Dear blade,

[Kingcat990]

Last weekend I flushed a 3-iron from 225 with a Titleist MB, pin high......Only 1 thing I can think of that feels better!....LOL

 

Sinking the putt?

 

Having someone else repair the divot out of respect :)

[Bubbtubbs]

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?

I still bust out my T40 Nike driver and fairways sometimes, even though they're regular steel shafts.

 

I actually wish I could find a 275-300cc driver that wasn't played half to death already.

[Sean2]

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?

 

Today's "blades" would have been considered GI irons back in the day.

 

 

[Johnnypenso]

So does anyone have any real evidence that blades are less forgiving than GI irons or is it all anecdotal evidence?

 

Depends on what you constitute "real evidence." Science says that high MOI clubs resist twisting on off center strikes better than low MOI clubs like blades. Science says that a rounded sole with a fair bit of bounce, common on GI clubs, will dig less on fat strikes than a sharp leading edge blade. Science says that offset helps increase launch and reduce slicing by some (small) degree, two features that benefit a lot of people.

 

People that experience 10+ yards of distance variation between "similar strikes" with a GI club are poor judges of strike quality. Blade guys will say that their clubs provide better "feedback" and that may be true, but the only feedback I need is how close to the hole my shot winds up.

I understand the science but science doesn't play golf :taunt: . That science also doesn't provide a lot of quantification, nor does it mention some of the downsides of SGI irons, such as hitting the ball higher on the face, killing the spin and producing the proverbial flyer. What I want is the quantification of the science. You hit a ball on the correct groove but 20mm toe with the same angle of attack and swing path and what happens with each club? What about 10 mm high in the centre? 5 mm low and 10 mm towards the heel? What about spin rates and holding greens? What about controlling the ball flight? Golf has a ton of variables that all contribute to the results of your shot and your overall score, above and beyond how "forgiving" the face is. Is there any data to support that the GI clubs actually produce tighter dispersion patterns and better overall scores?

[Sir Slicealot]

I'm judging my blade strikes by grass stains because I've been hitting off turf today. The grass stains are predominantly in the center of the club. If I hadn't run across the wonder scrubby bucket and cleaned my entire set on the driving range, I'd show you. Anyhow my 1 iron says hello and that it enjoyed its recent range trips and prefers turf to mats. I'm sure your SGI would speak to you if it had a soul and wasn't so busy conspiring to produce the evil flier.?

[gbartko]

I am making the leap from very forgiving irons to the MIURA MC501’s. My fascination with forged, blade type irons began with a single session I had with a muscle back. At that time, I knew I was not good enough to play these irons but the pure feel of the club always stood with me.

 

You could take a v6 and add everything imaginable to make it feel like a v8, but you know with every mod that you cannot replicate the vibration, the feel. I eventually got my v8, as I am now moving on to these beautiful MC’s.

 

I want to hear from some of you. I know I made the right choice. Even at the expense of losing a little distance, the confidence I feel when I strike these clubs is beyond words. It is like finally sleeping with the right woman. Your body has a way of synchronizing itself with what your head is already telling you. I mean, is there going back? Tell me why you fellas play MB’s, Cb’s, blade types, when there are various more forgiving options available?

 

In my experience and in theory, forgiveness is a carney sham(e). A blade and MB design is superior to a "forgiving" design in all ways for all golfers of all skill levels. Just about every supposed "forgiving feature" in a "forgiving" head design is based on a completely false assumption. And the more "game improvement" the club, the worse it gets. It's a carney sham(e). Bank on it.

I posted this in another thread but it's worth repeating here. I am wondering if there is any actual evidence that a cavity back or GI iron produces a smaller dispersion pattern than a blade for a given distance. I've watched numerous YT videos, anecdotal club tests mind you, that sort of lean towards what you are saying to be true. I've watched blades be hit 20+mm towards the toe and still producing consistent distance and ball flight. At the same time, I've seen strong lofted SGI clubs having massive dispersion in terms of length even on well struck shots.

 

So does anyone have any real evidence that blades are less forgiving than GI irons or is it all anecdotal evidence?

 

I would say the blade stories are anecdotal and should have the burden of proof. A bunch of arm chair engineers making crap up on the internet isn’t exactly science.

 

I can’t work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don’t break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

[Petunia Sprinkle]

If you think about it, all that ultimately matters is each golfer's individual experience, so while another person's anecdote might not matter, it matters to him, and that's all he's ever going to give a **** about, in the long run. It'd be foolish not to consider the learned viewpoints in any field, but eventually, we have to go with our own.

[Sir Slicealot]

I can’t work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don’t break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

 

[BMC]

You're not a Tour Pro, so play the irons that help you enjoy the game. You're scores won't be much different than from playing

some super game improvement iron.

 

I started playing is the 80s with blades, which was the most common club back then. I still like the way they look.

But scoring means everything to you, there are probably better choices.

 

I compromise by playing a small cavity back. All the pleasure of a blade, with a little bit of help.

[FourTops]

Sounds like folks are itchin' for a new Blade vs. CB thread! LOL! OMG...that NEVER ends well!

[FourTops]

You're not a Tour Pro, so play the irons that help you enjoy the game. You're scores won't be much different than from playing

some super game improvement iron.

 

I started playing is the 80s with blades, which was the most common club back then. I still like the way they look.

But scoring means everything to you, there are probably better choices.

 

I compromise by playing a small cavity back. All the pleasure of a blade, with a little bit of help.

 

What did you play in the 80's? I played Ping Eye's and Ping Eye 2's..

[FourTops]

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?

 

Today's "blades" would have been considered GI irons back in the day.

 

 

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?

 

Today's "blades" would have been considered GI irons back in the day.

 

 

 

I SWEAR I see a slight cavity back there! LOL!

[Sean2]

^^^Ha! Too funny. :-)

[FourTops]

I can't work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don't break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

From what I've seen, "working the blade 2 iron" means slicing it less than 50 yards.

 

^^^Ha! Too funny. :-)

 

I'm kinda thinking those letters provide some cavity back weight distribution!

[Sir Slicealot]

I can't work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don't break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

From what I've seen, "working the blade 2 iron" means slicing it less than 50 yards.

Okay define what you think working a long iron means. How much can one really work a 1 or 2 iron with the crazy roll out? It's possible to fade and draw them with care and control, but what's the point when the rolls out is tremendous?

[gbartko]

I can't work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don't break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

From what I've seen, "working the blade 2 iron" means slicing it less than 50 yards.

Okay define what you think working a long iron means. How much can one really work a 1 or 2 iron with the crazy roll out? It's possible to fade and draw them with care and control, but what's the point when the rolls out is tremendous?

 

It’s not about moving the ball in either direction a certain amount. It’s the absurdity of the claim of slightly better than bogey golfers (of which I am one) as justification for playing blades.

[nsxguy]

I'm done here.

 

Promise ?

 

More spin & deception than our Commander-in-Chief

 

As little Mary once said.

 

 

 

 

 

PM me if you want to discuss further.

 

You know that snowball's chance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Even less of a chance than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :lol:

[BMC]

You're not a Tour Pro, so play the irons that help you enjoy the game. You're scores won't be much different than from playing

some super game improvement iron.

 

I started playing is the 80s with blades, which was the most common club back then. I still like the way they look.

But scoring means everything to you, there are probably better choices.

 

I compromise by playing a small cavity back. All the pleasure of a blade, with a little bit of help.

 

What did you play in the 80's? I played Ping Eye's and Ping Eye 2's..

 

Wilson Staff Fluid Feel and Hogan Apex Redline. Eye 2s were out but out of my price range.

[Nessism]

So does anyone have any real evidence that blades are less forgiving than GI irons or is it all anecdotal evidence?

 

Depends on what you constitute "real evidence." Science says that high MOI clubs resist twisting on off center strikes better than low MOI clubs like blades. Science says that a rounded sole with a fair bit of bounce, common on GI clubs, will dig less on fat strikes than a sharp leading edge blade. Science says that offset helps increase launch and reduce slicing by some (small) degree, two features that benefit a lot of people.

 

People that experience 10+ yards of distance variation between "similar strikes" with a GI club are poor judges of strike quality. Blade guys will say that their clubs provide better "feedback" and that may be true, but the only feedback I need is how close to the hole my shot winds up.

I understand the science but science doesn't play golf :taunt: . That science also doesn't provide a lot of quantification, nor does it mention some of the downsides of SGI irons, such as hitting the ball higher on the face, killing the spin and producing the proverbial flyer. What I want is the quantification of the science. You hit a ball on the correct groove but 20mm toe with the same angle of attack and swing path and what happens with each club? What about 10 mm high in the centre? 5 mm low and 10 mm towards the heel? What about spin rates and holding greens? What about controlling the ball flight? Golf has a ton of variables that all contribute to the results of your shot and your overall score, above and beyond how "forgiving" the face is. Is there any data to support that the GI clubs actually produce tighter dispersion patterns and better overall scores?

 

Science sucks...

 

 

[Sir Slicealot]

I can't work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don't break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

From what I've seen, "working the blade 2 iron" means slicing it less than 50 yards.

Okay define what you think working a long iron means. How much can one really work a 1 or 2 iron with the crazy roll out? It's possible to fade and draw them with care and control, but what's the point when the rolls out is tremendous?

 

It’s not about moving the ball in either direction a certain amount. It’s the absurdity of the claim of slightly better than bogey golfers (of which I am one) as justification for playing blades.

I think the majority of people who can't hit a certain club due to its design are fooling themselves. I have a small collection of one irons and I will let folks with a decent swing try them if they dare. Most of them are out of the chance to hit the club well by address. I believe that people saying they can work the blade better than a CB is likely a load of bull as they obviously don't have the swing path control to do so. They can shuffle their feet a bit maybe and limit the hip turn if they want, but honestly they are just guessing and praying that the face doesn't catch crazy sidespin.

 

I'm not yet a bogey golfer and my justification for playing blades is this:my set 3-P cost me $600 brand new. They're beautiful and when I do well with them they feel great. When I do poorly they crack like a bat and it feels bad and sounds worse. It works for me.

The club that's really teaching me about swing path is the 3+ wood. I hit balls well with it and everything under it falls into line. I'm finding a tempo that allows me greater control over the path of my swing. The one iron, a real 15° blade, is making me aware of form and face control. It's such a demanding club that it builds my focus. That's why it's my favorite club.

[FourTops]

You're not a Tour Pro, so play the irons that help you enjoy the game. You're scores won't be much different than from playing

some super game improvement iron.

 

I started playing is the 80s with blades, which was the most common club back then. I still like the way they look.

But scoring means everything to you, there are probably better choices.

 

I compromise by playing a small cavity back. All the pleasure of a blade, with a little bit of help.

 

What did you play in the 80's? I played Ping Eye's and Ping Eye 2's..

 

Wilson Staff Fluid Feel and Hogan Apex Redline. Eye 2s were out but out of my price range.

 

Interesting. You're right...back in the day the Ping's weren't cheap. Don't tell anyone but I still play '88 Hogan Redlines, and Wilson Staff FG-51's. At the range they tend to not perform as well....but on the course there's something about the setup..aim...with a thin top line....and "trick shots" that I can't do with my G30's.

[FourTops]

So I'm going to jump in. I play blades and G30s, and my blades are Hogan Redlines, Wilson FG-51's, and MP-9's. So my G30s are the only CB. On the course it's oddly different...the shots matter...and while on the range the G30s feel easier to hit, the difference seems to fade. I'm not "supposed to" hit my Redline 7 iron 155, on the green....more towards the toe, but I do. The Equalizer looks comfortable for those <100 feel shots. But that's not to say the G30s don't also pick up some slack either.

 

I think the differences diminish from 160 and in...for me. And these days with the hybrids, one can hit a 170 hybrid far easier.

 

I guess my point is from a certain distance the differences are marginal....but for sure there's no way I"m hitting an FG-51 one iron off the tee vs. my 18* hybrid.

[Johnnypenso]

So does anyone have any real evidence that blades are less forgiving than GI irons or is it all anecdotal evidence?

 

Depends on what you constitute "real evidence." Science says that high MOI clubs resist twisting on off center strikes better than low MOI clubs like blades. Science says that a rounded sole with a fair bit of bounce, common on GI clubs, will dig less on fat strikes than a sharp leading edge blade. Science says that offset helps increase launch and reduce slicing by some (small) degree, two features that benefit a lot of people.

 

People that experience 10+ yards of distance variation between "similar strikes" with a GI club are poor judges of strike quality. Blade guys will say that their clubs provide better "feedback" and that may be true, but the only feedback I need is how close to the hole my shot winds up.

I understand the science but science doesn't play golf :taunt: . That science also doesn't provide a lot of quantification, nor does it mention some of the downsides of SGI irons, such as hitting the ball higher on the face, killing the spin and producing the proverbial flyer. What I want is the quantification of the science. You hit a ball on the correct groove but 20mm toe with the same angle of attack and swing path and what happens with each club? What about 10 mm high in the centre? 5 mm low and 10 mm towards the heel? What about spin rates and holding greens? What about controlling the ball flight? Golf has a ton of variables that all contribute to the results of your shot and your overall score, above and beyond how "forgiving" the face is. Is there any data to support that the GI clubs actually produce tighter dispersion patterns and better overall scores?

 

Science sucks...

 

 

You know what else sucks? Mocking people who have a genuine interest in getting to the truth. I'd like to separate the science from the marketing by getting some actual data that pertains to real world situations. You know how you prove things in science? You test over and over and over until you can repeat the tests ad nauseum and get the same results every time. The only comparisons I've seen are from YT golfers hitting balls and in each case I can recall, there was no discernable advantage to the GI irons. I'd be happy to look at anyone's data that proves anything one way or the other.

[FourTops]

So does anyone have any real evidence that blades are less forgiving than GI irons or is it all anecdotal evidence?

 

Depends on what you constitute "real evidence." Science says that high MOI clubs resist twisting on off center strikes better than low MOI clubs like blades. Science says that a rounded sole with a fair bit of bounce, common on GI clubs, will dig less on fat strikes than a sharp leading edge blade. Science says that offset helps increase launch and reduce slicing by some (small) degree, two features that benefit a lot of people.

 

People that experience 10+ yards of distance variation between "similar strikes" with a GI club are poor judges of strike quality. Blade guys will say that their clubs provide better "feedback" and that may be true, but the only feedback I need is how close to the hole my shot winds up.

I understand the science but science doesn't play golf :taunt: . That science also doesn't provide a lot of quantification, nor does it mention some of the downsides of SGI irons, such as hitting the ball higher on the face, killing the spin and producing the proverbial flyer. What I want is the quantification of the science. You hit a ball on the correct groove but 20mm toe with the same angle of attack and swing path and what happens with each club? What about 10 mm high in the centre? 5 mm low and 10 mm towards the heel? What about spin rates and holding greens? What about controlling the ball flight? Golf has a ton of variables that all contribute to the results of your shot and your overall score, above and beyond how "forgiving" the face is. Is there any data to support that the GI clubs actually produce tighter dispersion patterns and better overall scores?

 

Science sucks...

 

 

You know what else sucks? Mocking people who have a genuine interest in getting to the truth. I'd like to separate the science from the marketing by getting some actual data that pertains to real world situations. You know how you prove things in science? You test over and over and over until you can repeat the tests ad nauseum and get the same results every time. The only comparisons I've seen are from YT golfers hitting balls and in each case I can recall, there was no discernable advantage to the GI irons. I'd be happy to look at anyone's data that proves anything one way or the other.

 

Hey, I get it. But let's just compare two clubs for comparison's sake. The G30 vs. a blade. The blade is designed to be hit in a more precise spot....I think anyone can agree with that because there's a lack of perimeter weighting. Most players, if they sprayed foot powder on the face of their club would find they hit all over the face, thus, they can't take advantage of hitting the exact spot on a blade. But when they do, endorphins permeate the brain.

 

IMO blades, and I play them, require more consistent precision overall. That doesn't mean I never ""mishit" my FG-51 7 iron and it still lands on the green, but there's so many variables coming into play that it's hard to isolate them for each shot. Besides, I tend to think golf is more related to physics. A weighted object on a light shaft is swung around the body to strike an object...like Iron Byron.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I can't work a blade 2 iron but most of those that can somehow don't break 80 often. Must be bad putters or drivers!

Well I can't do it, but those that can are somehow lacking elsewhere. Because self accountability is much harder than I thought.

 

From what I've seen, "working the blade 2 iron" means slicing it less than 50 yards.

 

^^^Ha! Too funny. :-)

 

I'm kinda thinking those letters provide some cavity back weight distribution!

 

That’s probably how cavity backing was discovered, much like the origin of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, or that apple falling on Newton’s Head.

[nsxguy]

 

Depends on what you constitute "real evidence." Science says that high MOI clubs resist twisting on off center strikes better than low MOI clubs like blades. Science says that a rounded sole with a fair bit of bounce, common on GI clubs, will dig less on fat strikes than a sharp leading edge blade. Science says that offset helps increase launch and reduce slicing by some (small) degree, two features that benefit a lot of people.

 

People that experience 10+ yards of distance variation between "similar strikes" with a GI club are poor judges of strike quality. Blade guys will say that their clubs provide better "feedback" and that may be true, but the only feedback I need is how close to the hole my shot winds up.

I understand the science but science doesn't play golf :taunt: . That science also doesn't provide a lot of quantification, nor does it mention some of the downsides of SGI irons, such as hitting the ball higher on the face, killing the spin and producing the proverbial flyer. What I want is the quantification of the science. You hit a ball on the correct groove but 20mm toe with the same angle of attack and swing path and what happens with each club? What about 10 mm high in the centre? 5 mm low and 10 mm towards the heel? What about spin rates and holding greens? What about controlling the ball flight? Golf has a ton of variables that all contribute to the results of your shot and your overall score, above and beyond how "forgiving" the face is. Is there any data to support that the GI clubs actually produce tighter dispersion patterns and better overall scores?

 

Science sucks...

 

You know what else sucks? Mocking people who have a genuine interest in getting to the truth. I'd like to separate the science from the marketing by getting some actual data that pertains to real world situations. You know how you prove things in science? You test over and over and over until you can repeat the tests ad nauseum and get the same results every time. The only comparisons I've seen are from YT golfers hitting balls and in each case I can recall, there was no discernable advantage to the GI irons. I'd be happy to look at anyone's data that proves anything one way or the other.

 

You know what else sucks ? Newbies making like they know what's going on. Newbies that don't realize they're being trolled YET AGAIN by this guy.

 

Newbies who haven't seen that same troll, fouling any valid discussion in a CB vs blade thread, ultimately ending up getting hte thread closed, with his same nonsense,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even while admitting "blades are more workable, CBs are more forgiving".

 

And now the blade is one long sweet spot ? Equivalent to the sweet spot of a baseball bat ? Contact anywhere on the grooves is equal with little to no loss (of anything) ? Ever hear such nonsense ?

 

you can look at the entire length of a blade muscle like the fat part of a baseball bat where you can hit the "home run" with contact along any part that is fat behind the ball (and still on the grooves and FLAT!!!).

 

Sorry. Just flat out idiotic.

[cliffhanger]

this entire thread is full of trolling :taunt:

[Steele47]

Wow. I guess these newbies just don't know their place huh...

 

But yeah I like an iron head that looks like a blade at address and a cavity back in the bag.

[justasgood]

Blades should have been banished to the dustbin of history long ago.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

this entire thread is full of trolling :taunt:

 

Hm, that’s disappointing. I gotta work on being less gullible.