a good shot is predicated on making a good swing (which I've defined as striking the ball solidly, not an aesthetically pleasing swing...again, my choice in words might be to blame here). So I'll be more clear when I say good swing hereafter.

 

I understand that you have to gauge for wind, elevation, lie, ball above/below feet, et cetera as well...but you can do all that and hit a shot that badly misses the target if you don't put a good swing on it (ie, make solid contact) and you can hit a shot that goes in the hole if you skull it and run it all the way up to the green and into the cup.

 

Regarding knowing your miss...If I HAVE to carry 140 to stay dry, I'm choosing a club that will have no problem carrying that if I get it a little off center (unless I have wind at my back, at which point I factor that in, as well as assess the lie, think about how both will impact spin, and then I make an educated decision).

 

I found this interesting and I disagree somewhat...

"There is no such thing as a "miss". It doesn't exist, if you are talking about score. All that matters is strokes, and strokes arn't measured in true or false."

 

I agree that when you are actually playing golf, there's no such thing as a miss. But when you practice, there sure are. Practice does not equal playing. I am not on the course playing and thinking about my swing at all...I'm thinking about the shot in front of me and all the variables I need to account for.

 

But if I'm selecting heads for a new set of irons or practicing on the range, there certainly are misses. My original comment was (I think, pretty clearly) geared this way...because I've never played a round where I hit 10 of any club in a row.

 

I'm pretty sure I think I might know what you're getting at...if you pick a set of irons because you like how they feel on 8 shots but the other two were horrible results (massive loss of distance/direction). But if you hit 8 of 10 perfectly crisp and the two that aren't are minor losses of distance and direction, you could still play those irons. I don't take any of your questions/comments/ideas personally. I'm plenty confident in how I hit my setup and have no plans changing. But if I had a friend who wanted to play CB irons and his bad shots were atrocious (no matter how many out of ten they were), I'd urge him to find something more forgiving.

 

Just playing devil's advocate...but the irons you play are not game improvement irons by any stretch. Wouldn't YOUR worst shots be better if you played something more forgiving? If you care about score, why don't you play something more forgiving? I also noticed you play traditional bladed wedges...wouldn't your scores go down if you played something with a cavity? I have a feeling your answers to those questions would be similar to mine. :)

[pinestreetgolf]

I found this interesting and I disagree somewhat...

But if I'm selecting heads for a new set of irons or practicing on the range, there certainly are misses. My original comment was (I think, pretty clearly) geared this way...because I've never played a round where I hit 10 of any club in a row.

 

Last night, I was hitting on the range. I was hitting driver. One was an overdraw then went about 20 yards left and about 20 yards short. One was a massive slice almost into the first fairway. Awful swings, both. Are you saying they are both just "misses" because I'm on the range? One of those is playable, maybe in trees, but playable. One is OB, two strokes and re-tee. I don't understand how you can just call both of those "misses" and move on when evaluating equipment. The huge miss is WAY more important to take into consideration than the smaller "miss". The same word can't be accurately used to describe both those shots, no matter where you are.

 

I'm pretty sure I think I might know what you're getting at...if you pick a set of irons because you like how they feel on 8 shots but the other two were horrible results (massive loss of distance/direction). But if you hit 8 of 10 perfectly crisp and the two that aren't are minor losses of distance and direction, you could still play those irons.

 

Correct. You just evaluated it correctly. Notice you didn't say "eight were good and two were bad". You said "two were minor losses of distance and direction". That is how you should evaluate equipment. Not X good and Y bad. Golf is way too precise a game to pick equipment with that data.

 

Just playing devil's advocate...but the irons you play are not game improvement irons by any stretch. Wouldn't YOUR worst shots be better if you played something more forgiving? If you care about score, why don't you play something more forgiving? I also noticed you play traditional bladed wedges...wouldn't your scores go down if you played something with a cavity? I have a feeling your answers to those questions would be similar to mine. :)

 

My misses would be better, but my scores wouldn't go down because both misses would still be two-putts. I'm not saying "don't play blades" I'm saying there are a ton of posts in this thread that are basically like "if its a miss with a blade its a miss with a CB too!" which is so simplistic as to be useless in evaluating the clubs.

 

It can go both ways, though. The key is to turn 3 shots into 2 and avoid turning 3 shots into 4 (or 5, or 6). If I played cavity back wedges I couldn't flop them the way I swing. So I couldn't turn 3 into 2 over a tight bunker, for example. However, from 80 in the fairway, I'm not going to miss my vokey much worse than a CB wedge. So I have advantage and no disadvantage. But the point is that I'm talking about the shots *that save or add strokes*. The shots that are just good don't matter, because they don't effect your score, because you two putt them.

 

You want clubs that either produce awesome shots or don't produce horrendus shots (which depends on the golfer).

 

How good your good shots are and how bad your bad shots are is way more important to picking a club than how many you hit of each. I'd rather have a club in the bag that hits it good 5 out of 10 times and where the misses are within a 30 yard band than a club i love the feel of on my 6 out of 10 perfect strikes but can create doubles and triples on bad strikes.

 

So, its not that I think you "shouldn't" play blades, its that the idea that "if a blade would miss a CB would miss" creates bad conclusions. "A miss" is way too vague. If the CB and the blades both miss to the same degree, fine. But they don't. For some players, the upside of less forgiving irons in scoring outweighs the downside of worse misses, but not many. Misses are not created equal, on the course or the range, and "good strikes" only matter if they result in one putts. So if you can strike blades better than GI to produce significantly more one putts, play them. Most can't. Most two putt good strikes with both blades and CBs and the blade misses are way worse.

 

If you arn't hitting within six feet at least 2-3 times a round I'm not sure why you would play a less forgiving club. You have to have that precision upside to make the more precise club worth it. Otherwise you're adding the potential for horrible holes in exchange for a slightly easier two putt.

[towncryer]

I found this interesting and I disagree somewhat...

But if I'm selecting heads for a new set of irons or practicing on the range, there certainly are misses. My original comment was (I think, pretty clearly) geared this way...because I've never played a round where I hit 10 of any club in a row.

 

Last night, I was hitting on the range. I was hitting driver. One was an overdraw then went about 20 yards left and about 20 yards short. One was a massive slice almost into the first fairway. Awful swings, both. Are you saying they are both just "misses" because I'm on the range? One of those is playable, maybe in trees, but playable. One is OB, two strokes and re-tee. I don't understand how you can just call both of those "misses" and move on when evaluating equipment. The huge miss is WAY more important to take into consideration than the smaller "miss". The same word can't be accurately used to describe both those shots, no matter where you are.

 

I'm pretty sure I think I might know what you're getting at...if you pick a set of irons because you like how they feel on 8 shots but the other two were horrible results (massive loss of distance/direction). But if you hit 8 of 10 perfectly crisp and the two that aren't are minor losses of distance and direction, you could still play those irons.

 

Correct. You just evaluated it correctly. Notice you didn't say "eight were good and two were bad". You said "two were minor losses of distance and direction". That is how you should evaluate equipment. Not X good and Y bad. Golf is way too precise a game to pick equipment with that data.

 

Just playing devil's advocate...but the irons you play are not game improvement irons by any stretch. Wouldn't YOUR worst shots be better if you played something more forgiving? If you care about score, why don't you play something more forgiving? I also noticed you play traditional bladed wedges...wouldn't your scores go down if you played something with a cavity? I have a feeling your answers to those questions would be similar to mine. :)

 

My misses would be better, but my scores wouldn't go down because both misses would still be two-putts. I'm not saying "don't play blades" I'm saying there are a ton of posts in this thread that are basically like "if its a miss with a blade its a miss with a CB too!" which is so simplistic as to be useless in evaluating the clubs.

 

It can go both ways, though. The key is to turn 3 shots into 2 and avoid turning 3 shots into 4 (or 5, or 6). If I played cavity back wedges I couldn't flop them the way I swing. So I couldn't turn 3 into 2 over a tight bunker, for example. However, from 80 in the fairway, I'm not going to miss my vokey much worse than a CB wedge. So I have advantage and no disadvantage. But the point is that I'm talking about the shots *that save or add strokes*. The shots that are just good don't matter, because they don't effect your score, because you two putt them.

 

You want clubs that either produce awesome shots or don't produce horrendus shots (which depends on the golfer).

 

How good your good shots are and how bad your bad shots are is way more important to picking a club than how many you hit of each. I'd rather have a club in the bag that hits it good 5 out of 10 times and where the misses are within a 30 yard band than a club i love the feel of on my 6 out of 10 perfect strikes but can create doubles and triples on bad strikes.

 

So, its not that I think you "shouldn't" play blades, its that the idea that "if a blade would miss a CB would miss" creates bad conclusions. "A miss" is way too vague. If the CB and the blades both miss to the same degree, fine. But they don't. For some players, the upside of less forgiving irons in scoring outweighs the downside of worse misses, but not many. Misses are not created equal, on the course or the range, and "good strikes" only matter if they result in one putts. So if you can strike blades better than GI to produce significantly more one putts, play them. Most can't. Most two putt good strikes with both blades and CBs and the blade misses are way worse.

 

If you arn't hitting within six feet at least 2-3 times a round I'm not sure why you would play a less forgiving club. You have to have that precision upside to make the more precise club worth it. Otherwise you're adding the potential for horrible holes in exchange for a slightly easier two putt.

 

 

Okay...I get you now. Again, thanks for taking the time to respond and answer questions.

[Sir Slicealot]

youuu rannnggg!?

 

 

in other news im thinking of ordering a 4-7 hybrid , a 40 ft ball retriever and a pull cart... really close to giving up on life...lol

Good heavens! Just get a heaven wood and a divine nine and call it a day. Those two clubs apparently solve everything.

So I hit the Epic Divine Nine in a stiff shaft today. It's a great club and carries well...really easy to hit. My AARP card is surely in the mail...if I could have gotten it to go straight, I'd be buying that club for sure... minimalist set...next step find a Heavenwood...

[pinestreetgolf]

youuu rannnggg!?

 

 

in other news im thinking of ordering a 4-7 hybrid , a 40 ft ball retriever and a pull cart... really close to giving up on life...lol

Good heavens! Just get a heaven wood and a divine nine and call it a day. Those two clubs apparently solve everything.

So I hit the Epic Divine Nine in a stiff shaft today. It's a great club and carries well...really easy to hit. My AARP card is surely in the mail...if I could have gotten it to go straight, I'd be buying that club for sure... minimalist set...next step find a Heavenwood...

 

A guy who competes alot and played D1 carried a SLDR 5 hybrid into two super-GI 6 and 7 irons (X-22 IIRC) in the La Mid Am last year and did well. He played blades above 7 iron, and super-forgiving clubs below. It was the most extreme combo set i've ever seen.

 

Grab that divine nine!

[bodhi555]

See one of the reasons I'm sticking to the blades, is precisely because of mishits - if I mishit a blade it goes offline but drops short of the green leaving me a chance for an up and down, if I mishit a GI Club I know from experience it goes the full distance and usually ends up in the cabbage wide if the green.

 

But then I don't usually struggle to hit the centre of the face, it's keeping the face straight in the way through I struggle with, and I find that easier to achieve with my Nikes than I do with anything else I've tried. Probably why they've been in the bag for 13 years now....

[Sir Slicealot]

 

So I hit the Epic Divine Nine in a stiff shaft today. It's a great club and carries well...really easy to hit. My AARP card is surely in the mail...if I could have gotten it to go straight, I'd be buying that club for sure... minimalist set...next step find a Heavenwood...

 

A guy who competes alot and played D1 carried a SLDR 5 hybrid into two super-GI 6 and 7 irons (X-22 IIRC) in the La Mid Am last year and did well. He played blades above 7 iron, and super-forgiving clubs below. It was the most extreme combo set i've ever seen.

 

Grab that divine nine!

Well TBH, I almost went back and picked it up. It's got my curiosity piqued. Maybe it's good training wheels for a longer wood or iron even. Maybe go driver, mini 16°, 14 1i,14 2i, D9, 6i, 7i, 52°, 56°, 60°, 64°, putter.

[cliffhanger]

See one of the reasons I'm sticking to the blades, is precisely because of mishits - if I mishit a blade it goes offline but drops short of the green leaving me a chance for an up and down, if I mishit a GI Club I know from experience it goes the full distance and usually ends up in the cabbage wide if the green.

 

But then I don't usually struggle to hit the centre of the face, it's keeping the face straight in the way through I struggle with, and I find that easier to achieve with my Nikes than I do with anything else I've tried. Probably why they've been in the bag for 13 years now....

i game blades because my delusional mind tells me its ok to.

[zeke66]

With blades it’s easy. As good as the ball is now most of your iron shots are just scoring wedges anyways. Like versions of wedges. Don’t worry. Good move. Feel better. Flight better.

[nsxguy]

See one of the reasons I'm sticking to the blades, is precisely because of mishits - if I mishit a blade it goes offline but drops short of the green leaving me a chance for an up and down, if I mishit a GI Club I know from experience it goes the full distance and usually ends up in the cabbage wide if the green.

 

But then I don't usually struggle to hit the centre of the face, it's keeping the face straight in the way through I struggle with, and I find that easier to achieve with my Nikes than I do with anything else I've tried. Probably why they've been in the bag for 13 years now....

i game blades because my delusional mind tells me its ok to.

 

Did you keep the receipt in case you want to exchange them ? :lol:

[dunn]

If anyone wants to experiment with the real world effects of high MOI, variable face thickness forgiveness, spring effect distance increase, etc, get yourself an old persimmon driver and get that a go. I'm frankly surprised that more blade players don't play smaller drivers for the same reasons they choose their irons...or maybe they have?

lol, that was a good one

[cliffhanger]

See one of the reasons I'm sticking to the blades, is precisely because of mishits - if I mishit a blade it goes offline but drops short of the green leaving me a chance for an up and down, if I mishit a GI Club I know from experience it goes the full distance and usually ends up in the cabbage wide if the green.

 

But then I don't usually struggle to hit the centre of the face, it's keeping the face straight in the way through I struggle with, and I find that easier to achieve with my Nikes than I do with anything else I've tried. Probably why they've been in the bag for 13 years now....

i game blades because my delusional mind tells me its ok to.

 

Did you keep the receipt in case you want to exchange them ? :lol:

why bother... someone will take that s*** back :taunt:

[bodhi555]

See one of the reasons I'm sticking to the blades, is precisely because of mishits - if I mishit a blade it goes offline but drops short of the green leaving me a chance for an up and down, if I mishit a GI Club I know from experience it goes the full distance and usually ends up in the cabbage wide if the green.

 

But then I don't usually struggle to hit the centre of the face, it's keeping the face straight in the way through I struggle with, and I find that easier to achieve with my Nikes than I do with anything else I've tried. Probably why they've been in the bag for 13 years now....

i game blades because my delusional mind tells me its ok to.

 

You are entirely correct. I am now going to switch irons I hit very well for something else, as someone on the Internet who's never seen me play says so.

[Pepperturbo]

Let me repeat myself. When I took up the game, I played off the shelve Pings and switched to Mizuno blades 6-8 months later. Played Blades for twenty plus years till around 2007, when I changed to players original X-forged CB and now Titleist 716CB's and my Blades are backup and maintenance.

 

What inevitably happens with aging during most rounds I get mentally lazy over the ball and think CB's will make up for my lack of attention to mechanics. I am here to say they don't. Shared because some people say drop blades and go to CB's and improve your scoring. That hasn't been true, at all. Mentally lazy happens to everybody, but some more than others. I pull out my blades when ball striking gets sloppy. Takes me 1-2 rounds before I am back on track. What's notable MB's help me to recover good ball striking and the other point is CB design doesn't help me to lower my index, just offers a bit of forgiveness for an old man. IMO its what each of us uses to get back to better swing mechanics and attention to detail that makes us difference.

 

Not saying my experience should be what others experience as we all know our motives and approach to the game are different. Just sharing. :beach: