My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[cliffhanger]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > > > @nostatic said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Similar problem with dispersion. If I hit 5 shots 30 yards left and 5 shots 30 yards right the simulator stats would show my average dispersion as zero. Not quite accurate, is it ? LOL

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, it is accurate (average is just a calculation - it is what it is), but not particularly useful or representative of the effort.

> > > >

> > > > I wouldn't call that dispersion zero at all. Typically, measurements like this are typically done with absolute magnitude of error. I.e. or, visually, how much physical area the dispersion pattern covers. I've used this sort of thing in a past life dealing with fabrication of electronic circuits, but this sort of measurement is literally everywhere - e.g. long range target shooters measure their dispersion by how big a circle encompasses the holes on the target sheet.

> > >

> > > You wouldn't (and shouldn't) but I'm pretty sure the simulator does (although I could be mistaken).

> >

> > so now this has turned into a conversation about dispersion when someone has clearly indicated that the average of his shots distance wise was better with the blade? Interesting turn of events when the distance myth was proven inaccurate. Its also interesting that now any averages of shots is not relevant to the conversation... yes interesting indeed.

>

> Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

 

Note that the intent of that post was to show the comparison distance and dispersion between two clubs of different "forgiveness" levels. It wasn't meant to showcase his overall ball striking ability. I do see how you would make that mistake though.

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Disraeli(?)

>

> IMO golf does not lend itself well to statistics; however that doesn't make all statistics irrelevant.

>

> Thanks for going through all those shots but the problem with "averages" for something like this is that an average (distance especially) is mostly irrelevant unless you take out the really poor strikes. I GET that they count in an average but they shouldn't count in evaluating a club UNLESS there are way too many of them. And in THAT case, perhaps you should just disqualify that club (or at least with that shaft).

>

> Similar problem with dispersion. If I hit 5 shots 30 yards left and 5 shots 30 yards right the simulator stats would show my average dispersion as zero. Not quite accurate, is it ? LOL

>

> I say this because once you choose a club, with practice, you will get fewer and fewer "awful" strikes. Also, if you're only going to carry a 7 iron 99 yards, do you really care if it had gone 109 or 89 ? Niope, probably in the same sort of trouble with any of the 3.

>

> Since you said the Ap-1 7 and the MP4 6 went about the same distance (due to loft no doubt), those are the 2 sets I looked at. Unfortunately, since you didn't take out the worst hits the AP-1 "low" of only 99 yards carry skews the average of the other 9(?). The average is more relevant without the worst strikes.

>

> I suspect the 99 yard strike was a skulled shot (a pull hook too as the worst sidespin was -2000 to the hook(?) side) and that might be at least one reason why the difference in dispersion from right to left sidespin is so wide (over 3,000). So the sidespin difference in this case is unuseable. Also, related to sidespin is the question of whether you were trying to move the ball one way or the other or hit it straight.

>

> Take out that 99 yard carry and your average for the AP-1 is now 136, not 132. Take out the 118 (lowest) out of the MP4 and your average carry is 140, not 138. And that's just the one poor strike we can see.

>

> Point is, accumulated results/averages, to ME, don't tell nearly the whole story. As well, I expect you didn't use any but if you'd had impact tape on the face, I'd have liked to see that as well.

>

> Personally I never use averages. I hit balls and observe each one. I "throw out" the terrible swings. Anyway, IMO, what you really need to do to evaluate your clubs is to list all the strikes with each one and go over them one-by-one.

>

> Anyway, good on ya for trying different things.

 

Thanks!

 

I didn’t delete any shots and kept the ugly ones in. I think it makes for a more interesting sample, as I really only had one or two shots that were awful in the batch, and it does inadvertently show that no iron is a magic cure for pilot error.

 

From a high level, I think the most useful columns are the “high” numbers for ball speed, carry, and total—which shows my best strike—and the averages on carry/total/ball speed/spin. On the “high” side, I think it shows the MP-4 and AP1 are about the same on ball speed and distance when I do my job right. However, I did have better shots and distance with the Mp-4 on average, and much better accuracy, as you can see.

 

For the averages, you’re absolutely right that a bad shot can skew an average lower. When I actually pull my 6 iron, I’m looking for a carry of about 145 on a good strike, which is higher than my average but spot on for when I make a good strike.

 

The sim in my building doesn’t let me print out a summary of my shots, or I would. Thet being said, you can still read the individual shots—the map on the bottom shows the arc of my shots, so you can see how many fell short and, roughly, if it was extreme. The map in the top right helps you see how offline the shots were from center and how long they went compared to each other. You can also compare them across sets—I.e. set #3s shots had a higher trajectory and height than set#2, and only two shots were markedly short (the shortest of which is actually the current shot).

 

You can also see certain landmarks on the screen to gauge distance left/right—for instance, the start of the red mulch on the left hill is about 50 feet left of the center line.

 

In set #1, the low shot for total, carry, and spin was that slice to the right. It’s the short shot on the bottom map and the right shot in the top right. The other 9 shots were much better. Likewise, in set #2, the low shot is the right slice. In set #3, the low shot is the current shot. Set #4, the low shot is the second leftmost shot—you can see the faint outline in the top right as well as the main screen—there are only two shots on the left of center. In set #5, there wasn’t a notable low shot—I had 10 pretty good ones, with the majority near center. The long shot, though, is predictably the big left draw—you can spot it in the top right as the longest shot of that grouping.

 

I agree that dispersion is skewed by the outliers, and I ignore the average distance category, as I find it does seem to treat an equal miss left and right as an average straight shot. : D

 

However, on a high level, I think the sets show that, for me, there isn’t a huge difference between the two irons, though I have a bit more control on shot direction/dispersion and better distance with the MP-4s. In theory, I totally agree that I should be able to hit the AP1 6 iron as well as the MP-4. My results with the AP1 7 iron are good, so in theory, I should be able to have similar results with the 6 iron. In practice, though, I keep finding I get consistently better result with the MP-4, and that I’m not as accurate with the AP1 or as able to control my shot shape. Swapping between the two is almost like an on/off switch for me—you can see what I mean in the contrast between sets #4 and #5 / #2 and #3—there’s a big difference in accuracy. On the course, I only get one shot, and what I tend to find is that, if I only get a single practice swing and need to make my shot count, I do a better job of getting a good shot with the Mp-4 on the simulator. Now, the next step is to see if it’s true on the course—I’m playing 9 holes in the rain this Sunday, so I’ll have more experience to report back soon. : )

 

 

[revanant]

> @BiggErn said:

> Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

 

Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

 

[BiggErn]

> @revanant said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

>

> Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

>

 

There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

[revanant]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> >

> > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> >

>

> There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

 

Totally. Glad we agree. : )

 

[cliffhanger]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> >

> > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> >

>

> There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

 

Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

[BiggErn]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > >

> > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > >

> >

> > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

>

> Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

 

I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

[cliffhanger]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > >

> > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > >

> > >

> > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> >

> > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

>

> I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

 

What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

[BiggErn]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > >

> > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > >

> > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> >

> > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

>

> What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

 

Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

[cliffhanger]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > >

> > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > >

> > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> >

> > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

>

> Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

 

So a blade mishit automatically equals 30-40 yards loss of distance? I don’t think that’s a factual statement. Every mid handicap sucks at everything except for mediocre ball striking (another non fact of yours) however some do. A bad short game won’t save anyone. A good short game can save some people.

 

Your comments would hold water if you didn’t try to make them absolute and include everyone. Some yes, most maybe, but not all... that’s just not plausible considering all of the unique factors in every person without even going into their golf games.

I always say you can never fault anyone for trying, unfortunately that doesn’t apply here with mid cappers and blades ... somehow it applies to pretty much every other golf related decision though. Interesting, in a way it’s almost like you are trying to justify your own decisions through this thread.

[lenman73]

biggern still hasn't answered why he spends so much time in blade forums when he is so scared of them. 30-40 yards loss ? I think you might want to look up the definition of "fact" biggern. If you think every miss hit has that result then you have either never hit one or if you did, you have the incredible ball striking prowess you claim other midcaps to have. Not to mention the workability of said mb"s. Again, they do not need to be hit absolutely perfect. Slight imperfections in the strike do not result in the detrimental outcome you pose as facts. Do your hands still sting from that one time you tried hitting a blade ?

 

And to another accusation you made earlier, no where, and I mean no where in this thread or any other did I ever insinuate that I had a weak short game. So you are wrong again biggern. Sensing a theme yet?

 

Also another fact, as many have mentioned, a benefit of a blade for some is confidence from how it looks at address . Confidence in this game holds a lot of water. There is more than one benefit of hitting a any club that any player desires. The intangibles are what someone like you seems to not understand. Some folks may get the same effect looking down at a big sgi club, and that is fine too. But then biggern, or shall we call you smallern from now on, it has been grossly apparent for quite sometime you are incapable of acting like an adult in here and you are nothing but a troll in here and have added absolutely nothing to the discussion, unless you call telling people you don't know that they suck at golf, then that is quite the contribution.

[nsxguy]

> @revanant said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > >

> > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > >

> >

> > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

>

> Totally. Glad we agree. : )

>

>

 

I see BALL speed on there.

 

Any chance you also got the SWING speed ?

[revanant]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > >

> > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > >

> > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> >

> > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

>

> Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

 

My friend—you are factually wrong. A slight mishit with a blade does not lost 30-40 yards. A big mishit with a blade does not lose 30-40 yards.

 

A slight mishit with a blade isn’t going to doom you. In fact, when I take a bunch of shots with a blade, my average carry, roll, and ballspeed are basically the same as my AP1s—as are my best hits.

 

If I was really mishitting my blades and striking all over the face, I wouldn’t be getting consistent draws and slight fades near the center line of the driving range. If a slight mishit with a blade dropped major ballspeed and distance, it would show up in the numbers.

 

Instead, what came out is what a lot of people say when discussing blades vs GI—the misses are comperable—with bad misses being a wash, and some misses with a GI going long and offline, where the blades cluster together more towards center and have more shape.

 

Mostly, I think this is because mishits with a GI iron aren’t quite as forgiving as you think they are. I don’t find it helpful to retain ballspeed and carry if the face of my iron is open or closed—I wind up with a long miss and I might lose my ball. It’s a very punishing miss.

 

Plus, for whatever reason, I do find I have better mechanics and results when I use my blades. I’m more accurate. I have more control. My misses are more predictable, and I correct mishits faster during a range session. I’m not ignoring facts. I’m actively looking at the facts, and finding a better result with blades, even though they have less weight in the perimeter and more in the center. If I had to guess, it’s probably because when I swing a blade, I’m more careful about my setup and more quickly and clearly alerted if my form is slipping, so I correct better and hit more shots close to center—where my blades give me more mass and better results.

 

There is a family of clubs out there that might give me similar results and a little less distance loss—the P760s/716 CBs of the world. But the point being made here is not who makes the best club to marry aesthetics, workability, and forgiveness into a small and affordable package. It’s “what happens if a high handicap player starts playing blades?” And the answer, for some folks including me, can be that they benefit.

[nsxguy]

> @revanant said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > >

> > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > >

> > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> >

> > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

>

> My friend—you are factually wrong. A slight mishit with a blade does not lost 30-40 yards. A big mishit with a blade does not lose 30-40 yards.

>

> A slight mishit with a blade isn’t going to doom you. In fact, when I take a bunch of shots with a blade, my average carry, roll, and ballspeed are basically the same as my AP1s—as are my best hits.

>

> If I was really mishitting my blades and striking all over the face, I wouldn’t be getting consistent draws and slight fades near the center line of the driving range. If a slight mishit with a blade dropped major ballspeed and distance, it would show up in the numbers.

>

> Instead, what came out is what a lot of people say when discussing blades vs GI—the misses are comperable—with bad misses being a wash, and some misses with a GI going long and offline, where the blades cluster together more towards center and have more shape.

>

 

Since you seem to "enjoy" being "factual", the FACT is those things have been said by "blade supporters" and I might add that I could take issue with "a lot" as well. LOL

 

"Bad misses being a wash" is very much what the CBs were made for (I know, I know, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid LOL)

 

 

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > >

> > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > >

> > >

> > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> >

> > Totally. Glad we agree. : )

> >

> >

>

> I see BALL speed on there.

>

> Any chance you also got the SWING speed ?

Yeah—it’s around 75 mph, with a little variability. For whatever reason, the sim give me a club speed reading after the shot, but doesn’t display it on the summary table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cliffhanger]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > > >

> > > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> > >

> > > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

> >

> > My friend—you are factually wrong. A slight mishit with a blade does not lost 30-40 yards. A big mishit with a blade does not lose 30-40 yards.

> >

> > A slight mishit with a blade isn’t going to doom you. In fact, when I take a bunch of shots with a blade, my average carry, roll, and ballspeed are basically the same as my AP1s—as are my best hits.

> >

> > If I was really mishitting my blades and striking all over the face, I wouldn’t be getting consistent draws and slight fades near the center line of the driving range. If a slight mishit with a blade dropped major ballspeed and distance, it would show up in the numbers.

> >

> > Instead, what came out is what a lot of people say when discussing blades vs GI—the misses are comperable—with bad misses being a wash, and some misses with a GI going long and offline, where the blades cluster together more towards center and have more shape.

> >

>

> Since you seem to "enjoy" being "factual", the FACT is those things have been said by "blade supporters" and I might add that I could take issue with "a lot" as well. LOL

>

> "Bad misses being a wash" is very much what the CBs were made for (I know, I know, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid LOL)

>

>

Why would you take issue with any of it? Is anyone trying to tell you that blades would be better for you over CB’s? No I don’t think anyone is.

 

[revanant]

Actually, I found an example where I took a photo of both screens. Its from a few months ago, but it holds up.

 

 

[BiggErn]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > > >

> > > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> > >

> > > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

> >

> > My friend—you are factually wrong. A slight mishit with a blade does not lost 30-40 yards. A big mishit with a blade does not lose 30-40 yards.

> >

> > A slight mishit with a blade isn’t going to doom you. In fact, when I take a bunch of shots with a blade, my average carry, roll, and ballspeed are basically the same as my AP1s—as are my best hits.

> >

> > If I was really mishitting my blades and striking all over the face, I wouldn’t be getting consistent draws and slight fades near the center line of the driving range. If a slight mishit with a blade dropped major ballspeed and distance, it would show up in the numbers.

> >

> > Instead, what came out is what a lot of people say when discussing blades vs GI—the misses are comperable—with bad misses being a wash, and some misses with a GI going long and offline, where the blades cluster together more towards center and have more shape.

> >

>

> Since you seem to "enjoy" being "factual", the FACT is those things have been said by "blade supporters" and I might add that I could take issue with "a lot" as well. LOL

>

> "Bad misses being a wash" is very much what the CBs were made for (I know, I know, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid LOL)

>

>

 

Yep you just fell for the marketing.

[bodhi555]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > >

> > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > >

> > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> >

> > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

>

> Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

 

This isnt a road I like going down as its a bit disrespectful, but if you are losing 30 or 40 yards to a mishit on a blade, just how far away from the centre of the club are you?

 

And have you considered taking up knitting instead?

[mantan]

> @lenman73 said:

> biggern still hasn't answered why he spends so much time in blade forums when he is so scared of them. 30-40 yards loss ? I think you might want to look up the definition of "fact" biggern. If you think every miss hit has that result then you have either never hit one or if you did, you have the incredible ball striking prowess you claim other midcaps to have. Not to mention the workability of said mb"s. Again, they do not need to be hit absolutely perfect. Slight imperfections in the strike do not result in the detrimental outcome you pose as facts. Do your hands still sting from that one time you tried hitting a blade ?

>

> And to another accusation you made earlier, no where, and I mean no where in this thread or any other did I ever insinuate that I had a weak short game. So you are wrong again biggern. Sensing a theme yet?

>

> Also another fact, as many have mentioned, a benefit of a blade for some is confidence from how it looks at address . Confidence in this game holds a lot of water. ** There is more than one benefit of hitting a any club that any player desires. The intangibles are what someone like you seems to not understand. Some folks may get the same effect looking down at a big sgi club, and that is fine too.** But then biggern, or shall we call you smallern from now on, it has been grossly apparent for quite sometime you are incapable of acting like an adult in here and you are nothing but a troll in here and have added absolutely nothing to the discussion, unless you call telling people you don't know that they suck at golf, then that is quite the contribution.

 

The confidence part is huge. I can hit any iron at the range. But when it's a 170 yard shot off an uneven lie that needs to carry a water hazard and has a well protected green, am I confident in the club I pull out...or am I hoping I hit it well.

 

[lenman73]

> @mantan said:

> > @lenman73 said:

> > biggern still hasn't answered why he spends so much time in blade forums when he is so scared of them. 30-40 yards loss ? I think you might want to look up the definition of "fact" biggern. If you think every miss hit has that result then you have either never hit one or if you did, you have the incredible ball striking prowess you claim other midcaps to have. Not to mention the workability of said mb"s. Again, they do not need to be hit absolutely perfect. Slight imperfections in the strike do not result in the detrimental outcome you pose as facts. Do your hands still sting from that one time you tried hitting a blade ?

> >

> > And to another accusation you made earlier, no where, and I mean no where in this thread or any other did I ever insinuate that I had a weak short game. So you are wrong again biggern. Sensing a theme yet?

> >

> > Also another fact, as many have mentioned, a benefit of a blade for some is confidence from how it looks at address . Confidence in this game holds a lot of water. ** There is more than one benefit of hitting a any club that any player desires. The intangibles are what someone like you seems to not understand. Some folks may get the same effect looking down at a big sgi club, and that is fine too.** But then biggern, or shall we call you smallern from now on, it has been grossly apparent for quite sometime you are incapable of acting like an adult in here and you are nothing but a troll in here and have added absolutely nothing to the discussion, unless you call telling people you don't know that they suck at golf, then that is quite the contribution.

>

> The confidence part is huge. I can hit any iron at the range. But when it's a 170 yard shot off an uneven lie that needs to carry a water hazard and has a well protected green, am I confident in the club I pull out...or am I hoping I hit it well.

>

 

I agree with you 100%. But I know you and I, and any number of other people can look at a different club to get that feeling. Otherwise there would only be one club maker and we would all have the same set. For example, how many people on this board loved the G400 driver ? I am reasonably certain and would bet money that everybody who bought it does not use the same shaft in it as every other person who bought it. Some do some don't. Not one shoe fits every foot.

[BiggErn]

> @bodhi555 said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > >

> > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > >

> > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> >

> > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

>

> This isnt a road I like going down as its a bit disrespectful, but if you are losing 30 or 40 yards to a mishit on a blade, just how far away from the centre of the club are you?

>

> And have you considered taking up knitting instead?

 

Typical lack of comprehension by blade hackers. I’m not talking about me I’m referring to the guys who say they prefer to be way short and then allude to terrible scoring due to lack of short game and not their ball striking. Lol. As single digit HC I do just fine. Maybe you could use your blade as a garden tool or something.

[revanant]

I would rather be short than long. On most of the holes I play, if I’m over the green, I’ve lost my ball or I’m out of bounds.

 

The point we’re debating is how bad of a drop off a blade gives on a mishit. My experience is that it’s about 10 yards—same as my GI AP1s—and the direction is better with more of my intended shape.

 

How much do you think the drop off is? If I’m not hittting it pure, what do you think the miss looks like?

[cliffhanger]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @bodhi555 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > > >

> > > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> > >

> > > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

> >

> > This isnt a road I like going down as its a bit disrespectful, but if you are losing 30 or 40 yards to a mishit on a blade, just how far away from the centre of the club are you?

> >

> > And have you considered taking up knitting instead?

>

> Typical lack of comprehension by blade hackers. I’m not talking about me I’m referring to the guys who say they prefer to be way short and then allude to terrible scoring due to lack of short game and not their ball striking. Lol. As single digit HC I do just fine. Maybe you could use your blade as a garden tool or something.

 

Well you generalize so much in this thread that everyone assumed you were including yourself in that generalization. It would be hypocritical not to right?

 

I mean it’s rather interesting for you to say that you wouldn’t hit a blade and mishit to the sound of 30-40 yards short however a mid cap would considering of course the massive difference in scoring between you and them right.

 

That’s just common sense that it wouldn’t happen to you however it would for how many mid cappers? Oh yeah that’s right... somewhere around 21 million. And who is lacking comprehension?

[bodhi555]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @bodhi555 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > Lol. All it proved was he was a pretty terrible ball striker.

> > > > > > > > I mean, it can't be that a blade is so demanding that only a perfect ball striker can get results, while at the same time, a "terrible ballstriker" is averaging slightly better numbers and accuracy with blades than with his GI irons.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Am I a ball-striking savant? Or--maybe--blades aren't as hard to hit as you keep insisting?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There’s a point where it really doesn’t matter what you use.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your right, there is a point where it doesn’t matter what someone uses. The problem is that you are trying to dictate where that point is for someone else based on their handicap.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m not trying to dictate anything but what the facts are. Twist reality however you want to try and justify whatever you want. Hack away.

> > > >

> > > > What would you call it then? Seems like dictating to me. Again you talk about facts without presenting any. That’s not twisting reality, it’s me presenting a fact. And I don’t need to justify anything because as stated earlier, I am not gaming Blades this year. So while you keep going back to that same point, it’s irrelevant (another fact). Maybe the blinders you are wearing are even bigger than I initially thought.

> > >

> > > Just saying facts. If you hit a blade anywhere but center faced pure they are of no benefit. These are clubs that provide the ultimate in precision and workability but all I hear from the double digit bladers is the “worse miss works for me”. Ok whatever. I guess if you hit ALL over the face nothing will matter. If you’re a little off the toe, a little toward the heel, a tad thin, or a touch fat there’s clubs that offer a bit of relief. Unless you want to be 30-40 yards short but then every double digit blader sucks at everything but mediocre ball striking so short game won’t save you either. Catch 22 I guess.

> >

> > This isnt a road I like going down as its a bit disrespectful, but if you are losing 30 or 40 yards to a mishit on a blade, just how far away from the centre of the club are you?

> >

> > And have you considered taking up knitting instead?

>

> Typical lack of comprehension by blade hackers. I’m not talking about me I’m referring to the guys who say they prefer to be way short and then allude to terrible scoring due to lack of short game and not their ball striking. Lol. As single digit HC I do just fine. Maybe you could use your blade as a garden tool or something.

 

I've got a cavity backed 7 iron for that :wink:

[nostatic]

> @mantan

> The confidence part is huge. I can hit any iron at the range. But when it's a 170 yard shot off an uneven lie that needs to carry a water hazard and has a well protected green, am I confident in the club I pull out...or am I hoping I hit it well.

>

 

Would be great to separate out what percentage is mental and what percentage is physics, but until we have our robots playing for us (ala Wall*E), it'll be mostly opinion and conjecture. Seems that GI irons do provide some protection - hence people playing them even when they practice with (and prefer the look of) blades. But I'm 100% convinced that if a player believes that blades will help them dial in their swing "better" - it will do so. I also believe that for another person who believes that GI irons will help them dial in their swing "better" - it will do so. Anything that motivates you into productive practice is a good thing.

 

With humans, beyond the fact you're born and you die, there aren't really many other absolutes...

 

[MelloYello]

The only concern I would have for @revanant would be the distance. I can't see blades being the best option for someone hitting a 6-iron 145-yds. I think most skilled amateurs are on the edge and they're usually hitting a 6-iron around 180-yds. Of course, the Pro's who use blades are routinely north of 200-yds.

 

Using PGA Tour data I can project that your driver swing speed is probably around 90mph. The LPGA shows us that a person can play amazing golf with those sorts of numbers but none of those ladies are doing it with blades. That says a lot. They can get better performance with a forged CB or a GI iron and so that's what they do. Now, we don't see a lot of difference in your data now because you're just learning the game and that's fine. But in the long run you'll want something that works in your favor rather than against you. Just my 2 cents.

 

Also, in terms of understanding what perimeter weighting does, it would be beneficial for you to read Stuart G's comments in this thread: https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1677780/a-fair-question-about-forgiveness-in-irons/p1

 

I use MOI in my job everyday and was confused about it's application in golf clubs. He set me straight. I use a slightly different type that deals with cross-sectional areas and bending while club designers use a volumetric type that deals with rotation (from off-center impacts).

 

I'll let you go read that thread now and come back to my next thought after you're done, LOL.

 

Okay, now that you've read that thread, my feeling is that perimeter weighting will lead to misses that are both longer and straighter relative to blades. You ( @revanant ) mentioned that you thought it was just distance and I think that's inaccurate. I don't have data to back that up but the physics backs that up to I think it's just a question of "to what degree" does that happen. In fact, because we're strictly speaking about energy transfer, both "distance" and "direction" are ultimately going to change together. I would think it quite remarkable to see one change without the other.

 

As far as my experience goes, I'll say this. Every time I've switched over to CB irons I have noticed a slight decline in my ability to vary all dimensions of shot-making: distance, trajectory, curvature, etc.

 

For example, when I switched to 714 AP2 irons I was almost frustrated by how all my shots would go the same distance no matter what I did. Coming from blades with which I could easily vary distance and trajectory, I was shocked at how everything with the AP2s would "prefer" to end up at essentially the same spot. When I hit them hard, they went higher but came down at the same spot. The same was true of knock-down shots. At first that was a little weird, but that feature would probably be a good thing for almost all amateurs once they got used to it. To some degree I notice the same effect with my current 716 CBs. A highly-skilled iron player would definitely find it easier to take 2- or 3-yards off an MB shot with "feel" for instance. Granted, that's a pretty highly-skilled iron player who can take three yards off a 180-yd shot on command!

 

So @revanant , I think you'd be better served trying to build your game around a club that did more to help you. While the results don't show a separation now, you'll eventually get to the point where you'll see appreciable differences.

 

Also, I've mentioned how I think blades give the amateur too much feedback. That's another issue which is way more mental and leads to players over-practicing irons and neglecting other (more important) elements of their game. That's another thing altogether but which might be even more important considering that most players who get good, do so early. Most players who are shooting par or better as adults go to that level of a teenager.

 

While I picked up the game in my early 20s coming out of college and was "too late" to join a golf team and all that, I did pour myself into it over those first few years when I had the free time and I made a lot of progress just as a teenager would playing everyday after school. HOWEVER, I've seen no marked improvements in scoring since about 3-5 years after I started. In fact, my best round ever (73) came within those first 3-4 years immediately after I started playing.

 

Why?

 

Because to shoot a good score you need to do a few simple things. First, you have you know where it's going when you hit it. Second, you need to be able to pitch the ball up on the green so you don't make doubles and triples. Third, you need to be able to putt reasonably well and understand that only people who love putting ever truly get good (with a very small number of exceptions).

 

That's golf in a nutshell.

 

It doesn't take more than a few years to get to that point. For me, I started out shooting 100 and quickly got down under 90 and eventually to the point that I was occasionally shooting in the 70s. And then I stopped progressing. I should've gone to a coach or something but who's got time, right!? So I've been at that spot for the last 5-6 years. And truth is, that's the story for most guys in this game who start out like that.

 

The lesson?

 

It's best to focus on scoring. And it's a mistake to assume you're on some 20-year journey wherein you'll always get better with your irons. You won't. You'll probably spend about 2-3 years developing a swing and then you'll have that same swing forever unless you really invest the money and time to go to a real swing coach.

 

There are periods during which I've made real breakthroughs. Those have been times when I've gotten to absolutely pour myself into the game and do nothing else. After college it was my only hobby and I had a part-time job so I had the freedom to play all the time. More recently I get to play free so I'm going out 2-3 times per week.

 

But these guys who play once a week or who've been going through the same routine for years on end, they don't get anywhere. I know because they say as much as well as because I've had years like that too.

 

That's another "big picture" reason that I made the switch away from blades this year. I had a paradigm shift. I realized that I wasn't going to consistently add a little bit more to my ball-striking arsenal every year such that in a decade I'd be Tiger Woods. No!

 

In a decade I'm probably going to be the same guy I am with a 7 iron in my hand now. That's the pattern you see borne out with golfers all around. But at the same time, I can still work on stuff that'll make me a better player in 10 years despite being the same (solid) iron player. That includes stuff like driving, short game, putting, mental approach, course strategy, set make-up, knowing when/where I prefer to play, knowing how to warm-up, how much range time is too much, etc.

 

I'd much rather see golfers like you get obsessed about _scoring_ than what kinds of irons you have in the bag. And I know that any novice with blades is doing it for the same reasons I was when I started.

[cliffhanger]

I switched back from blades to CB’s this year because as I became lazy and stopped practicing mid season and thus my GIR’s started to decline as a result. My ego to hit greens and score better took over from my ego to play blades lol.

[MelloYello]

> @cliffhanger said:

> I switched back from blades to CB’s this year because as I became lazy and stopped practicing mid season and thus my GIR’s started to decline as a result. My ego to hit greens and score better took over from my ego to play blades lol.

 

I had a similar experience.

 

I was spending so much time at the range beating balls in an attempt to gain control over my swing, I ended up switching.

 

My thought process was that if I was practicing more than I ever had before with more time spent thinking about mechanics and I was still on the fence, then surely that's enough evidence to say that my game didn't justify them.

 

Now, more recently I've started to see better GIR numbers, probably because of better driving TBH, but iron play has something to do with it as well. When I play easier tees or a more open course I can get as high as 11- or 12-GIR. Even from more demanding tees on narrow courses though, I'm still seeing maybe 8 on average. That's up from last year when I was much more inconsistent.

 

The confidence I have with my CB 3i - 7i is definitely doing something for the results I get with those clubs (I think).

[cliffhanger]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > I switched back from blades to CB’s this year because as I became lazy and stopped practicing mid season and thus my GIR’s started to decline as a result. My ego to hit greens and score better took over from my ego to play blades lol.

>

> I had a similar experience.

>

> I was spending so much time at the range beating balls in an attempt to gain control over my swing, I ended up switching.

>

> My thought process was that if I was practicing more than I ever had before with more time spent thinking about mechanics and I was still on the fence, then surely that's enough evidence to say that my game didn't justify them.

>

> Now, more recently I've started to see better GIR numbers, probably because of better driving TBH, but iron play has something to do with it as well. When I play easier tees or a more open course I can get as high as 11- or 12-GIR. Even from more demanding tees on narrow courses though, I'm still seeing maybe 8 on average. That's up from last year when I was much more inconsistent.

>

> The confidence I have with my CB 3i - 7i is definitely doing something for the results I get with those clubs (I think).

It would be tough for me to commit back to blades unless I can commit to relentless practice. That’s what it takes for me to feel comfortable playing blades. I have to always be at the course and long winters up here don’t help either.