Dear blade,

[BIG STU]

As an aside, yesterday I had a pretty good ball striking day,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part.

 

I decided to test the new ProV1x on the back nine. Being it is a white ball, like most everyone else's, I put a mark on it - a little "tee pee" over the number. I always place the number directly in the back of the ball and see the strike mark on the club face.

 

On 12, 165 par 3 downwind, pin pretty much in the center of the green. I took my 150 club (7 iron), lost my balance a bit and hit it terribly, right off the toe (as below) - ended up 30 feet from the pin, a bit short and to the right.

 

I guess if I was hitting a blade it would've been even better. :russian_roulette:

 

 

 

are you trying to say that you got feedback from your Ping G 7 iron? i was under the impression that any strike with a GI felt like christmas morning no matter where the contact occurred. interesting! :dntknw:

Good question And I will objectively say for me and me only I would not get any feed back from that type of club. But then I am a strictly old school feel player and learned with blades and still play them. That is how I acquired MY feel. On the other side of things everyone's sense of feel is different and maybe he can get feedback from that type of club. And being objective again your impressions and feel may be different

[Nessism]

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.

 

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

Simple reality is that low MOI small headed clubs, both blades and shallow cavity backs, are a great choice for better players that strike the ball in the center of the face and don't dig too much. Clubs like these are easy to square up into impact so better players can manipulate face angle. They also provide great feedback as to where on the face the ball was struck. Clubs like these are not very forgiving to a steep miss hitting behind the ball, they are harder to elevate in the long irons, they lose more distance on strikes away from the sweet spot, they don't correct for the common outside in swing path at all, and there are other things as well.

 

Dismissing the tech features of GI clubs is just silly and poor science. You are free to believe what you want though. And dismissing science just because someone didn't prepackage info for your digestion doesn't mean the science is a sham either.

[BIG STU]

I was fit to Callaway XRs last year and while I hit them great on trackman, not just distance but dispersion etc... when I took them to the course their bulk/offset just drove me nuts. My handicap was dropping and I felt like I should be able to play irons I liked more, and I was just never able to score well with them.

 

 

Let me ask you something. Those XRs, which you say their bulk/offset drove you nuts (on the course).

 

Why do you suppose that while you were being fitted for them and hit them so well on the LM, those same 2 features DIDN'T drive you nuts ?

 

I'm just curious because while I'm pretty sure I'm the exception rather than the rule I don't much care WHAT the clubs look like as I've played Lynx Parallax, Cleveland VAS and Ping's TiSi driver so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, LMAO I'm only looking (briefly) at the club face and the leading edge and then I'm concentrating on the ball so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Having said that I do understand that looks are, from a little bit, to very important, to a lot of (most ?) players.

 

Great question! It was a bit of a strange case, I was just starting what is now a year+ long journey with a coach to re-work and improve my swing. We noticed right away that I had shafts in my irons that were way too heavy for me, so I needed to either re-shaft or get new irons. I like new irons, so I chose the latter.

 

The bulk/offset did drive me nuts during the fitting. I knew when I bought them that I would probably get new irons in a year/two since I was just starting to re-work my swing, so I ended up getting them because they fit me as well/better than most and were not too expensive. But more importantly, I did what I always I believed that the clubs that fit me best would perform the best. For me this is just not true, aesthetics have always been important to me, I just never had the guts to sacrifice looks/feel over fit.

 

But here's the thing, when I got fed up with these clubs, I still didn't learn that lesson. I didn't think I had the game to play blades so I looked at irons like AP2s and XForged only. I assumed that I should not even touch blades, this is how ingrained this stigma had been on me. Luckily I thought the ApexMB's were so sexy that when I was trying out XForged I asked to try the MBs too. I was shocked how similar they were. I realized I could probably just choose what I wanted, not what my handicap should allow.

 

I still did a fitting, I didn't end up with ApexMBs, the Mizuno's were performing better on TM, so I do believe that fit/performance are important. But I was not going to even look at a club I didn't love aesthetically.

 

Clearly there are clubs a person should not hit. There are probably plenty of high handicappers that would struggle to hit my MP18s, but there are probably plenty of low handicappers who from offset/aesthetics/weighting can't hit Ping G700s.

 

Makers produce clubs to adhere to USGA rules. The different metals give different feels of accomplishment. Some probably help "more" pending swing and course played, some may not be as good based on swing and course played.

 

If you look at the width of the grooves on an MP-9, '88 Hogan Redline, or MP-18, they're all the same width. But, they make the overall head larger to give one the impression there's more room for error. I burst the bubble of a guy with SGI clubs (not bagging on SGI's!) at the range who said my Redline 7 iron looks "small". I got his 7 iron and compared...YEP...the grooves were the exact same width. I think he actually thought his clubs had more "hitting area".

Good comparison--- Another example look at the grooves with the naked eye on a remake Wilson R-90 SW and then look at the grooves on a set of 2013 X-Forged Callaway irons. Darn near the same grooves. Also a footnote the Tour heads on the 2013s have 13 grooves where the retail version has only 10. The Cally rep was trying to BS two of us old timers that Roger Cleveland designed those grooves. Had to go back one mile to the house and fetch one of my R-90 wedges to prove the point. Cost the cally rep one dozen Chrome Softs though-- Heck it was only a mile back to the house--- i am as objective as they come but do not try to BS me when I know darn well better----

[dodgyman]

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

Sorry, you are correlating what people want/are sold with performance and I personally cannot make that leap. Sure, 95% of golfers want forgiveness. And sure, manufacturers will make/sell clubs people want, but I doubt that's what they're getting as it's really hard to prove. You know what 95% of golfers want more? Distance. Even if it's not what they really need, just look at the rogue X. Why do you think manufacturers keep jacking up the lofts, there's no way that's for forgiveness, that's so you can put a 7 on a 5 iron. And the disingenuous way that these companies market distance gain makes me extra weary of their forgiveness claims as well. I need to see/feel it myself, I can't trust what they're selling.

 

Also, to prove forgiveness to the public you need data, and that 95% of people don't have the time/interest to see robots/spreadsheets. Just look at how much effort Taylormade is trying to do with twist-face to prove something that we can barely measure (see youtube for all the people trying to find/prove forgivness there.). It's so much easier to show people good launch monitor numbers, show them how their 7iron carries 30 yards longer than mine and sell them. I doubt anyone will bring the club back because it doesn't end up as forgiving as they expected it to.

 

This is why marketing gets a ton more money than R&D, you cannot assume that these companies are building/designing for what people want most. They are designing what sells best, and if perception sells better than reality that's what they'll go after.

[pinestreetgolf]

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

And the disingenuous way that these companies market distance gain makes me extra weary of their forgiveness claims as well. I need to see/feel it myself

 

 

Did you read rawdog's article linked to earlier in the thread? Mr. Wishon has done extensive research on higher-COR irons and their superiority in the hands of those with less than perfect swings. Its pretty convincing.

 

And if that doesn't convince you, go hit a CF16 Apex 6 iron (which I own) and an Adams XTD Forged 6 iron (which I also own). If after that you still think they "feel" the same and one isn't way more forgiving that the other, you may want to get your nervous system checked.

 

This isn't even an argument. And if you arn't going to bother to read some of the linked literature in the thread, don't jump to the end and demand proof. In a fight between a .77 COR traditional blade and a .8+ COR SGI iron it isn't even close.

 

http://wishongolf.co...your-golf-game/

 

You can find more articles on the site with the same basic premise.

 

Now, this doesn't mean GI/SGI are "better" - they are different, and some are better for others. I don't need speed so I don't play irons that give me distance. But don't act like it hasn't been proven there are differences between the two like its some sort of snake oil. The two are clearly different, and GI is much more forgiving on both off-center and (way more importantly) slightly chunky hits.

 

One of the most annoying things about players playing blades as high caps is they have no idea what a pure strike feels like (sorry, this thread is annoying me). I played with a dude yesterday with a combo set. He had MP-18 7,8,9. He wasn't great, but was fun to play with! He hit a 9 from 122 and it landed front and rolled up to the pin for a biridie try. Good shot. But he said it was "nutted" - he hit it at least a half inch heavy. In order for blades to have great "feel" *you* have to have a "table of feels" in your head to know what a pure strike feels like. Many do, but quite a few don't. I play in some events and have a lowish cap, and I probably pure 2 balls a round, if that. You can tell by the sound. Its hard to describe, but its basically "thud-CRACK-whoosh". I can't tell you how many times I've played with a higher cap who says they "killed it" and they hit it super-thin. So the whole "blades help know if i hit it well" argument is a little silly because it relies on a high cap being able to know what good strikes feel like, which they almost certainly do not.

 

So, blades versus GI is a debate for some players in terms of what to play, and that's fine. Where this thread goes sideways is pretending they are somehow the same. They're not. Blades are much more precise, and GI/SGI have higher COR that gives much more forgiveness on mishits (*especially* contact mishits, which is where most bad players need help). Most bad players (88ish+) scoop the ball. Period. And GI can help when you are constantly catching it heavy or thin on literally every swing (whether you realize it or not).

 

On a pured shot, blades and GI irons feel almost identical (because there is no vibration on a pured shot). If you "love the feel" when you pure it with a blade and "hate the feel" when you pure it with an GI iron, guess what, you're not puring it.

[FourTops]

I was fit to Callaway XRs last year and while I hit them great on trackman, not just distance but dispersion etc... when I took them to the course their bulk/offset just drove me nuts. My handicap was dropping and I felt like I should be able to play irons I liked more, and I was just never able to score well with them.

 

 

Let me ask you something. Those XRs, which you say their bulk/offset drove you nuts (on the course).

 

Why do you suppose that while you were being fitted for them and hit them so well on the LM, those same 2 features DIDN'T drive you nuts ?

 

I'm just curious because while I'm pretty sure I'm the exception rather than the rule I don't much care WHAT the clubs look like as I've played Lynx Parallax, Cleveland VAS and Ping's TiSi driver so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, LMAO I'm only looking (briefly) at the club face and the leading edge and then I'm concentrating on the ball so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Having said that I do understand that looks are, from a little bit, to very important, to a lot of (most ?) players.

 

Great question! It was a bit of a strange case, I was just starting what is now a year+ long journey with a coach to re-work and improve my swing. We noticed right away that I had shafts in my irons that were way too heavy for me, so I needed to either re-shaft or get new irons. I like new irons, so I chose the latter.

 

The bulk/offset did drive me nuts during the fitting. I knew when I bought them that I would probably get new irons in a year/two since I was just starting to re-work my swing, so I ended up getting them because they fit me as well/better than most and were not too expensive. But more importantly, I did what I always I believed that the clubs that fit me best would perform the best. For me this is just not true, aesthetics have always been important to me, I just never had the guts to sacrifice looks/feel over fit.

 

But here's the thing, when I got fed up with these clubs, I still didn't learn that lesson. I didn't think I had the game to play blades so I looked at irons like AP2s and XForged only. I assumed that I should not even touch blades, this is how ingrained this stigma had been on me. Luckily I thought the ApexMB's were so sexy that when I was trying out XForged I asked to try the MBs too. I was shocked how similar they were. I realized I could probably just choose what I wanted, not what my handicap should allow.

 

I still did a fitting, I didn't end up with ApexMBs, the Mizuno's were performing better on TM, so I do believe that fit/performance are important. But I was not going to even look at a club I didn't love aesthetically.

 

Clearly there are clubs a person should not hit. There are probably plenty of high handicappers that would struggle to hit my MP18s, but there are probably plenty of low handicappers who from offset/aesthetics/weighting can't hit Ping G700s.

 

Makers produce clubs to adhere to USGA rules. The different metals give different feels of accomplishment. Some probably help "more" pending swing and course played, some may not be as good based on swing and course played.

 

If you look at the width of the grooves on an MP-9, '88 Hogan Redline, or MP-18, they're all the same width. But, they make the overall head larger to give one the impression there's more room for error. I burst the bubble of a guy with SGI clubs (not bagging on SGI's!) at the range who said my Redline 7 iron looks "small". I got his 7 iron and compared...YEP...the grooves were the exact same width. I think he actually thought his clubs had more "hitting area".

Good comparison--- Another example look at the grooves with the naked eye on a remake Wilson R-90 SW and then look at the grooves on a set of 2013 X-Forged Callaway irons. Darn near the same grooves. Also a footnote the Tour heads on the 2013s have 13 grooves where the retail version has only 10. The Cally rep was trying to BS two of us old timers that Roger Cleveland designed those grooves. Had to go back one mile to the house and fetch one of my R-90 wedges to prove the point. Cost the cally rep one dozen Chrome Softs though-- Heck it was only a mile back to the house--- i am as objective as they come but do not try to BS me when I know darn well better----

 

R-90 SW is still probably one of the best SW's ever. Never thought about counting the # of grooves...great catch!

[nsxguy]

As an aside, yesterday I had a pretty good ball striking day,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part.

 

I decided to test the new ProV1x on the back nine. Being it is a white ball, like most everyone else's, I put a mark on it - a little "tee pee" over the number. I always place the number directly in the back of the ball and see the strike mark on the club face.

 

On 12, 165 par 3 downwind, pin pretty much in the center of the green. I took my 150 club (7 iron), lost my balance a bit and hit it terribly, right off the toe (as below) - ended up 30 feet from the pin, a bit short and to the right.

 

I guess if I was hitting a blade it would've been even better. :russian_roulette:

 

 

 

are you trying to say that you got feedback from your Ping G 7 iron? i was under the impression that any strike with a GI felt like christmas morning no matter where the contact occurred. interesting! :dntknw:

 

Good question And I will objectively say for me and me only I would not get any feed back from that type of club. But then I am a strictly old school feel player and learned with blades and still play them. That is how I acquired MY feel. On the other side of things everyone's sense of feel is different and maybe he can get feedback from that type of club. And being objective again your impressions and feel may be different

 

It wasn't a question. gbart was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

 

So you're an old school "feel" player but you can't "feel" the impact on a GI irons ? O-KKKKKKKKKKKKK, if you say so. ;)

 

And you a**-u-me that because I got a perfectly acceptable result from that terrible toe hit that I made some sort of compensating move to get a good result rather than the result being due to a much more forgiving club head - how DeNinny-esque !!! - whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Perhaps I've simply played golf long enough(?) to be able to know right away where on the club face I hit the ball. I used to play only white balls and marked them similarly with marks right around the number and used to have ink marks on my club face all the time - I seldom got "fooled". Yes, even with the "numb" GI/SGI. :rolleyes: Anudder urban legend.

[wmblake2000]

If I had any hair left, I’d pull it out.

[nsxguy]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

[mahonie]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

 

The racquet on the right is the reason there is bifurcation of the ball in tennis. It’s also the reason why no one watches tennis anymore. We don’t need to go there...the blades/CB debate is enough for one thread ;-)

[FourTops]

Here's my comparison of different sets of irons. Not scientific....just based on decades of experience and tons of trials. I'm going to compare Wilson Staff FG-51 vs. G30 vs. Ping Eye 2 vs. Hybrid 3 and 5. On numerous occasions I have taken the 3, 5, 7, PW from each set to the range to compare. Range balls are no charge so I can stand there all day. Before I get into my review, I'd like to point out that for me, I don't think the Eye 2's are all "that easy" to hit...they demand a pretty solid strike, and they will "tell you" when you missed. In my experiences since the 80's, I classify these as more towards a players iron. So, as or iron shot comparisons...I'll start with 1 irons for fun.

 

1 iron shots: Hybrid 18*...DONE. Anyone claiming they can hit a 1 iron consistently is either an outstanding ball striker or they cling to that one shot out of 100's that they caught flush. Sure it's possible...I used to hit 1 irons off the tee, and hit out of divots for practice because it makes a 5 iron look like a wedge. Playing a 1 iron with today's hybrids is the equivalent of still using a pager vs. a cellphone. If it's just for fun...I totally get it...but golf is about minimizing variables, not introducing more.

 

3 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, no doubt. I can hit them high, low, or punch. #2) G30, if I hit 20 hybrids well, I'll hit 15 G30's well. #3) Eye 2..decent, but not dependable. #4) FG-51...while I can hit it OK, there's no doubt my swing has to be spot-on, and the lie is ultra-important. I'll hit 5 "decent" FG's for every 20 good hybrids, and keeping the FG from leaking right is not easy. I would say 4 of 5 leak right to some degree. Hybrid...dead straight like a bullet...and no shock / vibration..easy peasy.

 

5 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, still much easier, but the gap is slightly closing. #2) G30. #3) Eye 2. #4) FG-51, at this point the differences between the FG-51 and the other non-hybrids is less significant, but I know I will have to pay close attention to the FG 5 iron and lie. I will hit maybe 8 good FG-51 shots for every 20 good hybrids. The G30 is the closest to the hybrid...not a large difference.

 

7 iron shots. #1) Tie...G30, Eye 2. #2) FG-51. But the differences are narrowing considerably. i give the FG-51 #2 because there's still that "demand" to hit very close to the sweet spot that could result in a 5 yard shorter shot into a front trap or water. That's not to say the G30 or Eye 2 will "save" me every time either...just looking at percentages. A bad swing on any of these clubs could result in a similar outcome.

 

PW shots. #1) Eye 2, #2) FG-51, #3) G30. The Eye 2 PW oddly enough provides more feel. I use it from 120 to 40 yard pitches / flop shots. Could be the weight is subconsciously better for me, don't know. The G30 weirds me out because after SO much play, I'm still unsure how far a shot will travel, so it's played from 135 to about 110. The FG and Eye 2 are neck and neck from 125 to 40 yards. Strange...a pure blade vs. CB, yet they perform equally.

 

So for me, the gap narrows considerably at the 7 iron thru PW. Exactly which set I might play would depend upon course difficulty. I play courses that require a more precise carry distance to pins, otherwise it's bunkers or water....less room for error. Knowing I have to carry 190, and 180 means saying "goodbye" to the ball, and score, makes a hybrid look DARN GOOD! Even then it's still a barn-burner.

 

I've also played wide-open courses with no water and few bunkers protecting larger greens, with open fairways and "not-so-rough" rough. On those courses I could play my FG-51's and scores would support playing the FG-51's. I'd be on here arguing that y'all are washed-up if you can't play blades! However, it's like playing Pebble Beach after a PGA qualifier event vs. the local muni course.

 

This is partially why (IMO) the blade vs. CB debate rages on. Folks have different perspectives based on course difficulty vs. one's perceived performance with certain types of clubs vs. possibly just liking the look of certain types of irons.

[BIG STU]

As an aside, yesterday I had a pretty good ball striking day,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part.

 

I decided to test the new ProV1x on the back nine. Being it is a white ball, like most everyone else's, I put a mark on it - a little "tee pee" over the number. I always place the number directly in the back of the ball and see the strike mark on the club face.

 

On 12, 165 par 3 downwind, pin pretty much in the center of the green. I took my 150 club (7 iron), lost my balance a bit and hit it terribly, right off the toe (as below) - ended up 30 feet from the pin, a bit short and to the right.

 

I guess if I was hitting a blade it would've been even better. :russian_roulette:

 

 

 

are you trying to say that you got feedback from your Ping G 7 iron? i was under the impression that any strike with a GI felt like christmas morning no matter where the contact occurred. interesting! :dntknw:

 

Good question And I will objectively say for me and me only I would not get any feed back from that type of club. But then I am a strictly old school feel player and learned with blades and still play them. That is how I acquired MY feel. On the other side of things everyone's sense of feel is different and maybe he can get feedback from that type of club. And being objective again your impressions and feel may be different

 

It wasn't a question. gbart was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

 

So you're an old school "feel" player but you can't "feel" the impact on a GI irons ? O-KKKKKKKKKKKKK, if you say so. ;)

 

And you a**-u-me that because I got a perfectly acceptable result from that terrible toe hit that I made some sort of compensating move to get a good result rather than the result being due to a much more forgiving club head - how DeNinny-esque !!! - whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Perhaps I've simply played golf long enough(?) to be able to know right away where on the club face I hit the ball. I used to play only white balls and marked them similarly with marks right around the number and used to have ink marks on my club face all the time - I seldom got "fooled". Yes, even with the "numb" GI/SGI. :rolleyes: Anudder urban legend.

Nope nope nope Read it again I did not say you got a acceptable hit because of a compensating move but neither did I say the club saved it. I just put forth 2 different scenarios.------- "how De Ninny esque"-- Man what a compliment made my day!!!! I liked that so much and wore that like a badge of honor that I gave you a like on that post. And yes you are not the only one that has "played golf long enough to know where right away where you are hitting the ball on the club face" Will let you know one of my secrets a lot of my irons are worn across the face from the center to the toe. That is because when I manipulate the face sometimes I hit it in certain spots to make the ball do what I want. I showed one of my worn out wedges one night over on confessions section stating that I never was a ball striker and Mr. De Ninny called me out on it. He knew exactly what I was doing and why. And BTW I mark my ball with six dots around the number and leave sharpie marks on the faces of my blades whether they be the Zunos or a set of vintage Macgregor blades as SOP. I would love to duplicate your shot standing on one leg of what ever angle you were at and duplicate the shot you described and I will let you pick the brand of blade iron. Now I will admit not knowing your game I would more than likely have to take one more club than you did because of loft factors. Will let you put a machine on it and I promise not to manipulate the face. I may naturally do that but I will call myself out on that. But I never said you saved it through a move and did concur that in your case maybe the club saved it. Personally like I also stated before I could give 2 hoots less what you or anyone else plays and I refuse to be draw into an absolute argument on that.

 

Man what a great day this is gonna be got linked to the one and only Mr De Ninny!!!

[BIG STU]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

 

The racquet on the right is the reason there is bifurcation of the ball in tennis. It’s also the reason why no one watches tennis anymore. We don’t need to go there...the blades/CB debate is enough for one thread ;-)

Ok I will defer to you because I know diddy squat about tennis. But to my eye it looks like the difference between a Persimmon driver and a modern metal driver. Am I warm??

[Johnnypenso]

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.

 

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

Simple reality is that low MOI small headed clubs, both blades and shallow cavity backs, are a great choice for better players that strike the ball in the center of the face and don't dig too much. Clubs like these are easy to square up into impact so better players can manipulate face angle. They also provide great feedback as to where on the face the ball was struck. Clubs like these are not very forgiving to a steep miss hitting behind the ball, they are harder to elevate in the long irons, they lose more distance on strikes away from the sweet spot, they don't correct for the common outside in swing path at all, and there are other things as well.

 

Dismissing the tech features of GI clubs is just silly and poor science. You are free to believe what you want though. And dismissing science just because someone didn't prepackage info for your digestion doesn't mean the science is a sham either.

Your attitude is extremely poor and your assumption isn't true. I'm not dismissing anything. You sound pretty jaded so try to open up your mind a little bit. I know what the science says but as I said before it doesn't quantify anything. I'm looking for evidence. Simple reality is that a lot of tour pros play blades or near blades. Why? They wouldn't do it if the didn't see an advantage over GI irons. So what advantages do they see and where, where is the turning point? At what point do the advantages that blades or MB's offer take over from GI irons? I play off 9 or 10 and hit the centre of the face fairly often. Pro's hit it just about all the time I'd assume. Where's the cutoff? Where does the consistency, spin and workability of blades/MB's take over from GI irons? How much do blades, MB's and CB's differ and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of real data? How far off centre do you have to be with a strike for the advantages of GI irons to really show a benefit? Where is the data?

[Sean2]

I think "forgiveness" is a bit over-hyped. This is just my experience, but at one time I had a set of ultra-game improvement irons...at the time the most forgiving clubs on the planet...I couldn't hit them worth a darn. Playing with a friend one day and hit yet another low hook off the tee. He hands me his 4-iron and says, "Try this." I hit a nice, high draw right down the middle of the fairway. I hit his irons numerous times during the round and had a lot more success than with my "forgiving" clubs. His irons were the Nike VR Pro blades.

 

Since then, I have always taken the term "forgiveness" with a grain of salt. Again, this was just my experience. Others may have experienced something different.

[wrmiller]

Here's my comparison of different sets of irons. Not scientific....just based on decades of experience and tons of trials. I'm going to compare Wilson Staff FG-51 vs. G30 vs. Ping Eye 2 vs. Hybrid 3 and 5. On numerous occasions I have taken the 3, 5, 7, PW from each set to the range to compare. Range balls are no charge so I can stand there all day. Before I get into my review, I'd like to point out that for me, I don't think the Eye 2's are all "that easy" to hit...they demand a pretty solid strike, and they will "tell you" when you missed. In my experiences since the 80's, I classify these as more towards a players iron. So, as or iron shot comparisons...I'll start with 1 irons for fun.

 

1 iron shots: Hybrid 18*...DONE. Anyone claiming they can hit a 1 iron consistently is either an outstanding ball striker or they cling to that one shot out of 100's that they caught flush. Sure it's possible...I used to hit 1 irons off the tee, and hit out of divots for practice because it makes a 5 iron look like a wedge. Playing a 1 iron with today's hybrids is the equivalent of still using a pager vs. a cellphone. If it's just for fun...I totally get it...but golf is about minimizing variables, not introducing more.

 

3 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, no doubt. I can hit them high, low, or punch. #2) G30, if I hit 20 hybrids well, I'll hit 15 G30's well. #3) Eye 2..decent, but not dependable. #4) FG-51...while I can hit it OK, there's no doubt my swing has to be spot-on, and the lie is ultra-important. I'll hit 5 "decent" FG's for every 20 good hybrids, and keeping the FG from leaking right is not easy. I would say 4 of 5 leak right to some degree. Hybrid...dead straight like a bullet...and no shock / vibration..easy peasy.

 

5 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, still much easier, but the gap is slightly closing. #2) G30. #3) Eye 2. #4) FG-51, at this point the differences between the FG-51 and the other non-hybrids is less significant, but I know I will have to pay close attention to the FG 5 iron and lie. I will hit maybe 8 good FG-51 shots for every 20 good hybrids. The G30 is the closest to the hybrid...not a large difference.

 

7 iron shots. #1) Tie...G30, Eye 2. #2) FG-51. But the differences are narrowing considerably. i give the FG-51 #2 because there's still that "demand" to hit very close to the sweet spot that could result in a 5 yard shorter shot into a front trap or water. That's not to say the G30 or Eye 2 will "save" me every time either...just looking at percentages. A bad swing on any of these clubs could result in a similar outcome.

 

PW shots. #1) Eye 2, #2) FG-51, #3) G30. The Eye 2 PW oddly enough provides more feel. I use it from 120 to 40 yard pitches / flop shots. Could be the weight is subconsciously better for me, don't know. The G30 weirds me out because after SO much play, I'm still unsure how far a shot will travel, so it's played from 135 to about 110. The FG and Eye 2 are neck and neck from 125 to 40 yards. Strange...a pure blade vs. CB, yet they perform equally.

 

So for me, the gap narrows considerably at the 7 iron thru PW. Exactly which set I might play would depend upon course difficulty. I play courses that require a more precise carry distance to pins, otherwise it's bunkers or water....less room for error. Knowing I have to carry 190, and 180 means saying "goodbye" to the ball, and score, makes a hybrid look DARN GOOD! Even then it's still a barn-burner.

 

I've also played wide-open courses with no water and few bunkers protecting larger greens, with open fairways and "not-so-rough" rough. On those courses I could play my FG-51's and scores would support playing the FG-51's. I'd be on here arguing that y'all are washed-up if you can't play blades! However, it's like playing Pebble Beach after a PGA qualifier event vs. the local muni course.

 

This is partially why (IMO) the blade vs. CB debate rages on. Folks have different perspectives based on course difficulty vs. one's perceived performance with certain types of clubs vs. possibly just liking the look of certain types of irons.

 

Nice read. I don't agree with the "golf is about minimizing variables", but hey, to each their own.

 

For me, I learned/grew up with blades. And persimmons (still enjoy playing them on occasion). I am more comfortable standing over and looking down at a blade or CB than I am a game improvement iron. I also have difficulty getting clean strikes with wide-bottomed irons. I get much better results with a narrow width club, even though I have a pretty steep approach into the ball. So I have difficulty comparing GI irons to players (or whatever you want to call them) irons.

 

So believe it or not, I get better strikes with a more traditional iron than I do with a shovel. And because I have to make a better swing with a blade-type club, I like the challenge of playing them. Makes me concentrate more? Who knows.

 

I prefer playing my 712 MBs, but will change to the CBs or AP2s if I start swinging badly. If things get real bad, I'll pull out the i E1s. :)

 

If someone is chasing scores/handicap and asks what club to play, I suggest playing the most forgiving club they can swing well. If they play for fun, then play whatever is fun.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

 

The one on the left is most frequently used by couples who go out to just volley for fun, once a year, get into a big fight about whether one or the other is hitting it into a net too much, "ok, then, let's play a game and we'll see how often you hit it into the net", followed by "you're not playing real tennis" and a silent walk home.

[Stanks]

If you suck, like me and a lot of other people, playing blades while being on your game is a great feeling. However, if you have one of those bad days, you'll want to go back to CB / SGI / GI irons.

 

Blades really have the ability to break / make your confidence because everything in golf is relative if you include your emotions in the game. You shank a shot leads to slicing a drive leads to pulling a putt leads to fatting a pitch / chip.

 

Moral of the story, I think everyone should play blades. I don't think that everyone should own them and game them consistently. I do it because I play way more often than the weekend warrior and know I'll get better over time with them.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Here's something I don't understand about GI irons. If they're supposed to help the chunkers, why are they offset? To me, offset is a recipe for hitting it fat (and probably helpful to people who skull their bunker shots).

[FourTops]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

 

The racquet on the right is the reason there is bifurcation of the ball in tennis. It’s also the reason why no one watches tennis anymore. We don’t need to go there...the blades/CB debate is enough for one thread ;-)

Ok I will defer to you because I know diddy squat about tennis. But to my eye it looks like the difference between a Persimmon driver and a modern metal driver. Am I warm??

 

You're getting HOTTER! Actually the racket on the right is outdated in comparison to today's rackets.

 

Off topic somewhat, and somewhat not. An OP brought up a subject that does connect tennis and golf in terms of "new tech" effect on the game. Tennis got out of hand with tech. Likewise folks believe the same thing is happening to golf with new technology, especially the ball. There's talk about altering the ball to limit the pro's from excessive driver distances on courses that were designed for 280 yard drives. Pro's are now reaching +600 yard par fives with Driver - 6 iron. They aren't even close to playing the "same game" the rest of the golf community. On the flip-side, it's odd that handicaps have only slightly improved over the last 20 years. Maybe the pro's are playing with super-custom equipment? Hmmm.

[BIG STU]

Here's my comparison of different sets of irons. Not scientific....just based on decades of experience and tons of trials. I'm going to compare Wilson Staff FG-51 vs. G30 vs. Ping Eye 2 vs. Hybrid 3 and 5. On numerous occasions I have taken the 3, 5, 7, PW from each set to the range to compare. Range balls are no charge so I can stand there all day. Before I get into my review, I'd like to point out that for me, I don't think the Eye 2's are all "that easy" to hit...they demand a pretty solid strike, and they will "tell you" when you missed. In my experiences since the 80's, I classify these as more towards a players iron. So, as or iron shot comparisons...I'll start with 1 irons for fun.

 

1 iron shots: Hybrid 18*...DONE. Anyone claiming they can hit a 1 iron consistently is either an outstanding ball striker or they cling to that one shot out of 100's that they caught flush. Sure it's possible...I used to hit 1 irons off the tee, and hit out of divots for practice because it makes a 5 iron look like a wedge. Playing a 1 iron with today's hybrids is the equivalent of still using a pager vs. a cellphone. If it's just for fun...I totally get it...but golf is about minimizing variables, not introducing more.

 

3 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, no doubt. I can hit them high, low, or punch. #2) G30, if I hit 20 hybrids well, I'll hit 15 G30's well. #3) Eye 2..decent, but not dependable. #4) FG-51...while I can hit it OK, there's no doubt my swing has to be spot-on, and the lie is ultra-important. I'll hit 5 "decent" FG's for every 20 good hybrids, and keeping the FG from leaking right is not easy. I would say 4 of 5 leak right to some degree. Hybrid...dead straight like a bullet...and no shock / vibration..easy peasy.

 

5 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, still much easier, but the gap is slightly closing. #2) G30. #3) Eye 2. #4) FG-51, at this point the differences between the FG-51 and the other non-hybrids is less significant, but I know I will have to pay close attention to the FG 5 iron and lie. I will hit maybe 8 good FG-51 shots for every 20 good hybrids. The G30 is the closest to the hybrid...not a large difference.

 

7 iron shots. #1) Tie...G30, Eye 2. #2) FG-51. But the differences are narrowing considerably. i give the FG-51 #2 because there's still that "demand" to hit very close to the sweet spot that could result in a 5 yard shorter shot into a front trap or water. That's not to say the G30 or Eye 2 will "save" me every time either...just looking at percentages. A bad swing on any of these clubs could result in a similar outcome.

 

PW shots. #1) Eye 2, #2) FG-51, #3) G30. The Eye 2 PW oddly enough provides more feel. I use it from 120 to 40 yard pitches / flop shots. Could be the weight is subconsciously better for me, don't know. The G30 weirds me out because after SO much play, I'm still unsure how far a shot will travel, so it's played from 135 to about 110. The FG and Eye 2 are neck and neck from 125 to 40 yards. Strange...a pure blade vs. CB, yet they perform equally.

 

So for me, the gap narrows considerably at the 7 iron thru PW. Exactly which set I might play would depend upon course difficulty. I play courses that require a more precise carry distance to pins, otherwise it's bunkers or water....less room for error. Knowing I have to carry 190, and 180 means saying "goodbye" to the ball, and score, makes a hybrid look DARN GOOD! Even then it's still a barn-burner.

 

I've also played wide-open courses with no water and few bunkers protecting larger greens, with open fairways and "not-so-rough" rough. On those courses I could play my FG-51's and scores would support playing the FG-51's. I'd be on here arguing that y'all are washed-up if you can't play blades! However, it's like playing Pebble Beach after a PGA qualifier event vs. the local muni course.

 

This is partially why (IMO) the blade vs. CB debate rages on. Folks have different perspectives based on course difficulty vs. one's perceived performance with certain types of clubs vs. possibly just liking the look of certain types of irons.

 

Nice read. I don't agree with the "golf is about minimizing variables", but hey, to each their own.

 

For me, I learned/grew up with blades. And persimmons (still enjoy playing them on occasion). I am more comfortable standing over and looking down at a blade or CB than I am a game improvement iron. I also have difficulty getting clean strikes with wide-bottomed irons. I get much better results with a narrow width club, even though I have a pretty steep approach into the ball. So I have difficulty comparing GI irons to players (or whatever you want to call them) irons.

 

So believe it or not, I get better strikes with a more traditional iron than I do with a shovel. And because I have to make a better swing with a blade-type club, I like the challenge of playing them. Makes me concentrate more? Who knows.

 

I prefer playing my 712 MBs, but will change to the CBs or AP2s if I start swinging badly. If things get real bad, I'll pull out the i E1s. :)

 

If someone is chasing scores/handicap and asks what club to play, I suggest playing the most forgiving club they can swing well. If they play for fun, then play whatever is fun.

I can see you and I would get along fine I still play blades with the modern metals but play persimmon too when playing my Sunday afternoon vintage walking rounds

[nsxguy]

Nope the key here is that you lost your balance ---- guess what that would have happened with any club of any construction. you might have gotten lucky and saved it again with any type of club if you had shut the face down quick. Note I said MAYBE LUCKY But that is hard to do off balance--- Hey I am a blade man period and I refuse to get into these arguments with anyone over what type of clubs they choose. Some of us old guys learned the game with blades because that was all we had. Some of the newer generation learned with CBs and GIs and so the Earth still turns. I will interject that some folks the GI type irons may help their game. Now you can get into some mechanical things that would be lengthy to explain here but a quick one from me on my perspective. If in your scenario if that had been me (and I am strictly a feel player) and I had got lucky and turned the face in and saved it with that hot faced Ping (again hot faced to me) more than likely I would have hit a rope hook off the planet which is my dreaded miss. On the same mindset I would have hit that rope hook rotating the blade but maybe not as nasty. Some basic physics you can not dispute. But then again assuming you were on the green from 30 feet all was not lost. On my face shutting thing I may have been worse off again no matter the type or design of club. I look at both sides of the equation objectively. In plain language different strokes for different folks and absolutely nothing wrong with that

 

 

Good question And I will objectively say for me and me only I would not get any feed back from that type of club. But then I am a strictly old school feel player and learned with blades and still play them. That is how I acquired MY feel. On the other side of things everyone's sense of feel is different and maybe he can get feedback from that type of club. And being objective again your impressions and feel may be different

 

It wasn't a question. gbart was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

 

So you're an old school "feel" player but you can't "feel" the impact on a GI irons ? O-KKKKKKKKKKKKK, if you say so. ;)

 

And you a**-u-me that because I got a perfectly acceptable result from that terrible toe hit that I made some sort of compensating move to get a good result rather than the result being due to a much more forgiving club head - how DeNinny-esque !!! - whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Perhaps I've simply played golf long enough(?) to be able to know right away where on the club face I hit the ball. I used to play only white balls and marked them similarly with marks right around the number and used to have ink marks on my club face all the time - I seldom got "fooled". Yes, even with the "numb" GI/SGI. :rolleyes: Anudder urban legend.

Nope nope nope Read it again I did not say you got a acceptable hit because of a compensating move but neither did I say the club saved it. I just put forth 2 different scenarios.------- "how De Ninny esque"-- Man what a compliment made my day!!!! I liked that so much and wore that like a badge of honor that I gave you a like on that post. And yes you are not the only one that has "played golf long enough to know where right away where you are hitting the ball on the club face" Will let you know one of my secrets a lot of my irons are worn across the face from the center to the toe. That is because when I manipulate the face sometimes I hit it in certain spots to make the ball do what I want. I showed one of my worn out wedges one night over on confessions section stating that I never was a ball striker and Mr. De Ninny called me out on it. He knew exactly what I was doing and why. And BTW I mark my ball with six dots around the number and leave sharpie marks on the faces of my blades whether they be the Zunos or a set of vintage Macgregor blades as SOP. I would love to duplicate your shot standing on one leg of what ever angle you were at and duplicate the shot you described and I will let you pick the brand of blade iron. Now I will admit not knowing your game I would more than likely have to take one more club than you did because of loft factors. Will let you put a machine on it and I promise not to manipulate the face. I may naturally do that but I will call myself out on that. But I never said you saved it through a move and did concur that in your case maybe the club saved it. Personally like I also stated before I could give 2 hoots less what you or anyone else plays and I refuse to be draw into an absolute argument on that.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood but you basically gave 2 possibilities. A compensating move or ANY club would've given the same result. There's more ?

 

The compensating move wouldn't have made ANY difference IMO. The ball flights basics, as I understand the , is the ball starts on the line where the face is aimed (face angle), which my shot did, and curves (or not) depending on where the face is aimed relative to the path it's on. Gear effect, if any on a 7 iron, is a moot point since the ball essentially traveled pretty straight and pretty much on the line I was aiming.

 

As for any club giving the same result, with all due respect I must respectfully say "Balderdash" :)

 

 

Ok I will defer to you because I know diddy squat about tennis. But to my eye it looks like the difference between a Persimmon driver and a modern metal driver. Am I warm??

 

I think a more apt comparison would be say, a blade vs. a GI (like my G20) or an SGI.

 

Point is there is NO DOUBT perimeter weighting enlarges the effective sweet spot and gives the player a greater margin for error to get an acceptable result. There is, of course, a point of diminishing returns which may or may not be different depending on what the player prefers and/or is capable of.

 

Tennis rackets are similar to irons in that older, weaker, and players of less ability tend to go with forgiveness and power, both of which they need (more than), over accuracy. Bothe helpful to make this player more competitive (real or imagined).

 

Professionals use larger rackets (than previously, not the oversize ones described previously) because they're more forgiving of mishits while still being able to be very precise. They hit the ball "hard enough" already. They don't use the really large rackets because they'd lose the pinpoint control they need.

 

The arguments are actually quite similar to blades vs. GI - just a little more "variety" in golf clubs. :)

 

Oh, and BTW, some sort of paragraph breaks would make your posts a little easier to read. (cool)

[nsxguy]

Here's something I don't understand about GI irons. If they're supposed to help the chunkers, why are they offset? To me, offset is a recipe for hitting it fat (and probably helpful to people who skull their bunker shots).

 

I'm no expert but the chief reasons I've read for offset are to help get the ball up in the air but more so to help square the face at impact. This is why those sorts of irons are targeted at higher handicappers who typically have one or both of those issues.

 

I expect going TO offset FROM non-offset (something apparently few players do) would cause an issue that the player would get used to (vis-a-vis the slight change in ball position).

[Sir Slicealot]

1 iron for the win! I'm a good enough ball striker to hit this consistently. (I know unless it's 100/100 naked in the freezing rain with bullets flying by it won't be good enough for the critics.) Come talk to me at the driving range or on the course...I'll let you try it...mainly to hear your excuses or to watch you try to "help" it off the ground. That's an interesting sight for sure.

 

Cling to your heavenwoods and divine nines!

 

Hybrids are for the undedicated who lack the wherewithal to swing a long iron. There's some enjoyable flight that your missing by fooling with those goofy looking ugly clubs.

[BIG STU]

Pop quiz - pick out the racket nobody uses anymore.

 

 

 

 

The racquet on the right is the reason there is bifurcation of the ball in tennis. It’s also the reason why no one watches tennis anymore. We don’t need to go there...the blades/CB debate is enough for one thread ;-)

Ok I will defer to you because I know diddy squat about tennis. But to my eye it looks like the difference between a Persimmon driver and a modern metal driver. Am I warm??

 

You're getting HOTTER! Actually the racket on the right is outdated in comparison to today's rackets.

 

Off topic somewhat, and somewhat not. An OP brought up a subject that does connect tennis and golf in terms of "new tech" effect on the game. Tennis got out of hand with tech. Likewise folks believe the same thing is happening to golf with new technology, especially the ball. There's talk about altering the ball to limit the pro's from excessive driver distances on courses that were designed for 280 yard drives. Pro's are now reaching +600 yard par fives with Driver - 6 iron. They aren't even close to playing the "same game" the rest of the golf community. On the flip-side, it's odd that handicaps have only slightly improved over the last 20 years. Maybe the pro's are playing with super-custom equipment? Hmmm.

Part of it too and a lot of folks do not want to admit. We know a lot about the human body and golf swing more than ever. Kids these days are being conditioned and educated early and develop natural muscles. We have a smarter fine tuned athlete today. And I will readily admit we do have better equipment today. One thing also and there is absolute no tech by USGA rules on this other than length and that is shafts. Like I told someone else I still play stock vintage some and play modern blades too. With even similar lofts the difference between a stock vintage blade and a modern blade is the difference between night and day. I have several vintage sets that I have reworked with modern shafts and one can tell the difference immediately. One reason the handicaps have not changed much on the Amateur side is that folks are mainly concerned about distance and playing golf swing and not golf.

[Nessism]

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.

 

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

Simple reality is that low MOI small headed clubs, both blades and shallow cavity backs, are a great choice for better players that strike the ball in the center of the face and don't dig too much. Clubs like these are easy to square up into impact so better players can manipulate face angle. They also provide great feedback as to where on the face the ball was struck. Clubs like these are not very forgiving to a steep miss hitting behind the ball, they are harder to elevate in the long irons, they lose more distance on strikes away from the sweet spot, they don't correct for the common outside in swing path at all, and there are other things as well.

 

Dismissing the tech features of GI clubs is just silly and poor science. You are free to believe what you want though. And dismissing science just because someone didn't prepackage info for your digestion doesn't mean the science is a sham either.

Your attitude is extremely poor and your assumption isn't true. I'm not dismissing anything. You sound pretty jaded so try to open up your mind a little bit. I know what the science says but as I said before it doesn't quantify anything. I'm looking for evidence. Simple reality is that a lot of tour pros play blades or near blades. Why? They wouldn't do it if the didn't see an advantage over GI irons. So what advantages do they see and where, where is the turning point? At what point do the advantages that blades or MB's offer take over from GI irons? I play off 9 or 10 and hit the centre of the face fairly often. Pro's hit it just about all the time I'd assume. Where's the cutoff? Where does the consistency, spin and workability of blades/MB's take over from GI irons? How much do blades, MB's and CB's differ and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of real data? How far off centre do you have to be with a strike for the advantages of GI irons to really show a benefit? Where is the data?

 

No matter whatever "data" someone put together you would dismiss it as not representing your swing.

[Rapatt95]

Was gonna play my Ft Worths instead of my PTx today. Raining all day and no chance to play. Maybe it's a sign.

[BIG STU]

Here's something I don't understand about GI irons. If they're supposed to help the chunkers, why are they offset? To me, offset is a recipe for hitting it fat (and probably helpful to people who skull their bunker shots).

 

I'm no expert but the chief reasons I've read for offset are to help get the ball up in the air but more so to help square the face at impact. This is why those sorts of irons are targeted at higher handicappers who typically have one or both of those issues.

 

I expect going TO offset FROM non-offset (something apparently few players do) would cause an issue that the player would get used to (vis-a-vis the slight change in ball position).

For me I hook the snot out those large offset clubs especially long irons. Offset wedges I shank the crap out of them. I think personally for me it has to do with eye and hand coordination at address. I also think some of my subconscious hand moves may be to blame too. But hey that is just me.

[nsxguy]

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.

 

Listen man, this is quite simple really. 95% of the clubs sold are CB's, most of them large ones. Why? Because the club manufacturers sell what people want, and most people want clubs that are easy to hit. And why are large GI CB's easy to hit? Because there are technical features built in which make them that way. I'm sure there are robot hitting test results available somewhere but the manufacturers keep most of this data to themselves. Even most tech savoy blade lovers can accept this truth, yet these discussions continue.

 

Simple reality is that low MOI small headed clubs, both blades and shallow cavity backs, are a great choice for better players that strike the ball in the center of the face and don't dig too much. Clubs like these are easy to square up into impact so better players can manipulate face angle. They also provide great feedback as to where on the face the ball was struck. Clubs like these are not very forgiving to a steep miss hitting behind the ball, they are harder to elevate in the long irons, they lose more distance on strikes away from the sweet spot, they don't correct for the common outside in swing path at all, and there are other things as well.

 

Dismissing the tech features of GI clubs is just silly and poor science. You are free to believe what you want though. And dismissing science just because someone didn't prepackage info for your digestion doesn't mean the science is a sham either.

Your attitude is extremely poor and your assumption isn't true. I'm not dismissing anything. You sound pretty jaded so try to open up your mind a little bit. I know what the science says but as I said before it doesn't quantify anything. I'm looking for evidence. Simple reality is that a lot of tour pros play blades or near blades. Why? They wouldn't do it if the didn't see an advantage over GI irons. So what advantages do they see and where, where is the turning point? At what point do the advantages that blades or MB's offer take over from GI irons? I play off 9 or 10 and hit the centre of the face fairly often. Pro's hit it just about all the time I'd assume. Where's the cutoff? Where does the consistency, spin and workability of blades/MB's take over from GI irons? How much do blades, MB's and CB's differ and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of real data? How far off centre do you have to be with a strike for the advantages of GI irons to really show a benefit? Where is the data?

 

 

My friend, your idol(?) DeNinny has said "CBs are more forgiving, blades are more workable". That pretty much works for me.

 

If it suits you to think/believe so, feel free to add "more accurate/consistent",,,,,,,,,,,,, although given the difference from one swing to the next and environmental condition, especially in amateurs, I'd think accuracy wouldn't be quite the overriding concern one might think, to amateurs.

[FourTops]

Here's my comparison of different sets of irons. Not scientific....just based on decades of experience and tons of trials. I'm going to compare Wilson Staff FG-51 vs. G30 vs. Ping Eye 2 vs. Hybrid 3 and 5. On numerous occasions I have taken the 3, 5, 7, PW from each set to the range to compare. Range balls are no charge so I can stand there all day. Before I get into my review, I'd like to point out that for me, I don't think the Eye 2's are all "that easy" to hit...they demand a pretty solid strike, and they will "tell you" when you missed. In my experiences since the 80's, I classify these as more towards a players iron. So, as or iron shot comparisons...I'll start with 1 irons for fun.

 

1 iron shots: Hybrid 18*...DONE. Anyone claiming they can hit a 1 iron consistently is either an outstanding ball striker or they cling to that one shot out of 100's that they caught flush. Sure it's possible...I used to hit 1 irons off the tee, and hit out of divots for practice because it makes a 5 iron look like a wedge. Playing a 1 iron with today's hybrids is the equivalent of still using a pager vs. a cellphone. If it's just for fun...I totally get it...but golf is about minimizing variables, not introducing more.

 

3 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, no doubt. I can hit them high, low, or punch. #2) G30, if I hit 20 hybrids well, I'll hit 15 G30's well. #3) Eye 2..decent, but not dependable. #4) FG-51...while I can hit it OK, there's no doubt my swing has to be spot-on, and the lie is ultra-important. I'll hit 5 "decent" FG's for every 20 good hybrids, and keeping the FG from leaking right is not easy. I would say 4 of 5 leak right to some degree. Hybrid...dead straight like a bullet...and no shock / vibration..easy peasy.

 

5 iron shots: #1) Hybrid, still much easier, but the gap is slightly closing. #2) G30. #3) Eye 2. #4) FG-51, at this point the differences between the FG-51 and the other non-hybrids is less significant, but I know I will have to pay close attention to the FG 5 iron and lie. I will hit maybe 8 good FG-51 shots for every 20 good hybrids. The G30 is the closest to the hybrid...not a large difference.

 

7 iron shots. #1) Tie...G30, Eye 2. #2) FG-51. But the differences are narrowing considerably. i give the FG-51 #2 because there's still that "demand" to hit very close to the sweet spot that could result in a 5 yard shorter shot into a front trap or water. That's not to say the G30 or Eye 2 will "save" me every time either...just looking at percentages. A bad swing on any of these clubs could result in a similar outcome.

 

PW shots. #1) Eye 2, #2) FG-51, #3) G30. The Eye 2 PW oddly enough provides more feel. I use it from 120 to 40 yard pitches / flop shots. Could be the weight is subconsciously better for me, don't know. The G30 weirds me out because after SO much play, I'm still unsure how far a shot will travel, so it's played from 135 to about 110. The FG and Eye 2 are neck and neck from 125 to 40 yards. Strange...a pure blade vs. CB, yet they perform equally.

 

So for me, the gap narrows considerably at the 7 iron thru PW. Exactly which set I might play would depend upon course difficulty. I play courses that require a more precise carry distance to pins, otherwise it's bunkers or water....less room for error. Knowing I have to carry 190, and 180 means saying "goodbye" to the ball, and score, makes a hybrid look DARN GOOD! Even then it's still a barn-burner.

 

I've also played wide-open courses with no water and few bunkers protecting larger greens, with open fairways and "not-so-rough" rough. On those courses I could play my FG-51's and scores would support playing the FG-51's. I'd be on here arguing that y'all are washed-up if you can't play blades! However, it's like playing Pebble Beach after a PGA qualifier event vs. the local muni course.

 

This is partially why (IMO) the blade vs. CB debate rages on. Folks have different perspectives based on course difficulty vs. one's perceived performance with certain types of clubs vs. possibly just liking the look of certain types of irons.

 

Nice read. I don't agree with the "golf is about minimizing variables", but hey, to each their own.

 

For me, I learned/grew up with blades. And persimmons (still enjoy playing them on occasion). I am more comfortable standing over and looking down at a blade or CB than I am a game improvement iron. I also have difficulty getting clean strikes with wide-bottomed irons. I get much better results with a narrow width club, even though I have a pretty steep approach into the ball. So I have difficulty comparing GI irons to players (or whatever you want to call them) irons.

 

So believe it or not, I get better strikes with a more traditional iron than I do with a shovel. And because I have to make a better swing with a blade-type club, I like the challenge of playing them. Makes me concentrate more? Who knows.

 

I prefer playing my 712 MBs, but will change to the CBs or AP2s if I start swinging badly. If things get real bad, I'll pull out the i E1s. :)

 

If someone is chasing scores/handicap and asks what club to play, I suggest playing the most forgiving club they can swing well. If they play for fun, then play whatever is fun.

 

I'm not sure why you disagree that golf isn't about reducing, minimizing variables....but that's OK. That could be a 10 beer discussion!

 

I started with blades, MacGregor MT's. Shooting in the 70's in those days was considered God golf. My best round was 4 under....with Wilson FG-51s. My other best round was 3 under with Eye 2's....and Bullseye putters for both! Had an R-90 SW...no lob wedge, or gap wedge...who needed them anyway? Just self-adjust the loft and hit. As time marched on the rage was Mizuno MP-9's. I have to say they were "easier" to hit than the FG's overall. Played those for years.

 

Looking back, it's hard to compare what I did in the past vs. today because I have the funds to play far more challenging courses now, so those 4 and 3 under rounds may be 3 and 4 over today. I still play the blades because of the hybrids. Removing the 2, 3, 4 blade irons makes a huge difference. I think hybrids somewhat equalize the blade vs. CB selection. Plus, I go back and forth on new blades because the tech along with new shafts have made them far more "friendly" in terms of shock and vibration.

 

And here's the biggest issue in terms of club selection, at least for me. If someone's second shots averages 150 and in, I don't think MB vs. CB matters much. If one's average shot is longer, say 170 to 200, then either play hybrids, or have the easiest to hit long irons.

 

The good thing is there's SO many great sets of clubs now. There's no junk. Heck, I'm ready to buy Hogan PTx's AND Ft. Worth irons due to factory direct pricing. I don't need them, but I have a NOS Hogan Staff bag from 1988, and my Redlines need refinishing!