Muscle Back "Blade" Irons --- History and Future?

[mahonie]

I'm in there with Duffer. Knocking a shot down or playing a bump and run is face angle and swing. It is not reserved only for blades.

 

Throw in summer conditions of very tight or bare lies, then, advantage blades IMO.

 

I thought you was referring to thunderstorms and rain checks. What advantages do blades offer on tight or bare lies? None. Wide sole, narrow sole, bounce, no bounce you’re either a good ball striker or not.

 

So when YJS swaps out his L grind for an M grind depending on course conditions, it's because????

 

I like when he swaps his AP2s for <insert obscure JDM blade here> ?

 

He won’t...he’s not a good enough ballstriker! Even the AP2s didn’t stop him putting it in Rae’s Creek on the 12th at Augusta a while back.

 

To be honest it’s why I like watching YJS...he puts it in places that we are all familiar with (but then his amazing short game gets him out of trouble!!). Commentator at the Open recently said that YJS gets it up a down from places that would make Seve proud...he is that good.

[gbartko]

YJS isn’t a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

[lenman73]

Out of curiosity what’s your HC? I only game one set at time. They have varied in their characteristics but I played them on any course in any conditions just fine. I mean there’s not just one type of lie you’ll encounter during a round so having the mindset of having a club for one condition makes no sense to me. I also only carry one putter and find out how the greens are rolling when I get there.

 

To be honest, I have no idea about my handicap. Since getting my j33 combos I have played two rounds of 18. My average for those was 82.

 

What I meant by conditions was weather related. Living here for 40 years and playing close to 30 years, there are only so many courses around here. I know which ones drain better than others after hard rains. If we go to a new course I look up the score card online beforehand and decide if the top or bottom of the bag is the concern then pick one and go because I don't have my usual knowledge to go on.

Look, I know not everyone does what I do and I'm good with that. You do what you do and that is fine. I just cant do what you do, it would be too boring for me. I would have quit playing years ago and taken up water colors. I am not saying what you do is wrong, it is just not got me.

[bodhi555]

I agree that it's best to have one set of clubs that work in every situation - which is why I've got a set of MB's in the bag. Tight lies, fluggy lies, deep in the rough, they just work for me. If I'm having an off day or if I'm swinging well, I find they work better for my swing than anything else - as even on my off days I still find the middle of the club face, but on a bad day I will try to manipulate the club face to keep the ball straight, on a good day I'll let my swing do that.

 

If I do go down the manipulation route then CB's always end very badly for me and turn into hook machines. MB's don't to the same degree in my experience.

 

Plus, I play golf to have fun as well as shoot low scores. My scores are slightly better with MB's and I have way more fun - so why would I swap?

[NRJyzr]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

Do you *really* think he isn't (or think some here think he isn't)? Els switched to blades when he went to Titleist, didn't seem to hurt him too much, he won two majors with them. Dufner just switched, in the middle of a tournament, to his National Custom set.

 

They aren't the brutal implements some of y'all like to portray. Using them or not just doesn't matter. Unless you spray it all over the clubface, that is. ;)

[bladehunter]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

and they say YJS isnt the new Tiger? why is he constantly used as todays measuring stick then ?

[gbartko]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

Do you *really* think he isn't (or think some here think he isn't)? Els switched to blades when he went to Titleist, didn't seem to hurt him too much, he won two majors with them. Dufner just switched, in the middle of a tournament, to his National Custom set.

 

They aren't the brutal implements some of y'all like to portray. Using them or not just doesn't matter. Unless you spray it all over the clubface, that is. ;)

 

i didnt say that, mahonie did. he said he's not a good enough ball striker. hence the "sarcasm detector" comment on my part because "not sure if serious".

 

obviously top 10 in the world golfers can play whatever they want very effectively. nobody said "top 10 elite golfers shouldnt play blades". the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

[gbartko]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

and they say YJS isnt the new Tiger? why is he constantly used as todays measuring stick then ?

 

i didnt say that - mahonie did. i love YJS.

[dciccoritti]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

and they say YJS isnt the new Tiger? why is he constantly used as todays measuring stick then ?

 

i didnt say that - mahonie did. i love YJS.

 

Well actually...YJS said it. You can watch it all or skip to 1:26.

 

[media=]http://youtu.be/lVTl4lViZpc[/media]

[gbartko]

YJS isn't a good enough ball striker to play blades but everyone on here Is? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is offline again :-)

 

 

and they say YJS isnt the new Tiger? why is he constantly used as todays measuring stick then ?

 

i didnt say that - mahonie did. i love YJS.

 

Well actually...YJS said it. You can watch it all or skip to 1:26.

 

[media=]http://youtu.be/lVTl4lViZpc[/media]

 

not sure that's helping your arguments but cool - thanks for that!

[NRJyzr]

 

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

[gbartko]

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

 

its BS that GI would probably benefit 98% of golfers? you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

as for your choice in clubs - its not a big deal - maybe some care but i certainly dont. however why would a GI iron come up sideways but the same strike with a blade stay straight?

[BiggErn]

Out of curiosity whats your HC? I only game one set at time. They have varied in their characteristics but I played them on any course in any conditions just fine. I mean theres not just one type of lie youll encounter during a round so having the mindset of having a club for one condition makes no sense to me. I also only carry one putter and find out how the greens are rolling when I get there.

 

To be honest, I have no idea about my handicap. Since getting my j33 combos I have played two rounds of 18. My average for those was 82.

 

What I meant by conditions was weather related. Living here for 40 years and playing close to 30 years, there are only so many courses around here. I know which ones drain better than others after hard rains. If we go to a new course I look up the score card online beforehand and decide if the top or bottom of the bag is the concern then pick one and go because I don't have my usual knowledge to go on.

Look, I know not everyone does what I do and I'm good with that. You do what you do and that is fine. I just cant do what you do, it would be too boring for me. I would have quit playing years ago and taken up water colors. I am not saying what you do is wrong, it is just not got me.

 

 

Gotcha. Everyone does their own thing and that’s part of the game.

[NRJyzr]

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

 

its BS that GI would probably benefit 98% of golfers? you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

as for your choice in clubs - its not a big deal - maybe some care but i certainly dont. however why would a GI iron come up sideways but the same strike with a blade stay straight?

 

I have no idea. My main miss is heelside, and from time to time, I get these squirrelly leaks on heel misses. I've seen it with the Peerless Tours I had 17 years ago, and both my sets of Pings. I thought they were hosel rockets at first, but checking the mark on the clubface showed otherwise. It's a slightly low heel miss that does it. I don't see those sort of results from similar misses with my various blade sets.

[dciccoritti]

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

 

its BS that GI would probably benefit 98% of golfers? you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

as for your choice in clubs - its not a big deal - maybe some care but i certainly dont. however why would a GI iron come up sideways but the same strike with a blade stay straight?

 

You say same strike as if when someone puts the exact same move over the ball, strike will be the same. But you don't take into account the difference in heal/toe weighting between different clubs. Same move, different strike. Same can be said for shaft due to weight, torque, kick point. Same move, different strike. Different strike = different flight.

 

Can a PING SFT driver go sideways for some vs a regular PING driver? Wouldn't you have to put a different move on these drivers to achieve 'same strike'?

[gbartko]

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

 

its BS that GI would probably benefit 98% of golfers? you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

as for your choice in clubs - its not a big deal - maybe some care but i certainly dont. however why would a GI iron come up sideways but the same strike with a blade stay straight?

 

You say same strike as if when someone puts the exact same move over the ball, strike will be the same. But you don't take into account the difference in heal/toe weighting between different clubs. Same move, different strike. Same can be said for shaft due to weight, torque, kick point. Same move, different strike. Different strike = different flight.

 

Can a PING SFT driver go sideways for some vs a regular PING driver? Wouldn't you have to put a different move on these drivers to achieve 'same strike'?

 

the question was SAME strike. i dont care what you have to do to make it happen but why would the SAME STRIKE with a cb go off line but a blade stay online all else being equal?

[lenman73]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

[NRJyzr]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

[rex235]

 

 

As you can tell by my username, I am (and always have been) a big Titleist fan. So, from that brand alone and their amazing club archive, as well as my personal experience, I felt it worth writing a little bit about "blades". I mean real blades, the kind that grass cannot get caught in the back, the kind that most golfers fear, but would help each of them with their games if only if used on a range for practice.

 

Before I get into the history of the blade (at least from the last 30 years using Titleist), I wanted to point out that blades are back with a vengeance (or are they)?

 

Below is the current top 10 world golf rankings, where as you can see, 7 of 10 use true blades. And of course there is another pretty big name (currently outside the top-10) named Tiger Woods.

1. Dustin Johnson (BLADES)

2. Justin Thomas (BLADES)

3. Justin Rose (BLADES)

4. Brooks Koepka

5. Jon Rahm

6. Jordan Spieth

7. Rickie Fowler (BLADES)

8. Rory McIlroy (BLADES)

9. Jason Day (BLADES)

10. Tommy Fleetwood (BLADES)

 

Back to my experience that led me to this topic. Really it was just a Titleist brochure I picked up at my local GolfMart while buying a SM7 wedge a few days back. Tonight I finally got around to looking at it and I was pretty surprised. See cover below and tell me what's missing (completely not even mentioned)?

 

 

 

That's not fair, from the title you probably guessed correctly ... the 718MB (and CB) are missing completely, not even a mention.

 

Also, the other day I saw a flier in the mail from the Roger Dunn Superstore, which as I flipped through were missing blades for every manufacturer. Now this may be due to blades not being a high buy-rate item so they made a marketing decision, but not a mention (no where, no OEM).

 

So, what gives? This is where I wanted people to follow the Titleist club history to think about what happened, when and why things have evolved to today's current market conditions. In responses, I would like fellow WRXers to project blade volumes going forward ... do they trend ever downward despite players using them every weekend on TV or do they make a resurgence?

 

Let't start with Titleist. Again, using my history and this handy website (which I think every OEM should keep (other than TM because they would break the internet - slight dig on how frequently they change club models)) ... we can look through the history of Titleist blades.

 

Long time ago (1990s), Titleist made blades because that was pretty much what everyone played on tour, either blades or Ping Eye2s. The sole grinds had not been figured out yet, but they were sweet (but not being purchased), so the last blade (Titleist Tour Model) was made pretty much unchanged from 1991 to 1997. Titleist then stopped making blades.

 

Along came this guy named Tiger Woods, who used a set of Mizuno blades to absolutely dominate Augusta National in 1997. Titleist wanted to get him on their staff, so they went into hyperdrive trying to create a set of blades to get Tiger on their staff. Born was the 681MB and "T" version (Tiger's specs of the 681 blank stamped simply with a T). Due to popularity of Tiger and his incredible run in 2000, Titleist released the 681 to the public and even some "T" versions in 2001. The 681 continued in 2002 along with the 690MB, which was easier to hit with the muscle lower in the head and longer heal to toe. This is where Titleist went a bit haywire, deciding that one type of blade was not enough. They decided to bring out over the next few years the 680MB (likely most beloved of all - and still played by many on the PGA tour including major champions), the 670MB and 690.MB.

 

Back to my own experience, in 2004, I was stationed in Everett, WA. There was a golf shop having a Titleist trial and when I got there as a Titleist and blade lover, it was one of the best experiences of my life ... I was able to try 680MB, 670MB and 690.MB all at the same time (pure heaven), all shiny and new. Wish I had stocked up on some 680MBs right then.

 

Anyway, that was Titleist's blade hayday from a build quality and variety standpoint. I cannot think of any single OEM that built three types of blades at the same (or near enough the same) time as Titleist did during 2002 to 2004.

 

But, horrible sales led to Titleist not making a single blade in 2005 (head scratcher), but in 2006 they brought out the beautiful 660MB (but only for pros or custom orders) and the horrifically ugly 695MB. From that bad taste in their mouths, Titleist again gave up on blades until 2009 when the beautiful 710MB was brought to market, which was the start of the 7-series designating irons and "10" designating the model year (sort of). Titleist then got on an every other year thing with MBs in 712 (2012 sort of), 714 (I have a set of these), 716 (trying to resemble 680) and the most recent 718 (which look nice).

 

Shifting away from Titleist for a moment over to TaylorMade with their most recent development of the P730 blades (also very nice looking), and versions specifically for big-headed PGA pros like "Rors", "Rose" and most recently "Tiger", it seems they are now following the Titleist 2002-2004 path (history repeating itself?).

 

Anyway, hope you think about this topic and let me know what you think with this trip down blade-memory lane.

 

My raw 680MBs (in away bag).

 

 

 

Titleist-

 

Was this original Titleist blade iron included?

 

 

 

Looks suspiciously like the TaylorMade P-730 forged iron.

[gbartko]

Appreciate the discussion and back and forth here. Lots to think about.

[lenman73]

Thanks ! I don't know why I didn't think about this sooner but I may have just had a breakthrough. Lol

[BiggErn]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

[bodhi555]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

Ah, that will be why I hate offset with a passion. I want a 6 iron to fly with the trajectory of a 6 iron - if anything, I'd like to flight the ball lower for playing in wind.

[BiggErn]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

Ah, that will be why I hate offset with a passion. I want a 6 iron to fly with the trajectory of a 6 iron - if anything, I'd like to flight the ball lower for playing in wind.

 

Or hit a 5 iron. Seriously though, almost EVERY club has some offset. Not every GI/CB have massive amounts of offset or jacked lofts.

[NRJyzr]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

 

That's the marketing theory, but the application of it is lacking. Clubs now aren't any more offset than those of 20-30 years ago. Eye2, ISI, and even the 845s were all fairly offset. Looking at the rear CG measurements in MPF, i rather doubt anything modern has more offset than the clubs of Olde. Generally speaking, of course. ;)

[BiggErn]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

 

That's the marketing theory, but the application of it is lacking. Clubs now aren't any more offset than those of 20-30 years ago. Eye2, ISI, and even the 845s were all fairly offset. Looking at the rear CG measurements in MPF, i rather doubt anything modern has more offset than the clubs of Olde. Generally speaking, of course. ;)

 

 

Yes but the Eye 2s had traditional lofts at least a club different than today’s standards. While they may be comparable they would be at least a club shorter. That’s not taking into account any of the other tech of today’s irons either. Thinner faces, multi materials, etc

[bodhi555]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

Ah, that will be why I hate offset with a passion. I want a 6 iron to fly with the trajectory of a 6 iron - if anything, I'd like to flight the ball lower for playing in wind.

 

Or hit a 5 iron. Seriously though, almost EVERY club has some offset. Not every GI/CB have massive amounts of offset or jacked lofts.

 

Personally I'd rather just hit a full 6 iron than much about with choking down on a 5 iron, but maybe that's just me.

 

The point is however, a lot of the "advantages" provided by GI clubs are not actually advantages for me, and rather than helping me shoot lower scores they actually hinder things. Sure, I could try a "Player's" CB, like the 718 CB, but as they aren't any easier to hit than MB's I don't see the point. In fact I moved from old player's CBs (TM 300 Forged) to blades, and my ballstriking with my irons improved pretty much instantly - and my handicap came down too.

[dciccoritti]

the argument is 98% of ALL golfers would probably *benefit* from GI clubs -not *should* play GI clubs. big difference. golf clubs are not my religion so im not going to get worked up one way or the other. i have both cbs and blades and play both with an open mind. i don't feel the need to justify my "why" to anybody.

 

 

That's where my Bravo Sierra detector goes off, just based on my own personal experience. I mishit a Golden Ram, it comes up short. I mishit an A10, or TP MC, or even an Eye2+, it comes up short. Or sometimes sideways.

 

I tried Golden Rams because I was curious. After hitting them a while, I couldn't understand why everyone thought it was such a big deal. I still don't.

 

its BS that GI would probably benefit 98% of golfers? you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

as for your choice in clubs - its not a big deal - maybe some care but i certainly dont. however why would a GI iron come up sideways but the same strike with a blade stay straight?

 

You say same strike as if when someone puts the exact same move over the ball, strike will be the same. But you don't take into account the difference in heal/toe weighting between different clubs. Same move, different strike. Same can be said for shaft due to weight, torque, kick point. Same move, different strike. Different strike = different flight.

 

Can a PING SFT driver go sideways for some vs a regular PING driver? Wouldn't you have to put a different move on these drivers to achieve 'same strike'?

 

the question was SAME strike. i dont care what you have to do to make it happen but why would the SAME STRIKE with a cb go off line but a blade stay online all else being equal?

 

I'm sorry, where did NRJyzr say he got a different ball flight with the SAME STRIKE? Please point it out. I'll wait.

 

...and why are your MB's crossed out? Who's side are you on anyway? :-P

[chippa13]

Since I've gone back to my CB.501s my ball striking has improved. Was getting a bit lazy with my P790s. When there's no punishment, it's a lot easier to swing a bit more aggressively. Only 1 club shorter than my 790s, thought it would be more. Way more consistent distances with a lot more spin, holding greens is easy as pie.

This post hints at my feelings re: blades vs. "more forgiving" irons. There's got to be a psychological component to hitting a blade vs. hitting a GI-type iron. With the marketing language surrounding GI irons going something like "It's impossible to mis-hit because the sweet spot is so huge!" it's reasonable to wonder if that makes golfers partially take the whole business of hitting the ball solidly for granted, consciously or subconsciously. I have gamed Titleist 710 MBs since 2010 and never want to hit anything other than blades, so I am definitely biased in their favor. But I don't evangelize them to other golfers.

 

That said, as kind as GI irons are to mishits, if actually making perfect contact is even a little disincentivized, could it be that these clubs might hinder some golfers who earnestly want to improve?

 

Blades demand nothing less than solid contact. People who believe technology has made them obsolete will tell you this is a bug, but I see it as a feature. Where as GI clubs can hide it a little bit, blades will tell you very bluntly if you have not hit a solid shot. For a golfer looking to learn to hit the ball better, couldn't blades be seen as both a training tool and a reward for becoming a good ball-striker?

 

Also, though they're not blades per se, the look of the T-MBs, 790s, i700s, i500s and the PXG irons is generally blade-like, is it not? I think that's an interesting recent development in golf club aesthetics.

 

 

The next best thing to looking at a guy’s MBs with a browned spot in the center of the face is seeing a guy with CBs/GIs/shovels that look the same. Who knew the goal was to hit the center of the face regardless of the club.

 

Who knew? Not most of the people that buy CB's/GI's/shovels. I could be wrong, but I heard the main reason so many buy them is forgiveness. Apparently they expect to be missing the center of the face rather often. Maybe a mass mailer will help?

 

Side note: the coating material quality used today for MB's or CB's doesn't wear off creating a brown spot like older clubheads. :lol: :beach:

 

Most golfers on the planet miss the center rather often. What is wrong with using a club that can help with the enjoyment of the game while those folks work on getting a better swing so they can miss center less often?

[chippa13]

Serious question here. Are game improvement clubs design to help close the face ?

 

If so that could help explain why I have a problem going left with them and I hit a more compact iron straighter.

 

 

It's not the overall "game improvementness" of the clubhead, it's probably the offset. Offset moves the CG more rearward. In the swing that rearward CG attempts to align with the shaft, which adds loft and closes the clubface a bit.

 

So, it *could* be influencing your shots.

 

Some also subconsciously align offset clubheads more closed than less offset clubheads. Another possible factor.

 

Offset is as much for trajectory as anything. We all know about the jack lofts, which doesn’t bother me. Every golfer should know the lofts if their clubs and how far they hit them so imo it’s a moot issue. Anyway, the principal is to take a jacked 7 iron and hit 6 iron distance but with 7 iron trajectory. Offset helps to achieve this.

 

Ah, that will be why I hate offset with a passion. I want a 6 iron to fly with the trajectory of a 6 iron - if anything, I'd like to flight the ball lower for playing in wind.

 

Or just ignore the number on the club and grab the one that hits the distance you're looking for.