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

[BiggErn]

Gor Bodhi555....Gotcha. Personally I’m not great at flighting say a 6 iron lower and still getting full shot distance or close to it. In most cases I just play the wind and adjust club accordingly. If I do need to actually hit a shot lower I just take more club and go from there.

[gbartko]

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

 

he said he didn't get the same result with the same miss when using blades - i guess we can take that however we want but i interpreted it as same face contact and path.

 

about the MBs: i've taken to listing everything in my club rotation and then crossing out the clubs that are not in the bag at the current moment. note, this changes daily sometimes depending on how well practice goes or what goofy thoughts creep into my head after reading these threads :)

[mahonie]

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!

 

Gbartko, apologies! I didn’t mean to get you into trouble!

 

My comment was said with tongue firmly in cheek, however some commentators have said that he is a less than stellar ballstriker compared to his peers.

[Nard_S]

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.

 

In general yes. It also effects the balance point in the rotational plane. That is the point the toe "tips over". On higher offset setting face of club is more closed at that point.

[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.

 

In general yes. It also effects the balance point in the rotational plane. That is the point the toe "tips over". On higher offset setting face of club is more closed at that point.

 

Alright, full disclosure time. As a general rule I do not play a full set of blades. I have them and do occasionally take them for a walk in the park but they are not my normal set. A week and a half ago I accidentally got a set of j33 combos. I say accidentally because I ordered the j33 cavity backs. When I opened the box and saw what I got I was pleasantly surprised. They have worked out very well for me so far. So I am using a 3 hybrid, 4-7 CB and 8,9,pw,g,s,and L blade. Even though the 4 looks like a blade at address it has some help built into it. But looking down at the ball with say the 8 iron behind it, it does not promote fear or worry in me, on the contrary I am excited to hit. It's a hold me beer and watch this moment. But the entire set I noticed immediately that even if my misses were going left, they were not going as far left and were still left in decent spots and oddly enough I didnt really notice a loss of distance with the weaker lofts and in some cases flew them further.

 

So today I got to thinking that the other set I own that I get along well with is my titleist 755's. A players cavity back with not quite as thin as a blade, but thin soles compared to some gi stuff I have. Common thread between the 2 sets of j33 and 755 is they are A. Older. B. Weaker lofts C. Have shorter shafts than modern clubs. I truly think that combination is a help to me. I mentioned before that I am more of a picker than digger but I forecast some problems with that in my immediate future because right now I am working on getting my swing more upright. It has flattened out too much in my opinion recently so during the transition I may have to go to my thicker soles if I start digging too much. Time will tell on that.

 

But for whatever reason, people didnt believe me when I first posted it, but the more game improvement an iron is, the more I hit it left. I understand it is something I am doing but at the moment the less help a club has, the closer it ends up to my target line. So until that changes, I am going with the smaller heads.

 

[FourTops]

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

 

That "tech" as you stated is marketing. Watch this video of the Ping Eye2 vs. new Pings. Zero difference. What IS different is the new multi-material irons make one feel like they're hitting a better shot when struck off-center...or "masking" the feel of an off-center hit. Ping was hated by the golf industry because EVERYONE had Ping irons...they dominated with the Eye2's. And eventually the USGA and other OEMs found a way to run the Eye2's out of town due to "grooves" that they could have standardized...but they didn't so other OEMs could participate in the market because Ping had them dead to rites.

 

[orangeology]

past was glorious. future is bright. long live blades.

[Pepperturbo]

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.

 

Experience has shown "me" when any club has what I see as too much offset, this low single-digit tends to go left. So, I would say 'yes.'

I don't require offset to square the face and turn it over. Additionally wouldn't go so far as to say heal to toe clubhead length enhances going left. The TM RsiTP clubs I refer to had typical length heads but a bit more bounce for my mechanics, plus blunt leading edges, making their stats best for diggers.

 

For me, it doesn't take a considerable increase in offset to get my ball going left. In my hands as more of a sweeper, the consequence forced me to be overly conscious of my mechanics, so I didn't go left, and the clubhead didn't bounce into the ball, causing thin strikes. The reason they collect dust, and I now play Titleist 716-CB's which have specs similar to my blades. :beach:

[BiggErn]

I’m amazed how someone can putt with a plumber neck putter without pulling it straight left.

[mahonie]

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.

 

Experience has shown "me" when any club has what I see as too much offset, this low single-digit tends to go left. So, I would say 'yes.'

I don't require offset to square the face and turn it over. Additionally wouldn't go so far as to say heal to toe clubhead length enhances going left. The TM RsiTP clubs I refer to had typical length heads but a bit more bounce for my mechanics, plus blunt leading edges, making their stats best for diggers.

 

For me, it doesn't take a considerable increase in offset to get my ball going left. In my hands as more of a sweeper, the consequence forced me to be overly conscious of my mechanics, so I didn't go left, and the clubhead didn't bounce into the ball, causing thin strikes. The reason they collect dust, and I now play Titleist 716-CB's which have specs similar to my blades. :beach:

 

I agree exactly with your comments. This goes back to my very first fitting back in 1996. I was dead set on walking out of the golf store with a set of Ping Eye 2s. Everyone was playing them and I fancied a beryllium copper set for my bag. I will say that I had been playing about 15 years at this stage, never had a matched set (a proper mongrel bag with no 2 clubs the same brand) and had taught myself to play with a blade 8-Iron and 3-Iron. I was probably between 14-18 handicap at the time and thought the Eye 2s would be perfect for me. However, I found every shot going miles left which was a bit of a departure for me as I have always fought a slice. I tried several other sets with similar results and with a lost sale on the horizon, the fitter pulled a set of Wilson Staff Progressives into the bay (2-6 CBs, 8-SW MBs...yes you used to get 10 clubs in a matched set!!) My first reaction was that I couldn’t afford them even if I could hit them. I middled every shot and managed to do a deal with the store and played them for 12 years. Never had an official handicap at that time but did shoot 72 on a par 71 with them. Even now if I try anything with a noticeable amount of offset, my natural shot becomes a draw tending to a hook. The other side affect is a steepling ball-flight and as someone with a naturally high ball flight to start with, that is not a good combination.

[Pepperturbo]

Go figure... I switched to my current SC Monterey putter back in 2011 because I tended to miss left of the hole with my former center shafted putter and its toe flow. Lag putting was challenging too, missing either left or right. My current putter has one shaft offset but less toe flow and more loft (4*), heavier head weight and SW. Now I make a lot more 6-12 foot putts, and lag putting is no longer challenging.

 

There is a lot of research showing the wrong putter setup can push the ball right or pull left. Add, the putter swing isn't nearly as long as the golf swing. My 2cents :beach:

[lenman73]

I’m amazed how someone can putt with a plumber neck putter without pulling it straight left.

 

You have to remember it's all relative. It's not binary. While it's possible, it is not probable.

[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.

 

Experience has shown "me" when any club has what I see as too much offset, this low single-digit tends to go left. So, I would say 'yes.'

I don't require offset to square the face and turn it over. Additionally wouldn't go so far as to say heal to toe clubhead length enhances going left. The TM RsiTP clubs I refer to had typical length heads but a bit more bounce for my mechanics, plus blunt leading edges, making their stats best for diggers.

 

For me, it doesn't take a considerable increase in offset to get my ball going left. In my hands as more of a sweeper, the consequence forced me to be overly conscious of my mechanics, so I didn't go left, and the clubhead didn't bounce into the ball, causing thin strikes. The reason they collect dust, and I now play Titleist 716-CB's which have specs similar to my blades. :beach:

 

I agree exactly with your comments. This goes back to my very first fitting back in 1996. I was dead set on walking out of the golf store with a set of Ping Eye 2s. Everyone was playing them and I fancied a beryllium copper set for my bag. I will say that I had been playing about 15 years at this stage, never had a matched set (a proper mongrel bag with no 2 clubs the same brand) and had taught myself to play with a blade 8-Iron and 3-Iron. I was probably between 14-18 handicap at the time and thought the Eye 2s would be perfect for me. However, I found every shot going miles left which was a bit of a departure for me as I have always fought a slice. I tried several other sets with similar results and with a lost sale on the horizon, the fitter pulled a set of Wilson Staff Progressives into the bay (2-6 CBs, 8-SW MBs...yes you used to get 10 clubs in a matched set!!) My first reaction was that I couldn’t afford them even if I could hit them. I middled every shot and managed to do a deal with the store and played them for 12 years. Never had an official handicap at that time but did shoot 72 on a par 71 with them. Even now if I try anything with a noticeable amount of offset, my natural shot becomes a draw tending to a hook. The other side affect is a steepling ball-flight and as someone with a naturally high ball flight to start with, that is not a good combination.

 

About 14 years ago I got a set of those wilson progressives from 2nd swing when they were around here. Man do I regret letting those go.

[dog flog]

I'm amazed how someone can putt with a plumber neck putter without pulling it straight left.

 

You have to remember it's all relative. It's not binary. While it's possible, it is not probable.

Don't laugh, it's entirely possible someone uses a plumber neck 'blade' like an Anser 2 because they push putts when they go with a less offset blade like an 8802.

[bladehunter]

I’m amazed how someone can putt with a plumber neck putter without pulling it straight left.

 

Lol. My longneck newport doesnt have any offset. Alot of plumbers necks have less than 1/3 shaft offset. But yes. The full shaft offset ones do throw the eye off.

[FourTops]

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.

 

Experience has shown "me" when any club has what I see as too much offset, this low single-digit tends to go left. So, I would say 'yes.'

I don't require offset to square the face and turn it over. Additionally wouldn't go so far as to say heal to toe clubhead length enhances going left. The TM RsiTP clubs I refer to had typical length heads but a bit more bounce for my mechanics, plus blunt leading edges, making their stats best for diggers.

 

For me, it doesn't take a considerable increase in offset to get my ball going left. In my hands as more of a sweeper, the consequence forced me to be overly conscious of my mechanics, so I didn't go left, and the clubhead didn't bounce into the ball, causing thin strikes. The reason they collect dust, and I now play Titleist 716-CB's which have specs similar to my blades. :beach:

 

I agree exactly with your comments. This goes back to my very first fitting back in 1996. I was dead set on walking out of the golf store with a set of Ping Eye 2s. Everyone was playing them and I fancied a beryllium copper set for my bag. I will say that I had been playing about 15 years at this stage, never had a matched set (a proper mongrel bag with no 2 clubs the same brand) and had taught myself to play with a blade 8-Iron and 3-Iron. I was probably between 14-18 handicap at the time and thought the Eye 2s would be perfect for me. However, I found every shot going miles left which was a bit of a departure for me as I have always fought a slice. I tried several other sets with similar results and with a lost sale on the horizon, the fitter pulled a set of Wilson Staff Progressives into the bay (2-6 CBs, 8-SW MBs...yes you used to get 10 clubs in a matched set!!) My first reaction was that I couldn’t afford them even if I could hit them. I middled every shot and managed to do a deal with the store and played them for 12 years. Never had an official handicap at that time but did shoot 72 on a par 71 with them. Even now if I try anything with a noticeable amount of offset, my natural shot becomes a draw tending to a hook. The other side affect is a steepling ball-flight and as someone with a naturally high ball flight to start with, that is not a good combination.

 

Interesting re the Eye2's. They are one of the few CBs I can actually fade and draw, but I also have a neutral grip. In my experience a strong grip amplifies offset to promote right to left shots. That's the grip I use to make a giant hook around trees.

[Titleist-Golfer]

Although a bit off this topic, what else bothered me about the Titleist marketing booklet (sans blades) was the fact they were focusing on how many grams of tungsten was in each GI iron and how many yards longer each 718 was over it's corresponding 716 predecessor.

 

The points to a set of irons is NOT to hit each one longer, but to be able to count on the yardage of each, then gap them to make up a set that allows you to attack from any yardage!

 

I played today (a little game I call "leave the driver in the Jeep"), which makes me hit more longer irons. However, because I just got a F8+ fairway, I am not sure I was that much further away (another topic which I will post on elsewhere). Anyway, it was a bit windy and everyone I was playing with were using GI or extra-GI irons. They swung hard, but some were hot and sailed greens, while most of the time, they just ballooned up in the wind and were short. My faithful 680s bored through the wind (along with a good ball) and hit greens!

 

I don't know how anyone who can middle their irons would not at least try a set of quality blades - I think you would be surprised at how consistent and solid they perform.

 

As to previous points, I am 100% sure that Jordan Spieth would play better with 718MB or 680s.

 

Notice the below pic ... no driver!

 

As an aside, my away bag: Cobra F8+ driver (Rogue Silver 125MSI 70TX), Cobra F8+ 13* fairway (Aldila NV 2KXV 70-X), 818H1 19* (Motore Speeder HB 8.8 Tour Spec S), Titleist 680 4-PW raw (DG X100), Vokey SM6 raw 50 bent to 52, 56 and 60 (NS PRO 950GH S), Bettinardi BC4 355g 35"

 

 

[BiggErn]

Lol. Love that story^^^^. Irons sell for distance just like drivers do. No driver markets on being 25 yards shorter but finding more fairways. The fact an iron may go further in no way negates your ability to gap properly and if someone simply falls for the marketing hoopla without knowing why a club goes farther then they deserve to be duped. Lol at the GI irons thing too. Funny stuff. Lastly, I’m sure you know what that hack JS should be playing. What is he thinking? Lol

[pinestreetgolf]

Lol. Love that story^^^^. Irons sell for distance just like drivers do. No driver markets on being 25 yards shorter but finding more fairways. The fact an iron may go further in no way negates your ability to gap properly and if someone simply falls for the marketing hoopla without knowing why a club goes farther then they deserve to be duped. Lol at the GI irons thing too. Funny stuff. Lastly, I’m sure you know what that hack JS should be playing. What is he thinking? Lol

 

I bought my car because I often blast classical music driving through extreme cliff turns at a very high rate of speed while a deep voice in the backseat tells me how awesome I am. Marketing sells an image. No different in golf. This isn't directed at you BigErn, but there is nothing wrong with golf marketing when compared to all the rest.

 

Although a bit off this topic, what else bothered me about the Titleist marketing booklet (sans blades) was the fact they were focusing on how many grams of tungsten was in each GI iron and how many yards longer each 718 was over it's corresponding 716 predecessor.

 

The points to a set of irons is NOT to hit each one longer, but to be able to count on the yardage of each, then gap them to make up a set that allows you to attack from any yardage!

 

I played today (a little game I call "leave the driver in the Jeep"), which makes me hit more longer irons. However, because I just got a F8+ fairway, I am not sure I was that much further away (another topic which I will post on elsewhere). Anyway, it was a bit windy and everyone I was playing with were using GI or extra-GI irons. They swung hard, but some were hot and sailed greens, while most of the time, they just ballooned up in the wind and were short. My faithful 680s bored through the wind (along with a good ball) and hit greens!

 

I don't know how anyone who can middle their irons would not at least try a set of quality blades - I think you would be surprised at how consistent and solid they perform.

 

As to previous points, I am 100% sure that Jordan Spieth would play better with 718MB or 680s.

 

1. So your complaint about GI irons is that they go both too long and too short. Right. Makes sense.

 

2. I'm glad you wrote the Jordan Spieth comment so the thread can now end since you are obviously a troll.

 

Judging by your BST feedback (288 for your "Set bag") I'm not sure how "consistent" your irons are, but I think we can all leave it here given that we're arguing with a guy who seems to legitimately think he can pick clubs for one of the best player's in the world.

 

If you're trying to "attack from any yardage" who cares what your gaps are. Your trying to attack from any yardage. Gaps give you like what, seven yardages?

[FourTops]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

[bodhi555]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

 

Pretty sure that applies to Players CBs as well.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

[FourTops]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

I think my post's sarcasm was lost on you.

 

I've read WRXers all too often hand out "I concentrate more" when playing/using blades, so poorer ball striking miraculously becomes much better. personally I have my doubts about those statements and chalk them up to internet hyperbole. ;)

[bodhi555]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

 

Yes I know, crazy isn't it. Its almost as if, with the wild variation in approaches to this game, different stuff works for different people!

 

Bonkers I know.

[FourTops]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

I think my post's sarcasm was lost on you.

 

I've read WRXers all too often hand out "I concentrate more" when playing/using blades, so poorer ball striking miraculously becomes much better. personally I have my doubts about those statements and chalk them up to internet hyperbole. ;)

 

Yep...I get it now! I think my response was a knee-jerk reaction to how many times I've seen these claims. I will say practicing with MBs is actually a good training regimen because the SGI's will feel much easier to hit thereafter. I used to hit MP-9 one-iron's out of divots on the range to train on staying down. Talk about a workout...but after those gawd awful shots....a 5 iron felt like a PW.

 

Plus, the folks who post about playing MBs leave out a significant data point the average iron used for approach shots. If a few of my longest approach shots required a 7 iron, and the rest required 8 or higher, then the difference between MBs and CBs is far less relevant. So I understand playing MBs under that assumption. However, I'm talking about the 2-6 iron approaches. Hybrids make a half-decent golfer look good with a 4H, and given the game is already hard enough, it makes sense to take advantage of easier-to-hit hybrids. I'm not alone here....years ago the industry moved to offering sets starting at the 6 or 7 iron and assumed folks would round-out their sets with hybrids.

[FourTops]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

 

Yes I know, crazy isn't it. Its almost as if, with the wild variation in approaches to this game, different stuff works for different people!

 

Bonkers I know.

 

There's zero variation in a club's as-designed" target hitting area...it doesn't morph into who's swinging the club.

 

The size of an archery target bullseye is 4.8 inches in diameter. So using your logic, why not shrink the bullseye to 2.4 inches because, you know, different "stuff" works for different archers

[bodhi555]

The average golfer's chances of repeatedly hitting an already small target area on GI/SGI club faces are low...but increased due to the expanded hitting area.

 

So...somehow that translates to....

 

Does it make sense for the same golfers to intentionally play clubs with an even smaller club face hitting area?

 

Face palm..

well, I have read testimonials on WRX they do work, that the success story comes from them making a player "concentrate more". ;)

 

So MBs make one a better player but SGI's don't? That's kinda like saying if a part-time guitar player sets out to play Jimmy Page solos, they'll play better...despite the fact they struggle playing basic chords. I have yet to meet anyone who said "my CBs are are too easy to play...I'm scoring too low...this is boring".

 

Yes I know, crazy isn't it. Its almost as if, with the wild variation in approaches to this game, different stuff works for different people!

 

Bonkers I know.

 

There's zero variation in a club's as-designed" target hitting area...it doesn't morph into who's swinging the club.

 

The size of an archery target bullseye is 4.8 inches in diameter. So using your logic, why not shrink the bullseye to 2.4 inches because, you know, different "stuff" works for different archers

 

Um, ever heard the of the phrase "aim small, miss small"?

[Chuck905]

May be I am the exception, all the “help” that CB and GI offers doesn’t apply to me; it’s proven because I have done two handful of launch monitor sessions and the MP18 with the right shaft gave me a controlled cut shot shape along with optimal numbers such as launch angle, spin rate and decent angle.

 

Another thing, swinging the GI felt like a frying pan and the sole interaction was hideous feeling.

[pinestreetgolf]

Um, ever heard the of the phrase "aim small, miss small"?

 

Aim small miss small refers to a focus technique of hitting a small target by focusing on an even smaller one. It doesn't advocate actually shrinking the target your trying to hit in the real world, only in your mind. I can't believe we have to explain this stuff.

 

"Hey Joe, you're making the greens a quarter the size they used to be. Won't that make them harder to hit?"

 

"No dude, aim small miss small"

 

Aim small miss small is a mental trick. It doesn't mean aim small by making the actual, physical target smaller.

 

This is why we wish you guys would just say "I like playing blades even though it makes no sense, and I think I play my best golf that way" rather than come up with all this insane stuff to back-justify it. Aim small miss small. Good lord.