My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

tsecor · April 10, 2019

when you hit 8 -iron through PW, blade or CB means very little if anything anyway, so the average bag MAYBE has 3 -4 clubs in it that fall into the GI category for irons....4i-7i...most bags today start at the 5i anyway but it is funny to see the GI guys always pushing the narrative that others cant hit blades or are not good enough

gvogel · April 10, 2019

> @LaymanM said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > Andus wrote:

> >

> > agolf1 wrote:

> >

> > Andus wrote:

> >

> > mantan wrote:

> >

> > dpb5031 wrote:

> >

> > Interesting to me is what is considered the definition of a "good ball striker"?

> >

> > I think a lot of recreational players simply define it as someone who hits a decent amount of solidly struck shots.

> >

> > That may not be entirely inaccurate, but I think most Tour pros would define a good ball striker as a player who hits >65% of GIRs and has control of his golf ball...trajectory, shot shape, and precise distances.

> >

> > That's my thought as well. It's funny how the definition changes the better you get. I've seen SO many posts over the years by mid-handicappers who claim they are 'good ballstrikers' and by single digit guys who say they 'aren't great ballstrikers.'

> >

> > As a midcapper usually defines a good ballstriker is someone who hits solid shots on a consistent basis. To a single digit and below, that's usually a given. It's more question of how you can consistently hit precise distances, be able to take a little off or give a little extra on a shot. It's being able to control trajectory high and low whenever you want and the ability to work the ball. Not calling pulling a shot and calling it a draw or reverting back to a slice and calling it a fade, but truly work the ball a set amount in every direction and doing it on the course....not 1 out of 4 tries at the range.

> >

> > When I say I consider myself a good ball striker, I'm saying that comparatively to another mid handicap player. I think my mid and long game is better than average for my cap, but my short game is worse than average... If that makes sense. My mishit is generally thin, and sometimes fat, but not very often toe and very rarely if ever a heel shot. Thin or fat shots are going to suck regardless of iron/club choice... Again, just my opinion.

> >

> > You definitely have more speed than a typical 15 handicap (not disputing what you are saying). But how many greens do you usually hit per round?

> >

> > Pretty tall, and younger so speed isn't the issue. And eventually, I hit all of the greens... lol but honestly, probably 6-7GIR. If I hit the GIR I can usually make par, but if it includes a chip on to the green, I usually will chip and 2 putt. That's what I hope to do, sadly.

> >

> > 95-GIRX2. No offense, but if you hit 6-7 GIR the problem is not your short game. For a 15, on those numbers, your short game is adding about 5 shots per round off a perfect short game (rough, depends on course and slope ratings, but its still the same point). A tour pro (who hits just below 12 on average and gets up and down around 67% of the time) the short game is adding around 2-4 per round off a perfect short game.

> >

> > Here's how the cycle goes: Driver somewhere decent or bad. Iron shot to somewhere screwed. Short game shot duffed, because it was a super-hard short game shot, because you didn't miss in the right spot to make the short game shot easy. Blame short game shot because it happened last. Tell WRX you are a 15 because of your short game.

> >

> > Short game is incredibly dependent on your long-game ability to leave easy short game shots. If there is a horrible, deep, thin-sand bunker short-sided on the right and it never enters my head to aim left and release hard to make sure there isn't a block (long game skill) and you end up in it, you'll blow the incredibly hard sand shot and then b*tch that you "can't hit out of bunkers" when any OK long game player never would have sniffed that bunker on the approach. Normally a 15 cap who says its due to their short game really means "i hit the ball hard, but I can't think or control it very well".

> >

> > Good short game players are great course managers, they're not just pulling off seven circus shots a round. This whole conversation is nonsensical. You can be a five or a six because of short game but there is zero chance you are a 15 because of it.

>

> And this is why G410 irons are **no** in the bag. Ive played blades and player cavity backs. Just got rid of Srixon Z785. They were awesome but I need more GIR and more consistency from 180-205. I think my short game is pretty solid. I shoot around 78-84 most rounds. But not enough GIR. Way too much pressure on short game = high scores.

There's a big difference between "no" and "now" in the context of this sentence!

revanant · April 10, 2019

> @BiggErn said:

> Why on earth would anyone be jealous of a worse golfer playing a certain club? I don’t care what you play or what you shoot but the way some folks try to “rationalize” some things is pretty funny. I mean if I had hit a foot behind the ball and duffed it 10 ft I may have reached on the next one instead of missing it a little and coming up just short in the water on a brutal pin. **It’s not solely about scores it’s about there is absolutely no benefit in playing blades if you don’t pure virtually every iron shot. **Also, for the millionth time, of course there’s a certain level where someone is gonna play terrible no matter what they use. Some folks just want to look the part and that’s fine too but don’t try and sell ice to an Eskimo.

So, for the record, this is a point I was making earlier--the idea that blades are worthless unless you're perfect is a bit silly and a bit of an exaggeration. The difference between blades and a player's CB is just not that stark. Let's say I'm 10 yards shorter on a bad mishit. I can definitely get a similar drop-off with my AP1s if I screw up my mechanics or my swing speed drops. And when I play golf, there's a ton of stuff that can throw off my distances--lie, wind, etc. As a high handicapper--I live with a little bit of uncertainty. All I can do is reset after every shot, try to make an easy and relaxed swing, and continue to get experience and practice in playing conditions.

I'm playing blades this year because I played my best rounds last year with a set of T-Zoid Pros, and found that they gave me much better misses--I might lose distance, but I didn't wind up so far offline. I would personally much rather a straight shot that is 10-20 yards short than a long but off-line shot. My home course is a links-style course that will punish you for missing the green or landing in rough (I've lost a lot of balls that I clearly saw roll into the rough), but not so much for being a little short of the green. The courses I play in Miami are similar, by an large. I just don't find a lot of course design that puts a water hazard within 20 yards short of a green and directly in front--normally there's a much bigger gap to allow me to club up or down and have a safe shot, even with a miss. So, personally, I will take a straight shot that goes 120 instead of 140 as a preferred miss.

> @MelloYello said:

> > @drugazi said:

> > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

>

> I think it's worth discussing at what level equipment even begins to influence scoring. It's probably at a lower handicap than people think.

>

> If someone is chunking irons and missing 10-15 yards short I doubt equipment matters much. And to be fair, I still see those kinds of misses from my 10-handicap playing partner.

>

> So maybe we have to get down into the single figures for equipment to even matter?

>

> Would that change the tone of these debates? I bet it would if we all agreed that one has to have a low-handicap iron game for it to even matter.

>

> At the same time, it's also fair to point out someone who's chunking shots doesn't have the skill or knowledge to offer much through their anecdotal experience with blades.

>

> For instance, I would assume the actual results seen amongst MB, CB and AP2 irons would be a few yards at most. If we're talking about slight misses (what a good player will experience) we'll see a clear separation.

>

> If we're talking about chunking a shot, it won't matter.

>

This is definitely what I find when I play. My iron selection just isn't as important as my mental game. I'm favoring blades this season, because I'm finding that they force me to be deliberate about my setup and swing, and the result is that I'm making good contact and hitting good shots. On the course, I don't hit 10 shots and compare the results. For me, looking down at a thin top line and small blade is fun and reassuring. It frames the ball well, and it reminds me that I've got a big metal stick, and a small ball, and the ball will fly well with an 80% or 75% swing--I don't need to overdue it.

I've only gotten 9 holes in with my MP-4s so far, so my sample size is small (tax season + northeast winter). But, that first half-round, when the temperature was below 40 and winds were blowing 20 mph, I had good contact on every shot, and no hint of tops or chunks. So far, I think there's something to mental aspect of me playing blades and having better mechanics.

I'm sure I can get the same benefit from the 716 CB. I like the way they look, and I've found them easy to launch. But I can't find a full set of 716 CB for sub $300, let alone $60. And I like my MP-4s and Hogan Redlines. For pennies on the dollar, I have 2 iron sets that give me great feeling shots, a preferred look, and misses I like, and the ability to walk away from a round with some great shot memories when I hit them well. So, my experience has been that tossing blades into my bag has been all upside, and I'll see how things progress.

P.S. I'm the same 27 handicapper who mentioned the turf interaction of my blades. My concern was that my MP-4s have minimal bounce, and I hadn't had a chance to test them on grass all winter--just my sim mat. During my 9 holes, I had no issues with taking heavy divots or trouble with contact--which makes sense, since I tend to sweep. I actually came out with some nice, shallow divots. I don't think I was off-base in thinking about if the sole was going to hurt me, and I was happily able to figure out that it was fine.

drugazi · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> > @drugazi said:

> > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

>

> I think it's worth discussing at what level equipment even begins to influence scoring. It's probably at a lower handicap than people think.

>

> If someone is chunking irons and missing 10-15 yards short I doubt equipment matters much. And to be fair, I still see those kinds of misses from my 10-handicap playing partner.

>

> So maybe we have to get down into the single figures for equipment to even matter?

>

> Would that change the tone of these debates? I bet it would if we all agreed that one has to have a low-handicap iron game for it to even matter.

>

> At the same time, it's also fair to point out someone who's chunking shots doesn't have the skill or knowledge to offer much through their anecdotal experience with blades.

>

> For instance, I would assume the actual results seen amongst MB, CB and AP2 irons would be a few yards at most. If we're talking about slight misses (what a good player will experience) we'll see a clear separation.

>

> If we're talking about chunking a shot, it won't matter.

>

I'm more interested in whether the few yards results in actual scoring differences, because this is relative to a given hole set up. And, to my mind, it's often a toss up.

drugazi · April 10, 2019

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @drugazi said:

> > > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

> >

> > I think it's worth discussing at what level equipment even begins to influence scoring. It's probably at a lower handicap than people think.

> >

> > If someone is chunking irons and missing 10-15 yards short I doubt equipment matters much.

> >

> > But at the same time, it's fair to point out that level of player doesn't have the skill or knowledge to offer much through their anecdotal experience with blades.

> >

> > For instance, I would assume the actual results seen amongst MB, CB and AP2 irons would be a few yards at most. If we're talking about slight misses (what a good player will experience) we'll see a clear separation.

> >

> > If we're talking about chunking a shot, it won't matter.

> >

>

> I think we put too much stock in the equipment used not enough stock on the player. How many of us truly hit the sweet spot all the time? Manage your misses.

>

> As an example I shot an 81 and hit a grand total of 2 girs. The next round I shot an 81 and hit 8 girs. Which round did I use my blades and which did I use my cb’s? Does it really matter?

Agreed! This is what I'm getting at.

deadsolid...shank · April 10, 2019

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > >

> > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > >

> > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > >

> > > > It's that simple.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> >

> > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> >

>

> I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

Golf4lifer · April 10, 2019

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > >

> > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > >

> > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > >

> >

> > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

>

> Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

>

To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

> @drugazi said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @drugazi said:

> > > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

> >

> > I think it's worth discussing at what level equipment even begins to influence scoring. It's probably at a lower handicap than people think.

> >

> > If someone is chunking irons and missing 10-15 yards short I doubt equipment matters much. And to be fair, I still see those kinds of misses from my 10-handicap playing partner.

> >

> > So maybe we have to get down into the single figures for equipment to even matter?

> >

> > Would that change the tone of these debates? I bet it would if we all agreed that one has to have a low-handicap iron game for it to even matter.

> >

> > At the same time, it's also fair to point out someone who's chunking shots doesn't have the skill or knowledge to offer much through their anecdotal experience with blades.

> >

> > For instance, I would assume the actual results seen amongst MB, CB and AP2 irons would be a few yards at most. If we're talking about slight misses (what a good player will experience) we'll see a clear separation.

> >

> > If we're talking about chunking a shot, it won't matter.

> >

>

> I'm more interested in whether the few yards results in actual scoring differences, because this is relative to a given hole set up. And, to my mind, it's often a toss up.

Well, that's a specific question that should be answerable with data.

For instance, there's data from the Pro's regarding proximity to pin and how it affects putts. Putting drops off from 5' to 8' or from 16' to 19' in a measurable way.

I would assume the same trend holds for amateurs in a similar way.

I should be better from 20-ft than from 25-ft when putting. Or likewise, I would bet that I stand a better chance 2-putting versus having to get up and down from a green-side bunker.

I don't have data for myself to prove those things but I assume it to be true.

You don't have to assume those things. You might be better from 18-ft when putting than 12-ft but that would be rather shocking from statistical standpoint and it would indicate you have some major problems.

Now, if you want to use low-probability anecdotal examples of when being closer to the hole was actually worse, that's totally fine as it does nothing to buck the larger statistical trends we see.

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > > >

> > > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

> >

> > Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

> >

>

> To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

One could never resolve an argument about whether he/she is "good enough" for blades. You're correct but that's not the question (thank God).

A relevant question would be something like the following..._will club A or club B tend to make my misses better?_

We don't have to show that one is good while the other is bad. We just have to show that one makes more sense and is (theoretically) _better_.

Easy to forget that.

Golf4lifer · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

> > >

> > > Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

> > >

> >

> > To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

>

> One could never resolve an argument about whether he/she is "good enough" for blades. You're correct but that's not the question (thank God).

>

> A relevant question would be something like the following..._will club A or club B tend to make my misses better?_

>

> We don't have to show that one is good while the other is bad. We just have to show that one makes more sense and is (theoretically) _better_.

>

> Easy to forget that.

But what defines what’s best for you or me? Like in the op situation, blades just might fit his swing better than the cb’s/gi or sgi iron some say he should play based on his handicap. Could play cb’s and score better? Who know, but why not celebrate the op’s success instead of trying to talk him into an iron that may not work for his swing?

revanant · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

> > >

> > > Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

> > >

> >

> > To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

>

> One could never resolve an argument about whether he/she is "good enough" for blades. You're correct but that's not the question (thank God).

>

> A relevant question would be something like the following..._will club A or club B tend to make my misses better?_

>

> We don't have to show that one is good while the other is bad. We just have to show that one makes more sense and is (theoretically) _better_.

>

> Easy to forget that.

I agree.

And while it's hard to quantify on an internet forum, one thing I'm finding personally in real life is that practicing and playing with blades is making my misses better, because I wind up putting a lot of attention into my setup and swing on each shot, and looking down at the ball framed by the small head and thin top line is encouraging.

I'm thrilled that its working for me, and that it held up during a round that was below 40 degrees. I hope it continues. As it is, I feel more able to focus on other parts of my game that desperately need attention--namely chipping and putting.

I haven't hit a ball in a few weeks due to work, but I spent on hour on the sim this morning. An hour with my 6 iron, and I was striking the ball well again. For me, my blades are very efficient at cleaning up my swing--because once I start to make a good strike, I can dial it in and groove that. And I know it's helping, because a swing that results in a good shot from a blade is de facto a swing where things are clicking as they should. So, I find it to be a great training tool. I'm going to keep the experiment going, and hopefully it keeps me swinging well on the course, too.

Ultimately, golf is a game played mostly between the ears. And while this is a gear forum, everyone's got different gear up there. In theory, I should be able to take any iron and give it the proper attention at setup, and make an excellent swing. In practice, I find my shots are better with narrow-soled irons that have thin toplines. There are certainly irons that fit that bill out there that also have perimeter weighting, and I think MelloYello and I are both big fans of the 716 CB for that reason. But, I love the way my MP-4s look at address and the way they feel on a good strike, and I love the way my Redlines exude old-school cool while also feeling amazing on a good strike. So I'll put some miles on my blades, see how they perform over time, and when the used market brings down the price enough, maybe add some 716 CBs to my collection and compare/contrast.

Hopefully, by that point, I'll be a better putter. :)

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

> > > >

> > > > Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

> > > >

> > >

> > > To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

> >

> > One could never resolve an argument about whether he/she is "good enough" for blades. You're correct but that's not the question (thank God).

> >

> > A relevant question would be something like the following..._will club A or club B tend to make my misses better?_

> >

> > We don't have to show that one is good while the other is bad. We just have to show that one makes more sense and is (theoretically) _better_.

> >

> > Easy to forget that.

>

> But what defines what’s best for you or me? Like in the op situation, blades just might fit his swing better than the cb’s/gi or sgi iron some say he should play based on his handicap. Could play cb’s and score better? Who know, but why not celebrate the op’s success instead of trying to talk him into an iron that may not work for his swing?

Eh...WADR, have you actually been reading this entire thread? The OP (Andus) has been long gone for quite some time.

Golf4lifer · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > > > > > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's that simple.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

> > > > >

> > > > > Exactly, GIR can become very course dependent. As someone mentioned earlier, proximity to hole is a better indicator, but difficult to measure and keep track of.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > To me this is why this whole blade issue is ridiculous. How do you define a ball striker that’s good enough to hit blades when we can’t define what a good ball striker is. This is only on the amateur level of course. No matter the iron is used, you if you mishit it you have to play the miss and try to get the best score.

> > >

> > > One could never resolve an argument about whether he/she is "good enough" for blades. You're correct but that's not the question (thank God).

> > >

> > > A relevant question would be something like the following..._will club A or club B tend to make my misses better?_

> > >

> > > We don't have to show that one is good while the other is bad. We just have to show that one makes more sense and is (theoretically) _better_.

> > >

> > > Easy to forget that.

> >

> > But what defines what’s best for you or me? Like in the op situation, blades just might fit his swing better than the cb’s/gi or sgi iron some say he should play based on his handicap. Could play cb’s and score better? Who know, but why not celebrate the op’s success instead of trying to talk him into an iron that may not work for his swing?

>

> Eh...WADR, have you actually been reading this entire thread? The OP (Andus) has been long gone for quite some time.

I know I was just using him as an example.

nsxguy · April 10, 2019

> @bladehunter said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > you can be a good ball striker and shoot 90.....bad short game, wrong club selection, bad course management.....hitting is squarely doesn't equate to great scoring....its like the forgiveness debate......its great to have "help" but it doesn't mean you score well

>

> truth^^^...... hitting the middle of the face is maybe 20% of it...maybe..

Brother, leave a thread for a few hours and all sorts of heck breaks loose LOL

A good ball striker who shoots 90 is truly a mythical creature. Now tsecor sats "can" so I suppose somebody that *might* be a goo ball striker *could* have that bad a day but it's not likely. Anybody who's spent that much time becoming proficient in ball striking is NOT going to have such a poor mental game, or be so poor at club selection OR have SUCH a bad short game that he shoots 90 unless he's a guy that, having a bad round, he just doesn't care the rest of the way.

Mt friend, you have indicated a number of times that you are not a great putter BUT my guess is you're not nearly as bad as you believe yourself to be. I probably get every bit as frustrated as you (and have a closet full of putters to PROVE it LMAO) but if you held yourself to a the PRO standard when you go back over and analyze your round, you probably wouldn't feel quite so bad about it.

The Pros 50% mark is about 7 feet, yes ? Don't you feel you have at least a 50% chance of making a 7 footer ?

I personally don't keep ANY stats. It might drive me crazy(er). I DO go over every shot during a round in my head after the round on the ride home or maybe when I get home to see where I might need work (besides everywhere of course LOL). Just for fun I'll think about good drives (not necessarily fairways hit), total putts, up & down percentage and GIRs.

The nature of golf does not allow for excellent statistical data. So much depends on the previous shot. So much depends on environmental conditions. No 2 courses are exactly alike. Fairways are cut narrower (or wider), greens are cut faster (or slower). Pins are put in very tough places (or very easy places). There are WAY too many factors to keep GIR, PPR, PPGIR, fairways hit.

There are also so many days when one part of the game works and others don't. And sometimes one makes up for the other.

Having said that my BEST rounds are NOT when my driving's great, NOT when my chipping is great and NOT when my putting is great (although better than average sure helps LOL).

My BEST rounds are when my irons and proximity to the hole are very good. And blades won't accomplish that for ME. I have hit plenty of every type of iron to come to that conclusion.

Anybody disagrees ? No worries.

cliffhanger · April 10, 2019

> @nsxguy said:

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > you can be a good ball striker and shoot 90.....bad short game, wrong club selection, bad course management.....hitting is squarely doesn't equate to great scoring....its like the forgiveness debate......its great to have "help" but it doesn't mean you score well

> >

> > truth^^^...... hitting the middle of the face is maybe 20% of it...maybe..

>

> Brother, leave a thread for a few hours and all sorts of heck breaks loose LOL

>

> A good ball striker who shoots 90 is truly a mythical creature. Now tsecor sats "can" so I suppose somebody that *might* be a goo ball striker *could* have that bad a day but it's not likely. Anybody who's spent that much time becoming proficient in ball striking is NOT going to have such a poor mental game, or be so poor at club selection OR have SUCH a bad short game that he shoots 90 unless he's a guy that, having a bad round, he just doesn't care the rest of the way.

>

> Mt friend, you have indicated a number of times that you are not a great putter BUT my guess is you're not nearly as bad as you believe yourself to be. I probably get every bit as frustrated as you (and have a closet full of putters to PROVE it LMAO) but if you held yourself to a the PRO standard when you go back over and analyze your round, you probably wouldn't feel quite so bad about it.

>

> The Pros 50% mark is about 7 feet, yes ? Don't you feel you have at least a 50% chance of making a 7 footer ?

>

> I personally don't keep ANY stats. It might drive me crazy(er). I DO go over every shot during a round in my head after the round on the ride home or maybe when I get home to see where I might need work (besides everywhere of course LOL). Just for fun I'll think about good drives (not necessarily fairways hit), total putts, up & down percentage and GIRs.

>

> The nature of golf does not allow for excellent statistical data. So much depends on the previous shot. So much depends on environmental conditions. No 2 courses are exactly alike. Fairways are cut narrower (or wider), greens are cut faster (or slower). Pins are put in very tough places (or very easy places). There are WAY too many factors to keep GIR, PPR, PPGIR, fairways hit.

>

> There are also so many days when one part of the game works and others don't. And sometimes one makes up for the other.

>

> Having said that my BEST rounds are NOT when my driving's great, NOT when my chipping is great and NOT when my putting is great (although better than average sure helps LOL).

>

> My BEST rounds are when my irons and proximity to the hole are very good. And blades won't accomplish that for ME. I have hit plenty of every type of iron to come to that conclusion.

>

> Anybody disagrees ? No worries.

>

i would definitely agree with everything you said that relates to your own game. Thats what this thread should be about... sharing personal experiences. I do think that there is an element of what works for me should work for everyone mentality on this site that is rather annoying. The smart people should be able to differentiate between the good info and the filler generalizations.

nsxguy · April 10, 2019

> @drugazi said:

> > @bub72ck said:

> > We get this topic frequently and I have to say I disagree. "Good" ball striking is a very relative term depending on what you are looking to get out of your game. If you find enjoyment out of that perfectly struck shot from a blade that's awesome, but to sluff off forgiveness between MBs and CBs is really painting with a broad brush. I don't know what your handicap is (you only said mid-high), but I am not sure you know what consistently finding the center of the club is. I don't think I do either. A round of golf for most anyone, save the top players in the world, is about consistency and quality of mis-hits. Losing 5 yards on a mis-hit shot is the difference between being on the green and off, or in a bunker, or in a water hazard. You said that your short game was weak. That weakness is going to be magnified by missed greens and further distance from the hole.

> >

> > The bottom line is you can do whatever you wish with your game, but more than likely playing blades is costing you strokes.

>

> The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

No offense but your last statement pretty much gives you away.

Your walking 2 handicap doesn't mean a thing when you take the "exception" and try to make it the "rule". I have a dear friend who is a Mensa member. I barely understand him at times but he can barely boil water (OK, that's an "exaggeration for effect" but you get my point)

NOBODY said "always missing longer is better". Nobody. And you, like he who's name cannot be spoken, bring up being sorft of a bunker or water being better than being in it with a CB. Goodness gracious.

Please feel free to post as large a variety of circumstances as you can where being SHORT of one's intended target is BETTER than being closer to one's intended target.

TIA

cliffhanger · April 10, 2019

> @nsxguy said:

> > @drugazi said:

> > > @bub72ck said:

> > > We get this topic frequently and I have to say I disagree. "Good" ball striking is a very relative term depending on what you are looking to get out of your game. If you find enjoyment out of that perfectly struck shot from a blade that's awesome, but to sluff off forgiveness between MBs and CBs is really painting with a broad brush. I don't know what your handicap is (you only said mid-high), but I am not sure you know what consistently finding the center of the club is. I don't think I do either. A round of golf for most anyone, save the top players in the world, is about consistency and quality of mis-hits. Losing 5 yards on a mis-hit shot is the difference between being on the green and off, or in a bunker, or in a water hazard. You said that your short game was weak. That weakness is going to be magnified by missed greens and further distance from the hole.

> > >

> > > The bottom line is you can do whatever you wish with your game, but more than likely playing blades is costing you strokes.

> >

> > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

>

> No offense but your last statement pretty much gives you away.

>

> Your walking 2 handicap doesn't mean a thing when you take the "exception" and try to make it the "rule". I have a dear friend who is a Mensa member. I barely understand him at times but he can barely boil water (OK, that's an "exaggeration for effect" but you get my point)

>

> NOBODY said "always missing longer is better". Nobody. And you, like he who's name cannot be spoken, bring up being sorft of a bunker or water being better than being in it with a CB. Goodness gracious.

>

> Please feel free to post as large a variety of circumstances as you can where being SHORT of one's intended target is BETTER than being closer to one's intended target.

>

> TIA

>

i don't recall every playing and thinking of misses. I mean at times after the fact i have said "i'm glad i went there instead of over there" however i wouldn't base my game around it.

deadsolid...shank · April 10, 2019

> @nsxguy said:

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > you can be a good ball striker and shoot 90.....bad short game, wrong club selection, bad course management.....hitting is squarely doesn't equate to great scoring....its like the forgiveness debate......its great to have "help" but it doesn't mean you score well

> >

> > truth^^^...... hitting the middle of the face is maybe 20% of it...maybe..

>

> Brother, leave a thread for a few hours and all sorts of heck breaks loose LOL

>

> A good ball striker who shoots 90 is truly a mythical creature. Now tsecor sats "can" so I suppose somebody that *might* be a goo ball striker *could* have that bad a day but it's not likely. Anybody who's spent that much time becoming proficient in ball striking is NOT going to have such a poor mental game, or be so poor at club selection OR have SUCH a bad short game that he shoots 90 unless he's a guy that, having a bad round, he just doesn't care the rest of the way.

>

> Mt friend, you have indicated a number of times that you are not a great putter BUT my guess is you're not nearly as bad as you believe yourself to be. I probably get every bit as frustrated as you (and have a closet full of putters to PROVE it LMAO) but if you held yourself to a the PRO standard when you go back over and analyze your round, you probably wouldn't feel quite so bad about it.

>

> The Pros 50% mark is about 7 feet, yes ? Don't you feel you have at least a 50% chance of making a 7 footer ?

>

> I personally don't keep ANY stats. It might drive me crazy(er). I DO go over every shot during a round in my head after the round on the ride home or maybe when I get home to see where I might need work (besides everywhere of course LOL). Just for fun I'll think about good drives (not necessarily fairways hit), total putts, up & down percentage and GIRs.

>

> The nature of golf does not allow for excellent statistical data. So much depends on the previous shot. So much depends on environmental conditions. No 2 courses are exactly alike. Fairways are cut narrower (or wider), greens are cut faster (or slower). Pins are put in very tough places (or very easy places). There are WAY too many factors to keep GIR, PPR, PPGIR, fairways hit.

>

> There are also so many days when one part of the game works and others don't. And sometimes one makes up for the other.

>

> Having said that my BEST rounds are NOT when my driving's great, NOT when my chipping is great and NOT when my putting is great (although better than average sure helps LOL).

>

> My BEST rounds are when my irons and proximity to the hole are very good. And blades won't accomplish that for ME. I have hit plenty of every type of iron to come to that conclusion.

>

> Anybody disagrees ? No worries.

>

So much of what you just said is basically the same thing I’ve said countless times over the years here (Blade as well). Just way too many variables go into each and every shot for any comparisons to hold water (for me). But that’s a topic for another (and many others before that) thread.

nsxguy · April 10, 2019

> @"Dr. Hack" said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @"Dr. Hack" said:

> > > Still getting a kick out of some of these responses. So eager to make fun of the high-handicapped blade users. Can't help but feel there must be some jealousy involved.

> > >

> > > I started playing 2 years ago. I'm a 15 hcp now and started using iBlades around 20 hcp. Not true blades, I know, but I use them for the reasons described above by many others.... They're fun to play with and demand good fundamentals. I have learned a lot from using them. Would I suggest this strategy for all people learning golf? Definitely not. But if you're obsessive like I am, you might find it to be a fun challenge and gratifying journey. It makes sense that using more demanding clubs could have benefits. After all, there are training aids in nearly every other sport (heavier bats, smaller balls, etc).

> > >

> > > On any given day might you lose a few strokes to the unforgivably of the blades? No doubt. In fact, I play my AP1's when the score counts. Nobody is trying to make the argument that blades will lead to lower scores with all things being equal. The interesting question to me: Is the same mid/high handicap player better off going into that game because he's been practicing with blades? Do the benefits outweigh the cons when you're talking about a rapid learning curve? I think they could.

> >

> > Your "jealousy" remark is laughable. Too bad the board isn't up to speed yet. The old board listed posters' handicaps - if they put them in their profiles. You'd see that most of the CB supporters are quite a bit better than mid-teens.

> >

> > Just for fun I'm going to recap some of the blade users remarks on this thread that "we" are so "jealous" about. Don't worry boyz and girls, I won't repeat the entire thread. LOL

> >

> > And I'll say right up front that there are some very good players that have commented and support blades. THEY ARE good enough to play 'em and more importantly, they have been playing for quite some time and have experience to back up their opinions.

> >

> > Anyway, with all due respect, some of the examples of high handicappers in this thread,,,,,

> >

> > 1) the OP, a 15 handicapper who "can't putt". He later posts he came from CBs to blades and his handicap came down from ~17 to ~15. So the obvious conclusion supporting his stance is it must be the blades, right ? But he does say "Currently, I play golf for ENJOYMENT not to get my handicap as close to 0 as possible". Great for him. and the CB guyz say "Terrific. Play whatever you want".

> >

> > Later on he posts about forgiveness being overrated and CB guyz "drinking the Kool Aid" and claims he's a "good ball striker,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, for his handicap level" (whatever that means). Personally, I think there are great, very good, good, average, etc........ ball strikers. For my handicap ? Makes no sense - and the clubs don't know what your handicap is,,,,,,,, or maybe they do after you hit 'em for a while. LOL

> >

> > 2) Then we get a low teen handicapper that knows everything about equipment, knows every driver shaft's bend profile by heart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and had his best round ever (78) with his BLADES. And in his very next cyber breath he tells us he hit 4 or 5 greens. He shot 78 because of his blades ?

> >

> > 3) Then we have a 27 handicap talking about his "turf interaction".

> >

> > 4) Then we have a guy who hasn't been playing all that long who says "my ball striking has improved dramatically with less forgiving irons, despite a similar amount of steady practice, where the only change was the type of iron I was practicing with". Then he tells us he's a "legitimate 27 handicapper".

> >

> > Not to mention that as beginners, in their first few years of learning and practicing, they can't HELP but improve, often rather dramatically. But it's one thing to go from 27 to 20, or 21 to 15 or so but after that ??? Not quite as easy.

> >

> > You yourself tell us " I started playing 2 years ago. I'm a 15 hcp now and started using iBlades around 20 hcp". Now you admit they're not true blades but they're not all that easy to hit but are you attributing your 5 stroke drop to the iBlades ? Sure sounds like it. Get back to us in another 2 years and see where you are - especially if you're not taking, or going to take some instruction. And even YOU play AP-1s "when it counts".

> >

> > I mean some of this stuff sounds like the fat old guy watching a ballerina on TV standing on her toes for a minute or 2 and saying to anyone who'll listen "That don't look that hard. I could do that."

> >

> > Most of us, certainly myself, tell the beginners/high handicappers to GO GET LESSONS and then figure out what clubs to get - falls on deaf ears. If you've never taken lessons, unless you've gotten really good on your own (and even then sometimes) you really have no idea how to swing the club. It's is extremely difficult to train yourself (properly). It's like that old saying, "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client"

> >

> > The CB supporters, like myself, believe it or not, are trying to HELP the higher handicappers shoot better scores and (presumably) enjoy the game more. I daresay MOST golfers enjoy their day more when they shoot lower scores; not all maybe, but certainly most.

> >

> > And almost without exception we tell the blade guys to "play whatever you want for whatever reasons you want - we don't care".

> >

> > But enough with the snow jobs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and the ridiculous "reasons". Play 'em because you WANT to. 'nuff said.

> >

>

> Laughable? Nearly every point in your rambling response is flawed, and in nearly every case you misinterpreted the person you're quoting. Including myself.

>

> I wont bother dissecting the OP's original intentions or the fact that you certainly CAN be a great ball striker and have a high handicap (I know a few). My point was merely to propose a theory - that it may theoretically be possible for blades to speed the learning curve, if you're a very good learner. This is concordant with other sports science. With or without lessons. This is basically unrelated to the OP's point, although I feel that he was also misunderstood.

>

> I really feel that using more demanding clubs has improved my game and will continue to. Several other people have stated the same thing. Some are low handicappers. We're talking only about the training process and not scoring itself.

>

> Yet instead of actually LISTENING to these interesting cases/theories you fall back on all the same, repetitive, nonsensical non-arguments to our point. In fact I'm not even sure what your actual point is, except for that blades seem to **** you off, when in the wrong hands. Hence my strong suspicion for what can only be described as "jealousy."

>

> But hey man, play what you want ;)

Yes, laughable.

"instead of listening" Gracie ? Obviously I listened. I repeated their whines.

Nearly every point is flawed ? Right, I'll bet you can go back and find where I didn't dot an "i" or cross a "t". So you'd be right ( guess), my arguments are flawed. LMAO

So show me where's I'm wrong instead of the old fallback/cop out "You don't know what you're talking about"

You feel the "more demanding" clubs are improving your game ? You ADMIT "IT" ? That's all I really care about. Thank you for your support !!! LMAO

nsxguy · April 10, 2019

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @drugazi said:

> > > > @bub72ck said:

> > > > We get this topic frequently and I have to say I disagree. "Good" ball striking is a very relative term depending on what you are looking to get out of your game. If you find enjoyment out of that perfectly struck shot from a blade that's awesome, but to sluff off forgiveness between MBs and CBs is really painting with a broad brush. I don't know what your handicap is (you only said mid-high), but I am not sure you know what consistently finding the center of the club is. I don't think I do either. A round of golf for most anyone, save the top players in the world, is about consistency and quality of mis-hits. Losing 5 yards on a mis-hit shot is the difference between being on the green and off, or in a bunker, or in a water hazard. You said that your short game was weak. That weakness is going to be magnified by missed greens and further distance from the hole.

> > > >

> > > > The bottom line is you can do whatever you wish with your game, but more than likely playing blades is costing you strokes.

> > >

> > > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

> >

> > No offense but your last statement pretty much gives you away.

> >

> > Your walking 2 handicap doesn't mean a thing when you take the "exception" and try to make it the "rule". I have a dear friend who is a Mensa member. I barely understand him at times but he can barely boil water (OK, that's an "exaggeration for effect" but you get my point)

> >

> > NOBODY said "always missing longer is better". Nobody. And you, like he who's name cannot be spoken, bring up being sorft of a bunker or water being better than being in it with a CB. Goodness gracious.

> >

> > Please feel free to post as large a variety of circumstances as you can where being SHORT of one's intended target is BETTER than being closer to one's intended target.

> >

> > TIA

> >

>

> i don't recall every playing and thinking of misses. I mean at times after the fact i have said "i'm glad i went there instead of over there" however i wouldn't base my game around it.

Really ? When you consider a shot you don't take into account where it could end up if you "miss" ?

OK. Different strokes and all,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

cliffhanger · April 10, 2019

> @nsxguy said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @drugazi said:

> > > > > @bub72ck said:

> > > > > We get this topic frequently and I have to say I disagree. "Good" ball striking is a very relative term depending on what you are looking to get out of your game. If you find enjoyment out of that perfectly struck shot from a blade that's awesome, but to sluff off forgiveness between MBs and CBs is really painting with a broad brush. I don't know what your handicap is (you only said mid-high), but I am not sure you know what consistently finding the center of the club is. I don't think I do either. A round of golf for most anyone, save the top players in the world, is about consistency and quality of mis-hits. Losing 5 yards on a mis-hit shot is the difference between being on the green and off, or in a bunker, or in a water hazard. You said that your short game was weak. That weakness is going to be magnified by missed greens and further distance from the hole.

> > > > >

> > > > > The bottom line is you can do whatever you wish with your game, but more than likely playing blades is costing you strokes.

> > > >

> > > > The problem is that it's such a crapshoot. Let's use your example, where a mishit is magnified five yards by a blade iron, as opposed to a cavity. Let's say that the pin is front and it's tucked behind a bunker. If I have a five yard mishit with a cavity-back, I'm definitely in the bunker, maybe even plugged in the face. On the other hand, let's say that five-yard mishit turns into a ten yard mishit with a blade iron. Instead of being in the bunker, I'm sitting in the fairway, with a better shot of making par. It's not always better to miss LONGER. In fact, I'd say it's a total crapshoot. It completely depends on the individual hole, as well as other factors such as wind, club selection, etc. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that shows always missing LONGER is better than missing shorter. There are WAY too many variables in golf for that conclusion. But, if you listen to equipment manufacturers, they'll keep taking your money!

> > >

> > > No offense but your last statement pretty much gives you away.

> > >

> > > Your walking 2 handicap doesn't mean a thing when you take the "exception" and try to make it the "rule". I have a dear friend who is a Mensa member. I barely understand him at times but he can barely boil water (OK, that's an "exaggeration for effect" but you get my point)

> > >

> > > NOBODY said "always missing longer is better". Nobody. And you, like he who's name cannot be spoken, bring up being sorft of a bunker or water being better than being in it with a CB. Goodness gracious.

> > >

> > > Please feel free to post as large a variety of circumstances as you can where being SHORT of one's intended target is BETTER than being closer to one's intended target.

> > >

> > > TIA

> > >

> >

> > i don't recall every playing and thinking of misses. I mean at times after the fact i have said "i'm glad i went there instead of over there" however i wouldn't base my game around it.

>

> Really ? When you consider a shot you don't take into account where it could end up if you "miss" ?

>

> OK. Different strokes and all,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

>

well lets say if there is water front i obviously don't want to hit it there... so i plan my distance around that. Then i commit to a distance and focus on that, the water doesn't exist anymore... unless it goes in there of course lol.

tsecor · April 10, 2019

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-good-ballstriker-golf-1564009

This is my point....ball striking is an official stat on the pGA tour as we all know, but like everything else, great ball striking doesn't always equate to good scoring.

> @nsxguy said:

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > you can be a good ball striker and shoot 90.....bad short game, wrong club selection, bad course management.....hitting is squarely doesn't equate to great scoring....its like the forgiveness debate......its great to have "help" but it doesn't mean you score well

> >

> > truth^^^...... hitting the middle of the face is maybe 20% of it...maybe..

>

> Brother, leave a thread for a few hours and all sorts of heck breaks loose LOL

>

> A good ball striker who shoots 90 is truly a mythical creature. Now tsecor sats "can" so I suppose somebody that *might* be a goo ball striker *could* have that bad a day but it's not likely. Anybody who's spent that much time becoming proficient in ball striking is NOT going to have such a poor mental game, or be so poor at club selection OR have SUCH a bad short game that he shoots 90 unless he's a guy that, having a bad round, he just doesn't care the rest of the way.

>

> Mt friend, you have indicated a number of times that you are not a great putter BUT my guess is you're not nearly as bad as you believe yourself to be. I probably get every bit as frustrated as you (and have a closet full of putters to PROVE it LMAO) but if you held yourself to a the PRO standard when you go back over and analyze your round, you probably wouldn't feel quite so bad about it.

>

> The Pros 50% mark is about 7 feet, yes ? Don't you feel you have at least a 50% chance of making a 7 footer ?

>

> I personally don't keep ANY stats. It might drive me crazy(er). I DO go over every shot during a round in my head after the round on the ride home or maybe when I get home to see where I might need work (besides everywhere of course LOL). Just for fun I'll think about good drives (not necessarily fairways hit), total putts, up & down percentage and GIRs.

>

> The nature of golf does not allow for excellent statistical data. So much depends on the previous shot. So much depends on environmental conditions. No 2 courses are exactly alike. Fairways are cut narrower (or wider), greens are cut faster (or slower). Pins are put in very tough places (or very easy places). There are WAY too many factors to keep GIR, PPR, PPGIR, fairways hit.

>

> There are also so many days when one part of the game works and others don't. And sometimes one makes up for the other.

>

> Having said that my BEST rounds are NOT when my driving's great, NOT when my chipping is great and NOT when my putting is great (although better than average sure helps LOL).

>

> My BEST rounds are when my irons and proximity to the hole are very good. And blades won't accomplish that for ME. I have hit plenty of every type of iron to come to that conclusion.

>

> Anybody disagrees ? No worries.

>

[https://thoughtco.com/what-is-a-good-ballstriker-golf-1564009](http://https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-good-ballstriker-golf-1564009 "https://thoughtco.com/what-is-a-good-ballstriker-golf-1564009")

gbartko · April 10, 2019

> @lawsonman said:

> Hey, we're getting back to normal around here. A blade vs shovel controversy

thats what you get when you use "shovel" as a pejorative :wink:

what would be the equivalent for a blade? Poser stick?

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

I don't have any issue with modifying a stat to better suit your own game.

If you want to include balls landing on the fringe as a GIR, that's fine by me. If you want to mix putts from off the green along with putts on the green, that cool too. If you want to focus on conditional stats like GIR-per-fairway-hit or putts-per-GIR, then do it.

Statistics are only as helpful as the application allows.

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

> @gbartko said:

> > @lawsonman said:

> > Hey, we're getting back to normal around here. A blade vs shovel controversy

>

> thats what you get when you use "shovel" as a pejorative :wink:

> what would be the equivalent for a blade? Poser stick?

"Blade" already sounds ridiculously pretentious if I'm totally honest, LOL.

cliffhanger · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> I don't have any issue with modifying a stat to better suit your own game.

>

> If you want to include balls landing on the fringe as a GIR, that's fine by me. If you want to mix putts from off the green along with putts on the green, that cool too. If you want to focus on conditional stats like GIR-per-fairway-hit or putts-per-GIR, then do it.

>

> Statistics are only as helpful as the application allows.

for me measuring GIR per Fairway hit takes the excuses out of the equation. The overall GIR stat is important as well however with this stat I can't say a bad bounce or a tree or whatever... when i have an iron in my hand from a fairway and i miss the green its no excuses or coverups.

nostatic · April 10, 2019

So> @gbartko said:

> > @lawsonman said:

> > Hey, we're getting back to normal around here. A blade vs shovel controversy

>

> thats what you get when you use "shovel" as a pejorative :wink:

> what would be the equivalent for a blade? Poser stick?

Perhaps "butter knife." Thought butter is rarely pejorative except when talking to a cardiologist...

To distill down, seems that most would agree that blades give more feedback, and that could help a player sort out their misses. And CB/GI/SGI have some forgiveness, and that could help a player miss a bit less. Beyond that it flies into hyperbole...

fwiw my ball striking is inconsistent right now (working with a coach rebuilding my swing), and I'm not hitting a lot of GIRs. But I'm scoring ok, particularly given my inconsistency, because my ability to scramble and manage the course didn't get nearly as rusty (or is as impacted by an aging body) as my full iron shots. Technology has made my driver much more consistent (G400Max is magic to me). Since I like to experiment, I will get a blade and mess with it at the range given the opinions shared here. I doubt I'll game it though, as I don't have the time or physical ability to whack a couple hundred balls a day like I did when I was a teen or 20-something.

As for posing, I try to mostly ignore what other guys are playing. My local course is a somewhat short muni, and I've played with everyone from scratch golfers to a 79 year old former welterweight boxer who maxed out at about 100 yards off the tee (he had a great attitude - fun guy to play with). Clubs are all over the map, swings are all over the map, but I still get surprised by someone with a great swing who can't score and someone with a scary swing who does (and vice versa). While there is a single final metric (score), lots of paths to get there.

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > I don't have any issue with modifying a stat to better suit your own game.

> >

> > If you want to include balls landing on the fringe as a GIR, that's fine by me. If you want to mix putts from off the green along with putts on the green, that cool too. If you want to focus on conditional stats like GIR-per-fairway-hit or putts-per-GIR, then do it.

> >

> > Statistics are only as helpful as the application allows.

>

> for me measuring GIR per Fairway hit takes the excuses out of the equation. The overall GIR stat is important as well however with this stat I can't say a bad bounce or a tree or whatever... when i have an iron in my hand from a fairway and i miss the green its no excuses or coverups.

I can't help but wonder if it's just a lack of data that pushes people towards debating GIR. Again, we don't want to forget that it correlates with handicap quite well.

Stats come in all sorts but the good ones are predictive. The thing that's so nice about GIR is that it's predictive. That's what makes it a good stat. It doesn't "lie" about what it thinks someone will shoot when they come back and play a course for the 20th time.

If you have a consistent game...that is, you swing more or less the same all year and play a lot you end up with a lot of data points. Let's say you play 60 rounds (that's 1,080 holes) over a season. In that case your GIR% is going to be pretty informative unless you're working on big swing changes or something.

Then again, if a guy's swing varies wildly round to round he's more prone to ignoring the data from a bad day. Or maybe he just doesn't play 60 rounds a year and so his data is less reliable. Still, I don't want to make excuses. It doesn't take more than a few rounds to basically spell out what kind of player you are (if we're isolating how somebody performs on a particular course).

I would be somewhat skeptical of guys who ran from GIR. There's often a come-to-Jesus moment where the player who thinks he's solid has to accept he's only averaging like 5 GIR and kind of deserves his scores.

Golf is fickle and misleading. It's very easy to believe you're a better ball-striker than you are. We can see bad drives go OB. We can see short putts miss the hole. But we rarely notice similar misses with the irons because we don't hit them OB nor do we expect to hit them to 3-ft every time.

That's a big reason why GIR is important. People will seek out stats that reinforce their beliefs if they're allowed to. By the time we widdle it down to "GIRs-from-fairway-lies-that-were-level-and-from-distances-that-weren't-crazy" we end up with scarcely little data to go on or we're simply staring at shots that are deceptively easy (i.e. PW shots).

MelloYello · April 10, 2019

The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

So while there might be some, small advantage to a course with bigger greens I wouldn't expect it to be night and day. It'd be slight and GIR would still remain a good indicator.

deadsolid...shank · April 10, 2019

> @MelloYello said:

> The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

>

> If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

>

> People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

>

> It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

Sign In

My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

asofine

gbartko

Muirfield Willie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment