My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[nsxguy]

> @revanant said:

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

>

 

OK, I'll try once more.

 

I see your BALL SPEED on those irong comparisons.

 

Any chance those strikes registered your SWING SPEED ?

 

TIA

[lenman73]

Mello and Cliff, I appreciate the last few posts. Sadly , as I posted in the beginning of this thread, I am in a somewhat similar situation. I got rid of all my "harder" to hit clubs except one old school (1970's) set of blades that will get to see the sun a few times a year. After injuries and surgeries, I am literally in, thankfully, a small amount of pain while typing this. I am extremely thankful to still be able to even play. Many aspects in my life had to change and adapt.

I went so far as to teach myself to bowl left handed so I could still go be social with my friends on our league. So I rely on more forgiving irons just for less pain from the occasional thin shot.

[cliffhanger]

> @lenman73 said:

> Mello and Cliff, I appreciate the last few posts. Sadly , as I posted in the beginning of this thread, I am in a somewhat similar situation. I got rid of all my "harder" to hit clubs except one old school (1970's) set of blades that will get to see the sun a few times a year. After injuries and surgeries, I am literally in, thankfully, a small amount of pain while typing this. I am extremely thankful to still be able to even play. Many aspects in my life had to change and adapt.

> I went so far as to teach myself to bowl left handed so I could still go be social with my friends on our league. So I rely on more forgiving irons just for less pain from the occasional thin shot.

I am most certainly not canceling the idea of going back in the future... just not right now. I applaud everyone who has tried with good results, bad results or a mixture of both. I accept things for what they are. I attempt to control only of what is mine to control. There are no absolutes with this, just generalized opinions. Just as political or religious debates rage on... so will this debate. Keep having fun guys, that’s all that matters regardless of what stick is in your hand.

 

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

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

> >

>

> OK, I'll try once more.

>

> I see your BALL SPEED on those irong comparisons.

>

> Any chance those strikes registered your SWING SPEED ?

>

> TIA

 

It’s 76.3 mph on that swing. It’s under the heading “club speed”, between carry and backspin, in the top right.

 

Smash factor on that swing is 1.37 (ball speed/swing speed).

[nsxguy]

> @revanant said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @revanant said:

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

> > >

> >

> > OK, I'll try once more.

> >

> > I see your BALL SPEED on those irong comparisons.

> >

> > Any chance those strikes registered your SWING SPEED ?

> >

> > TIA

>

> It’s 76.3 mph on that swing. It’s under the heading “club speed”, between carry and backspin, in the top right.

>

> Smash factor on that swing is 1.37 (ball speed/swing speed).

 

I didn't ASK about "that one swing". I see it there.

 

I asked about the comparison swings.

 

I also asked about how many poor strikes and commented about the average of the "acceptable" strikes.

 

Frankly those strikes with ANY of those irons don't look like a 27 handicapper to me - so, being that those iron strikes, presumably an "average" sample size rather than an exceptional "session", where do you lose all your strokes ?

[revanant]

@MelloYello

Really appreciate the detailed response. I’m definitely going to use your tips on working on putting and chipping/pitching—that’s where I think I really have room to shed strokes.

 

Personally, I haven’t found that I get measurably more distance with my AP1s vs my MP-4s. I think carry is ultimately going to be a function of swing speed and ball speed. While certain irons may improve ball speed, i think a more likely outcome is that I gain some speed as I keep practicing , developing, and taking lessons. That being said, I don’t see myself losing a lot of ballspeed with my current irons—carry seems in line with my swing speed. I do have about a 90 mph driver swing, so that’s spot on.

 

For longer shots, I rely on my 5w. I’m thinking of adding a new 3w to the bag that I can use off the deck. But the fact is, for my longer fairway shots, I’m looking to a fairway wood anyway.

 

One thing I consistently find with my AP1s is that I don’t actually gain straighter shots or more consistent direction. In fact, my control is worse. My theory is that the irons do reduce sidespin, but aren’t able to correct for bad direction from me leaving the clubface open. The result is that I get a push right with my GI irons. In contrast, while I sometimes leave the face open with my blades, it tends to come back to the left with a draw due to my in-to-out swingpath.

 

I put 50 strikes in between my AP1s and MP-4s and posted the results a few pages ago. It’s representative of what I see every time I test. Namely, my directional control is much better with the blades, and my consistency on distance doesn’t drop off enough to justify using the AP1s.

 

I’m not against help and improved ballstriking from technology. Maybe my solution on irons will be a cheap set of 716 CBs when the prices drop. But I definitely find that certain irons—despite being billed as forgiving or game improvement—give me less reliable and accurate results. If the 716 CB improve my golf, I’ll happily play them. But for now, I’m finding I’m getting better performance out of the MP-4s than my AP1s, and it’s not because of wishful thinking. But, I’ll have more data after my round tomorrow. : )

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @revanant said:

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

> > > >

> > >

> > > OK, I'll try once more.

> > >

> > > I see your BALL SPEED on those irong comparisons.

> > >

> > > Any chance those strikes registered your SWING SPEED ?

> > >

> > > TIA

> >

> > It’s 76.3 mph on that swing. It’s under the heading “club speed”, between carry and backspin, in the top right.

> >

> > Smash factor on that swing is 1.37 (ball speed/swing speed).

>

> I didn't ASK about "that one swing". I see it there.

>

> I asked about the comparison swings.

>

> I also asked about how many poor strikes and commented about the average of the "acceptable" strikes.

>

> Frankly those strikes with ANY of those irons don't look like a 27 handicapper to me - so, being that those iron strikes, presumably an "average" sample size rather than an exceptional "session", where do you lose all your strokes ?

 

I can’t pull my swings back up. I only get to see my swing speed for a few seconds after the hit, and obviously I didn’t take a photo of every shot. That being said, I average about 75 mph, with a little bit of variance. I’m in my early 30s, so hopefully I’ll increase in speed with continued practice and lessons (which I do take and prioritize over equipment, to the extent I can afford them).

 

Honestly, my iron striking has improved over the winter, as I’ve had access to my sim and been able to practice a lot. I’ve only been able to play 9 holes since December, though, due to winter.

 

So, I think a large part of why my ballstriking might not match my handicap is that I just haven’t been able to test my handicap on the course with my improved ballstriking yet. Winter is finally over, so hopefully I’ll shed some strokes now that I get to play rounds again.

 

The other part of it is that I really do lose a lot of strokes in the short game and putting. But, I’m working on it and I think it’s going to improve.

 

The third part is that I play a difficult course. I normally go out as a single, and the groups I join up with typically play from the second tees, at a slope of 135. I typically just join them rather than play from closer tees, to not slow down pace of play.

 

I get to put everyone’s advice into practice tomorrow for 9 holes. I’m going to aim for center of green and to minimize 3-putts. I’ll report back and let you all know how it went—good, bad, and ugly.

 

 

[revanant]

@nsxguy

For bad shots, there was only really one in each set, excluding the fifth set. Everything else was within 10 yards of 145 carry. So, the average isn’t so far off.

 

You can confirm it based on the bottom map—it shows trajectory/carry in a visual form, so you can see how many dropped out of the sky/never got air vs. had a normal trajectory.

 

Personally, because I’m finding distance to be pretty consistent across irons, the bigger issue I worry about is directional control. I think the AP1 7 iron and MP-4 6 iron were pretty good for direction. The MP-4 is longer than the AP1 7 iron though, you can see it on the high shot for max carry and roll—the 7 iron didn’t fly quite as far, despite the high ball speed. It would be fine if the 6 iron performed similarly, but my AP1 6 iron results are why I prefer the MP-4s. The Mp-4 perform better for me on directional control, while I just don’t seem to get the help or shot correction that the AP1 are supposed to give me. If I was hitting the AP1 better than the MP-4, I’d happily play it.

 

I probably fit better into an iron that’s more of a compact cb, like the 716 CB. But I’m happy putting my MP-4s into play, because the full set was relatively cheap ($280 for 3-PW), the look is confidence inspiring, and I’m hitting them well.

[nostatic]

> @revanant said:

 

> One thing I consistently find with my AP1s is that I don’t actually gain straighter shots or more consistent direction. In fact, my control is worse. My theory is that the irons do reduce sidespin, but aren’t able to correct for bad direction from me leaving the clubface open. The result is that I get a push right with my GI irons. In contrast, while I sometimes leave the face open with my blades, it tends to come back to the left with a draw due to my in-to-out swingpath.

 

How many other GI irons have you tried? fwiw when I got back into playing I hit a number of the usual suspects and really didn't like the AP1. Which surprised me a little as I happily gamed DCI Golds back when I was last playing regularly in the late 80's to mid 90's. Not all GI are created equal. I also didn't like the 919 Hot Metals, but love the Hot Metal Pro. Turns out I am comfortable with less offset and smaller sole. There are a lot of different variables, so tough to generalize from a small sample size.

 

[cliffhanger]

I can relate to what @revanant is saying... out of all the blades and Players CB's i demoed this past winter only the P790's and the T-MB's gave me faster ball speeds over any MB i tried. Both of those were in the area of 5-6 MPH more ball speed on average. Other than that everything was within on average 1-2 MPH when tested. When the weather cleared up it was also verified outdoors. My concern with the blades was being able to commit to as much practice consistently all year to play well enough to justify them. i did try to test two GI irons in the regular Apex and the JPX Forged and still no significant change in ball speeds.

[MelloYello]

> @revanant said:

> @MelloYello

> Really appreciate the detailed response. I’m definitely going to use your tips on working on putting and chipping/pitching—that’s where I think I really have room to shed strokes.

>

> Personally, I haven’t found that I get measurably more distance with my AP1s vs my MP-4s. I think carry is ultimately going to be a function of swing speed and ball speed. While certain irons may improve ball speed, i think a more likely outcome is that I gain some speed as I keep practicing , developing, and taking lessons. That being said, I don’t see myself losing a lot of ballspeed with my current irons—carry seems in line with my swing speed. I do have about a 90 mph driver swing, so that’s spot on.

>

> For longer shots, I rely on my 5w. I’m thinking of adding a new 3w to the bag that I can use off the deck. But the fact is, for my longer fairway shots, I’m looking to a fairway wood anyway.

>

> One thing I consistently find with my AP1s is that I don’t actually gain straighter shots or more consistent direction. In fact, my control is worse. My theory is that the irons do reduce sidespin, but aren’t able to correct for bad direction from me leaving the clubface open. The result is that I get a push right with my GI irons. In contrast, while I sometimes leave the face open with my blades, it tends to come back to the left with a draw due to my in-to-out swingpath.

>

> I put 50 strikes in between my AP1s and MP-4s and posted the results a few pages ago. It’s representative of what I see every time I test. Namely, my directional control is much better with the blades, and my consistency on distance doesn’t drop off enough to justify using the AP1s.

>

> I’m not against help and improved ballstriking from technology. Maybe my solution on irons will be a cheap set of 716 CBs when the prices drop. But I definitely find that certain irons—despite being billed as forgiving or game improvement—give me less reliable and accurate results. If the 716 CB improve my golf, I’ll happily play them. But for now, I’m finding I’m getting better performance out of the MP-4s than my AP1s, and it’s not because of wishful thinking. But, I’ll have more data after my round tomorrow. : )

 

To be clear, I would never advocate someone go back to GI irons (AP1) if they're already comfortable looking down at something smaller. If you can already play with blades, you should be debating blades versus player's cavities. The reason is that the AP1 is going to look horrible to someone with a preference for cleaner, sharper lines. I remember playing out of another guy's bag using some bulky Adams GI CBs long ago and I could barely hit them as I was used to blades at the time. I mean, seriously, I could barely hit them. They're literally designed for bad golf swings. Just like I wouldn't expect a guy who's used to GI irons to be able to immediately transition to blades, I wouldn't expect the opposite.

 

And when it comes to actually deciding between blades and player's CBs you'll find a lot of your decision driven by subjective experience regarding what kinds of results you're seeing on the course. For instance, I play in the southeast so there are a lot of hills everywhere (think Augusta, LOL). There are many, many times when you're hitting uphill and need every bit of launch you can get. Or times when you are hitting off a side-slope that makes that simulator practice (from a perfectly flat mat) seem almost pointless.

 

IMHO, that's the type of stuff that should drive your decision. So while it's awesome to have a simulator, I don't actually think I'd use it much to decide what clubs to use unless I was strictly playing Par-3 courses or something like that. I would use it a ton to practice, for sure, but the difference between blades and player's CBs is slight enough that you need to use "in the field" data to decide.

 

So as far as MP4 versus AP1, I'd probably hit the MP4 just in principle. I did with the Nike VR TW blades what you're doing with the MP4 and in my experience, no, you're probably not "good enough" to play the MP4. I would've admitted that about the TW blades when I had them and you'd probably agree with the MP4 today.

 

BUT, the AP1 is a big, clunky GI iron designed for guys who struggle getting the ball airborne. I mean, dude, if you're practicing on the regular, you don't need a freakin' AP1.

[oukeith]

Molinari, Koepka, and Finau all should have been using game improvement clubs on 12.

[revanant]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @revanant said:

> > @MelloYello

> > Really appreciate the detailed response. I’m definitely going to use your tips on working on putting and chipping/pitching—that’s where I think I really have room to shed strokes.

> >

> > Personally, I haven’t found that I get measurably more distance with my AP1s vs my MP-4s. I think carry is ultimately going to be a function of swing speed and ball speed. While certain irons may improve ball speed, i think a more likely outcome is that I gain some speed as I keep practicing , developing, and taking lessons. That being said, I don’t see myself losing a lot of ballspeed with my current irons—carry seems in line with my swing speed. I do have about a 90 mph driver swing, so that’s spot on.

> >

> > For longer shots, I rely on my 5w. I’m thinking of adding a new 3w to the bag that I can use off the deck. But the fact is, for my longer fairway shots, I’m looking to a fairway wood anyway.

> >

> > One thing I consistently find with my AP1s is that I don’t actually gain straighter shots or more consistent direction. In fact, my control is worse. My theory is that the irons do reduce sidespin, but aren’t able to correct for bad direction from me leaving the clubface open. The result is that I get a push right with my GI irons. In contrast, while I sometimes leave the face open with my blades, it tends to come back to the left with a draw due to my in-to-out swingpath.

> >

> > I put 50 strikes in between my AP1s and MP-4s and posted the results a few pages ago. It’s representative of what I see every time I test. Namely, my directional control is much better with the blades, and my consistency on distance doesn’t drop off enough to justify using the AP1s.

> >

> > I’m not against help and improved ballstriking from technology. Maybe my solution on irons will be a cheap set of 716 CBs when the prices drop. But I definitely find that certain irons—despite being billed as forgiving or game improvement—give me less reliable and accurate results. If the 716 CB improve my golf, I’ll happily play them. But for now, I’m finding I’m getting better performance out of the MP-4s than my AP1s, and it’s not because of wishful thinking. But, I’ll have more data after my round tomorrow. : )

>

> To be clear, I would never advocate someone go back to GI irons (AP1) if they're already comfortable looking down at something smaller. If you can already play with blades, you should be debating blades versus player's cavities. The reason is that the AP1 is going to look horrible to someone with a preference for cleaner, sharper lines. I remember playing out of another guy's bag using some bulky Adams GI CBs long ago and I could barely hit them as I was used to blades at the time. I mean, seriously, I could barely hit them. They're literally designed for bad golf swings. Just like I wouldn't expect a guy who's used to GI irons to be able to immediately transition to blades, I wouldn't expect the opposite.

>

> And when it comes to actually deciding between blades and player's CBs you'll find a lot of your decision driven by subjective experience regarding what kinds of results you're seeing on the course. For instance, I play in the southeast so there are a lot of hills everywhere (think Augusta, LOL). There are many, many times when you're hitting uphill and need every bit of launch you can get. Or times when you are hitting off a side-slope that makes that simulator practice (from a perfectly flat mat) seem almost pointless.

>

> IMHO, that's the type of stuff that should drive your decision. So while it's awesome to have a simulator, I don't actually think I'd use it much to decide what clubs to use unless I was strictly playing Par-3 courses or something like that. I would use it a ton to practice, for sure, but the difference between blades and player's CBs is slight enough that you need to use "in the field" data to decide.

>

> So as far as MP4 versus AP1, I'd probably hit the MP4 just in principle. I did with the Nike VR TW blades what you're doing with the MP4 and in my experience, no, you're probably not "good enough" to play the MP4. I would've admitted that about the TW blades when I had them and you'd probably agree with the MP4 today.

>

> BUT, the AP1 is a big, clunky GI iron designed for guys who struggle getting the ball airborne. I mean, dude, if you're practicing on the regular, you don't need a freakin' AP1.

 

Update—I shot 46 today. I usually only get to play 9 holes a week—this was my best ever.

 

Mostly, I had an excellent day chipping and pitching. Putting was ok—had a few one-putts, but I had an awful 4 putt on the last hole, when I had 5 feet for par. So, easily could have 43 today if I didn’t see-saw that 5 footer.

 

As a lot of you have pointed out, today mostly wasn’t about my iron play. On par 5s, my second shot is usually my 5w as I have to make up a lot of distance. I only hit 3 mid irons today, and another 5 or short irons. Most of my strokes were gained or lost within 50 yards.

 

@MelloYello I totally agree with all your points. I’m enjoying my MP-4s, because they’re fun to play with and an improvement over my AP1s for control. I only spent $280 for the full set. In a year or two, I can see myself plunking down real cash for a true fitting—while I probably won’t hang up my blades (since they really are fun to play), i would imaging I would be looking at the Titleist CB/Callaway Apex Pro/Taylormade P-760 equivalent.

 

That being said, my MP-4s have a decent MPF rating and they give me control. I had to hit a shot today up a hill and have it carry 140. I pulled my six and set up pretty evenly and a little tilted back. Made pure contact and hit a towering shot. I was a probably about 10 yards short, but I hit a good chip and then one putter from about 6 feet for par (it was a par 5). So, totally get your point about playing golf on real grass, with bad lies and uneven footing.

[cliffhanger]

Tiger is on 18!!! How awesome is this?

[cliffhanger]

That’s it Tiger won... i’m Buying another set of blades ????

[puttingmatt]

> @cliffhanger said:

> That’s it Tiger won... i’m Buying another set of blades ????

 

Lol's, Blades still working for winners in majors !!!

[Nard_S]

> @oukeith said:

> Molinari, Koepka, and Finau all should have been using game improvement clubs on 12.

They needed their head examined to aim at that position. GI did not work or help Spieth's stupidity on that too.

 

[chisag]

> @gbartko said:

>

> Show us on the doll where Bigg Ern touched you ?

>

 

... LOL is over used but I had a really nice, all by myself out loud laugh at this.

[chisag]

... Bigg Ern, I played golf with a mid index player today (15) that probably swung his driver around 80 mph, hit a slice and used a 12* closed face driver a flex light weight shaft and of course rarely hit the center but when he did it was like butter. I told him he needed to get a Nike Covert Tour 9* driver with a HZRDUS Black x flex shaft and practice with it. It works for MB users so I figured it should work for him.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @revanant said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > > @Timbo929 said:

> > > > > @KaiserSoze said:

> > > > > All you guys/gals talking about blades being very playable with no real loss of distance or direction on mishits are ignoring fundamental physics and math. There is a reason perimeter weighted clubs work.

> > > >

> > > > I thought forgiveness on a iron heads were for distance only and not direction..

> > > >

> > > > like if you miss the sweet spot you will still get the distance but has nothing to do with "direction" forgiveness.

> > > >

> > > > I could be wrong but that's what my fitter said. Maybe technology advanced from 2016.

> > > I don’t generally miss with a square clubface. Usually I’ve left it open. Sometimes, I can catch it closed.

> > >

> > > If I’m also not in the center of the club face with a blade, there’s less mass, so the ball doesn’t go so far offline. It loses steam.

> > >

> > > Perimeter weighting should do just that—put more weight in the perimeter. So if I make a strike with an open face, and I’m off center, then not only does the ball go right, but it should go further with more height. Now, I’m more offline.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That makes no sense at all. Just hit PW on every shot. You'll always be short of the trouble even on a mishit, just like you want!

> >

> > Distance and dispersion are the same thing. Being 2* right at 60 mph ball speed at 2* right at 80 mph ball speed are not the same quality of swing or club - the second is much better even though it goes "further right". Again, if you would pick the 60 mph so your "miss will be less offline" then you're going to shoot high scores for a long time. You want your mishits to go as close to your normal distance as possible. Its the only possible way to manage them and the course. We play in three dimensions. **If you are telling us (I don't believe this, by the way) that your right miss with a blade is 20 freaking yards (60 feet) short, that gives you a box to miss in of approximately 1200 square feet, or the size of a small house.** So if you are starting a standard 30 yard green with trouble on two sides and your trusty rusty blade in your hand, where the **** do you aim? Just pin and pray? If those numbers are right you are throwing out, your dispersion pattern is so massive you can't possibly manage a course.

>

> I don’t get it—I literally put up photos up. It's on the prior page. :D

>

> That being said, I appreciate the response.

>

> My point is this: look at my last shot in the 2nd set vs the 3rd set. Same ball speed (98 mph), same spin (~3k), very different result. The AP1 6 Iron carries 136, rolls to 154, and is 47 feet off-line. The mishit from the MP-4 carries 118, rolls to 142, and is 12 inches offline. While factoring in roll is unreliable, I'll still prefer the dead-straight shot if given a choice. My home course is a links-style track that has a lot of wind and a typical slope of 135--it's very punishing on shots that are inaccurate, but not as much on shots that are short.

>

> If you don't mind, take a look at the shot dispersion and averages, and let me know what you think. If you went down to the range, and took those 50 shots, which set looks the best to you?

>

> When I read it, my average carry and roll look best with the MP-4. I also think my shot dispersion and control is better with the MP-4. For example, there's a big difference between the 4th set (AP1) and the 5th set (MP-4), even though I hit those 20 shots back to back. I think my MP-4 shots are closer to the target and carrying further. For whatever reason, I clunk the ball around more with the AP1 6 iron, despite my best efforts. The AP1 7 Iron was better than the AP1 6 iron, but the MP-4 got better numbers and I had better control. If you ignore the number on the club, the AP1 7 iron is 31 degrees of loft and 37 inches long, and the MP-4 is 30 degrees of loft and 37.25 inches longs, so we're talking about two very similar clubs.

>

> Am I really off-base here?

>

>

 

I think you are, but there are others who don't. Not only can those roll measurements not be even close to accurate (how does the machine know how wet the ground is?), you can't go by them because they 1. vary with conditions and 2. the roll is dependent on topography which is not included in those numbers. That's why I said we play golf in three dimensions. You can't count the roll on the blade as "distance". You're comparing 118 to 136 not 154 to 142. You are making the logic mistake everyone makes - if you want to hit a club that is going to go shorter, just hit a club shorter. If the blade is 12 yards shorter than the same GI club the GI club dispersion will always be higher - its how geometry works. We measure in percent NOT absolute - the blade miss isn't 24 yards short, its (roughly) 1/6th short. That is massive.

 

"I like the blade miss because it doesn't go as far and stays online" doesn't make any sense. Just hit one less of the GI iron (7 to 8) and you'll get the exact same result. It'll go shorter and be more online. Or you could grab one blade more and have the same miss as the GI club.

 

There are reasons to play blades, and as I've said a hundred times I'm not an anti-blades guy, but "the ball rolls out straight and short when I miss" isn't one of them.

 

I understand you play a "links-style" course but distance on the roll on a links course needs to be really tightly controlled. Good links players have controlled roll-outs, not just a failure to elevate it off the ground that results in 20 yards of roll. TBH, though, 20 yards of roll on an iron isn't an equipment issue.

 

In other words, your results seems fine (the MP-4 data is good, and if you like them play them) but you seem to be retro-fitting reasoning to justify the MP-4s and that reasoning doesn't track to me. You like the MP-4s play the MP-4s. But the contention that 20 yards of straight roll with a 7 iron and 16 yards less carry is somehow a good thing I'm not biting.

 

[cliffhanger]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > > > @Timbo929 said:

> > > > > > @KaiserSoze said:

> > > > > > All you guys/gals talking about blades being very playable with no real loss of distance or direction on mishits are ignoring fundamental physics and math. There is a reason perimeter weighted clubs work.

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought forgiveness on a iron heads were for distance only and not direction..

> > > > >

> > > > > like if you miss the sweet spot you will still get the distance but has nothing to do with "direction" forgiveness.

> > > > >

> > > > > I could be wrong but that's what my fitter said. Maybe technology advanced from 2016.

> > > > I don’t generally miss with a square clubface. Usually I’ve left it open. Sometimes, I can catch it closed.

> > > >

> > > > If I’m also not in the center of the club face with a blade, there’s less mass, so the ball doesn’t go so far offline. It loses steam.

> > > >

> > > > Perimeter weighting should do just that—put more weight in the perimeter. So if I make a strike with an open face, and I’m off center, then not only does the ball go right, but it should go further with more height. Now, I’m more offline.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > That makes no sense at all. Just hit PW on every shot. You'll always be short of the trouble even on a mishit, just like you want!

> > >

> > > Distance and dispersion are the same thing. Being 2* right at 60 mph ball speed at 2* right at 80 mph ball speed are not the same quality of swing or club - the second is much better even though it goes "further right". Again, if you would pick the 60 mph so your "miss will be less offline" then you're going to shoot high scores for a long time. You want your mishits to go as close to your normal distance as possible. Its the only possible way to manage them and the course. We play in three dimensions. **If you are telling us (I don't believe this, by the way) that your right miss with a blade is 20 freaking yards (60 feet) short, that gives you a box to miss in of approximately 1200 square feet, or the size of a small house.** So if you are starting a standard 30 yard green with trouble on two sides and your trusty rusty blade in your hand, where the **** do you aim? Just pin and pray? If those numbers are right you are throwing out, your dispersion pattern is so massive you can't possibly manage a course.

> >

> > I don’t get it—I literally put up photos up. It's on the prior page. :D

> >

> > That being said, I appreciate the response.

> >

> > My point is this: look at my last shot in the 2nd set vs the 3rd set. Same ball speed (98 mph), same spin (~3k), very different result. The AP1 6 Iron carries 136, rolls to 154, and is 47 feet off-line. The mishit from the MP-4 carries 118, rolls to 142, and is 12 inches offline. While factoring in roll is unreliable, I'll still prefer the dead-straight shot if given a choice. My home course is a links-style track that has a lot of wind and a typical slope of 135--it's very punishing on shots that are inaccurate, but not as much on shots that are short.

> >

> > If you don't mind, take a look at the shot dispersion and averages, and let me know what you think. If you went down to the range, and took those 50 shots, which set looks the best to you?

> >

> > When I read it, my average carry and roll look best with the MP-4. I also think my shot dispersion and control is better with the MP-4. For example, there's a big difference between the 4th set (AP1) and the 5th set (MP-4), even though I hit those 20 shots back to back. I think my MP-4 shots are closer to the target and carrying further. For whatever reason, I clunk the ball around more with the AP1 6 iron, despite my best efforts. The AP1 7 Iron was better than the AP1 6 iron, but the MP-4 got better numbers and I had better control. If you ignore the number on the club, the AP1 7 iron is 31 degrees of loft and 37 inches long, and the MP-4 is 30 degrees of loft and 37.25 inches longs, so we're talking about two very similar clubs.

> >

> > Am I really off-base here?

> >

> >

>

> I think you are, but there are others who don't. Not only can those roll measurements not be even close to accurate (how does the machine know how wet the ground is?), you can't go by them because they 1. vary with conditions and 2. the roll is dependent on topography which is not included in those numbers. That's why I said we play golf in three dimensions. You can't count the roll on the blade as "distance". You're comparing 118 to 136 not 154 to 142. You are making the logic mistake everyone makes - if you want to hit a club that is going to go shorter, just hit a club shorter. If the blade is 12 yards shorter than the same GI club the GI club dispersion will always be higher - its how geometry works. We measure in percent NOT absolute - the blade miss isn't 24 yards short, its (roughly) 1/6th short. That is massive.

>

> "I like the blade miss because it doesn't go as far and stays online" doesn't make any sense. Just hit one less of the GI iron (7 to 8) and you'll get the exact same result. It'll go shorter and be more online. Or you could grab one blade more and have the same miss as the GI club.

>

> There are reasons to play blades, and as I've said a hundred times I'm not an anti-blades guy, but "the ball rolls out straight and short when I miss" isn't one of them.

>

> I understand you play a "links-style" course but distance on the roll on a links course needs to be really tightly controlled. Good links players have controlled roll-outs, not just a failure to elevate it off the ground that results in 20 yards of roll. TBH, though, 20 yards of roll on an iron isn't an equipment issue.

>

> In other words, your results seems fine (the MP-4 data is good, and if you like them play them) but you seem to be retro-fitting reasoning to justify the MP-4s and that reasoning doesn't track to me. You like the MP-4s play the MP-4s. But the contention that 20 yards of straight roll with a 7 iron and 16 yards less carry is somehow a good thing I'm not biting.

>

 

This is all good information, with that said is this a distance discussion or a discussion about the forgiveness of one club compared to another? I can’t think that anyone could argue distance differences from one club type to another. damn I saw a 4-5 MPH increase in ball speed from a P730/P760 iron to a P790. If we talk in pure distance, I would imagine comparing these two clubs for all of us would result in similar gaps, just in different places based on our own ability. So is our player here good enough to play blades or not... that is the question. If he wants to give up distance that’s his concern right?

[pinestreetgolf]

> This is all good information, with that said is this a distance discussion or a discussion about the forgiveness of one club compared to another? I can’t think that anyone could argue distance differences from one club type to another. **** I saw a 4-5 MPH increase in ball speed from a P730/P760 iron to a P790. If we talk in pure distance, I would imagine comparing these two clubs for all of us would result in similar gaps, just in different places based on our own ability. So is our player here good enough to play blades or not... that is the question. If he wants to give up distance that’s his concern right?

 

Nobody knows, because it is golf. We can argue physics but we can't argue what someone sees when they look down at an iron framing a ball. So we can't answer the "is this the best iron for you?" question. Its like food. Let's take a steak at a five-star restaurant versus a hamburger at Applebee's. Which is "better" ? Well, you could probably find one guy who thinks the burger is better, but when we talk about statistics and dispersion/distance we talk about an abstract golfer. We have to. We can't talk about a specific golfer because of the brain's role in the swing and the role confidence plays.

 

To the meat of your post he isn't just giving up distance. He's giving up a massive amount of carry distance on mishits. That's a huge deal. On a real golf course (well, most) when you land 20 yards short of your target on a line drive bad things happen. You usually don't just skip up 20 more yards to where it would have gone had you carried it that far. So based on this example, the abstract golfer seems way better off with the non-blade club given this data.

 

The mistake made is to think distance and dispersion are different. They're not. They are very closely related. What is the number one component to dispersion? Distance. You hit your SW in a much tighter cluster than your driver. So when we talk about "forgiveness" we are talking 95% about distance. Again, you have to get out of the trap of thinking in flat numbers and start thinking in percent. A ball that lands 5 yards short on a 50 yard shot is a 10% miss, not a 5 yard miss. That is an atrocious miss, even if it looks OK to your eye. Increasing ball speed on hits not in the center of the face is the number one way a club can help a golfer who isn't hitting it in the center of the face, because then that golfer can go down club(s) and get the same result.

 

So if this was a math problem, the golfer with those stats would be nuts to play the blades - they have zero advantage. Its like telling me you want to drive a car that can't go over 40 mph so when you get in an accident it won't be that bad. It doesn't make any sense. That said, its not a math problem, and if he likes the blades better he should play them.

 

The other issue is that high caps tend to be bad course managers. So picture your guy with a 7 iron blade and a 7 iron GI club with water right and back pin right side. He hits the GI, blocks the hell out of it and splashes. Then he hits the blade, blocks the hell out of it and lands on dry land. "Thank god my blade has better dispersion" the player says "even on mishits, I stay short of the trouble." But that is backwards thinking to a good golfer. He should have just hit the GI 8 iron and not taken on the trouble. The idea that a blade is better because the misses are shorter with tighter dispersion is silly. Just go down one GI club if you want that. It'll be the same.

 

EDIT:

But again, I point out, that this is golf not science. I play RSI1 wedges (sig old). I have for awhile. I love them. ATV sole, offset, there is no reason I "should" play these wedges but one is for tight lies and the other fluffy and my short game is really good with them. I can't make an argument why I don't play a more traditional wedge, and mathematically speaking I am probably worse off. I've literally never seen anyone else a decent am event playing iron set wedges all the way to the top of the bag. But they fit my eye and I really trust them, so they are in the bag. If a high cap wants to say that about blades my hat is off to them. 100%. I just post up when I think people are giving reasons that are attempting to logically explain a decision that is illogical but correct (and since it is golf "illogical but correct" makes up a lot of the decisions!)

 

 

[gvogel]

> @chisag said:

> ... Bigg Ern, I played golf with a mid index player today (15) that probably swung his driver around 80 mph, hit a slice and used a 12* closed face driver a flex light weight shaft and of course rarely hit the center but when he did it was like butter. I told him he needed to get a Nike Covert Tour 9* driver with a HZRDUS Black x flex shaft and practice with it. It works for MB users so I figured it should work for him.

>

 

Aren't you Mr. Helpful!

[MelloYello]

If @revanant is seeing his poor strikes go straighter with a blade, that’s fair IMHO. While the physics tells us that a blade should go further off-line there are assumptions built into that which don't necessarily hold in real life.

 

In his defense, it’s _not_ safe to assume that we’re going to make the same swing with each and every club. C’mon, that’s a fair point that the low-handicappers should appreciate.

 

We hear low-handicap players on here all the time scoff at clubs featuring too much offset because they induce an unwanted hook. We’re not robots. We swing better when we’re comfortable. We have a tendency to swing poorly when we feel uncomfortable.

 

In trying to find a suitable 2-iron, I recently tried both the 718 T-MB as well as the 718 CB. The T-MB had a bit of extra offset which brought into play the occasional hook. So without hesitation I put it aside. On the other hand, the CB looked cleaner but it wasn’t forgiving enough to justify it’s place in my bag so it didn’t work out either.

 

So, maybe @revanant is having a similar issue given the offset of the AP1?

 

It sure sounds to me like @revanant is somehow inspired to swing as well (or better) with the MP4. That’s fine. In an ideal world maybe he wouldn’t be in a blade but as he has explained several times, he’s using what he has. So good for him.

 

[cliffhanger]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > This is all good information, with that said is this a distance discussion or a discussion about the forgiveness of one club compared to another? I can’t think that anyone could argue distance differences from one club type to another. **** I saw a 4-5 MPH increase in ball speed from a P730/P760 iron to a P790. If we talk in pure distance, I would imagine comparing these two clubs for all of us would result in similar gaps, just in different places based on our own ability. So is our player here good enough to play blades or not... that is the question. If he wants to give up distance that’s his concern right?

>

> Nobody knows, because it is golf. We can argue physics but we can't argue what someone sees when they look down at an iron framing a ball. So we can't answer the "is this the best iron for you?" question. Its like food. Let's take a steak at a five-star restaurant versus a hamburger at Applebee's. Which is "better" ? Well, you could probably find one guy who thinks the burger is better, but when we talk about statistics and dispersion/distance we talk about an abstract golfer. We have to. We can't talk about a specific golfer because of the brain's role in the swing and the role confidence plays.

>

> To the meat of your post he isn't just giving up distance. He's giving up a massive amount of carry distance on mishits. That's a huge deal. On a real golf course (well, most) when you land 20 yards short of your target on a line drive bad things happen. You usually don't just skip up 20 more yards to where it would have gone had you carried it that far. So based on this example, the abstract golfer seems way better off with the non-blade club given this data.

>

> The mistake made is to think distance and dispersion are different. They're not. They are very closely related. What is the number one component to dispersion? Distance. You hit your SW in a much tighter cluster than your driver. So when we talk about "forgiveness" we are talking 95% about distance. Again, you have to get out of the trap of thinking in flat numbers and start thinking in percent. A ball that lands 5 yards short on a 50 yard shot is a 10% miss, not a 5 yard miss. That is an atrocious miss, even if it looks OK to your eye. Increasing ball speed on hits not in the center of the face is the number one way a club can help a golfer who isn't hitting it in the center of the face, because then that golfer can go down club(s) and get the same result.

>

> So if this was a math problem, the golfer with those stats would be nuts to play the blades - they have zero advantage. Its like telling me you want to drive a car that can't go over 40 mph so when you get in an accident it won't be that bad. It doesn't make any sense. That said, its not a math problem, and if he likes the blades better he should play them.

>

> The other issue is that high caps tend to be bad course managers. So picture your guy with a 7 iron blade and a 7 iron GI club with water right and back pin right side. He hits the GI, blocks the **** out of it and splashes. Then he hits the blade, blocks the **** out of it and lands on dry land. "Thank god my blade has better dispersion" the player says "even on mishits, I stay short of the trouble." But that is backwards thinking to a good golfer. He should have just hit the GI 8 iron and not taken on the trouble. The idea that a blade is better because the misses are shorter with tighter dispersion is silly. Just go down one GI club if you want that. It'll be the same.

>

> EDIT:

> But again, I point out, that this is golf not science. I play RSI1 wedges (sig old). I have for awhile. I love them. ATV sole, offset, there is no reason I "should" play these wedges but one is for tight lies and the other fluffy and my short game is really good with them. I can't make an argument why I don't play a more traditional wedge, and mathematically speaking I am probably worse off. I've literally never seen anyone else a decent am event playing iron set wedges all the way to the top of the bag. But they fit my eye and I really trust them, so they are in the bag. If a high cap wants to say that about blades my hat is off to them. 100%. I just post up when I think people are giving reasons that are attempting to logically explain a decision that is illogical but correct (and since it is golf "illogical but correct" makes up a lot of the decisions!)

>

>

illogical because he is giving up distance to the GI club or illogical because he doesn't have the ability to hit a blade? I do think we are getting away from the heart of this debate here. I know that at times we tend to over explain things in an attempt to clarify our situation... that may be the case here. Again we all learn in different ways, we all perceive things differently, and we all have different abilities to strike a golf ball. So with that said... is he good enough or not?

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > This is all good information, with that said is this a distance discussion or a discussion about the forgiveness of one club compared to another? I can’t think that anyone could argue distance differences from one club type to another. **** I saw a 4-5 MPH increase in ball speed from a P730/P760 iron to a P790. If we talk in pure distance, I would imagine comparing these two clubs for all of us would result in similar gaps, just in different places based on our own ability. So is our player here good enough to play blades or not... that is the question. If he wants to give up distance that’s his concern right?

> >

> > Nobody knows, because it is golf. We can argue physics but we can't argue what someone sees when they look down at an iron framing a ball. So we can't answer the "is this the best iron for you?" question. Its like food. Let's take a steak at a five-star restaurant versus a hamburger at Applebee's. Which is "better" ? Well, you could probably find one guy who thinks the burger is better, but when we talk about statistics and dispersion/distance we talk about an abstract golfer. We have to. We can't talk about a specific golfer because of the brain's role in the swing and the role confidence plays.

> >

> > To the meat of your post he isn't just giving up distance. He's giving up a massive amount of carry distance on mishits. That's a huge deal. On a real golf course (well, most) when you land 20 yards short of your target on a line drive bad things happen. You usually don't just skip up 20 more yards to where it would have gone had you carried it that far. So based on this example, the abstract golfer seems way better off with the non-blade club given this data.

> >

> > The mistake made is to think distance and dispersion are different. They're not. They are very closely related. What is the number one component to dispersion? Distance. You hit your SW in a much tighter cluster than your driver. So when we talk about "forgiveness" we are talking 95% about distance. Again, you have to get out of the trap of thinking in flat numbers and start thinking in percent. A ball that lands 5 yards short on a 50 yard shot is a 10% miss, not a 5 yard miss. That is an atrocious miss, even if it looks OK to your eye. Increasing ball speed on hits not in the center of the face is the number one way a club can help a golfer who isn't hitting it in the center of the face, because then that golfer can go down club(s) and get the same result.

> >

> > So if this was a math problem, the golfer with those stats would be nuts to play the blades - they have zero advantage. Its like telling me you want to drive a car that can't go over 40 mph so when you get in an accident it won't be that bad. It doesn't make any sense. That said, its not a math problem, and if he likes the blades better he should play them.

> >

> > The other issue is that high caps tend to be bad course managers. So picture your guy with a 7 iron blade and a 7 iron GI club with water right and back pin right side. He hits the GI, blocks the **** out of it and splashes. Then he hits the blade, blocks the **** out of it and lands on dry land. "Thank god my blade has better dispersion" the player says "even on mishits, I stay short of the trouble." But that is backwards thinking to a good golfer. He should have just hit the GI 8 iron and not taken on the trouble. The idea that a blade is better because the misses are shorter with tighter dispersion is silly. Just go down one GI club if you want that. It'll be the same.

> >

> > EDIT:

> > But again, I point out, that this is golf not science. I play RSI1 wedges (sig old). I have for awhile. I love them. ATV sole, offset, there is no reason I "should" play these wedges but one is for tight lies and the other fluffy and my short game is really good with them. I can't make an argument why I don't play a more traditional wedge, and mathematically speaking I am probably worse off. I've literally never seen anyone else a decent am event playing iron set wedges all the way to the top of the bag. But they fit my eye and I really trust them, so they are in the bag. If a high cap wants to say that about blades my hat is off to them. 100%. I just post up when I think people are giving reasons that are attempting to logically explain a decision that is illogical but correct (and since it is golf "illogical but correct" makes up a lot of the decisions!)

> >

> >

> illogical because he is giving up distance to the GI club or illogical because he doesn't have the ability to hit a blade? I do think we are getting away from the heart of this debate here. I know that at times we tend to over explain things in an attempt to clarify our situation... that may be the case here. Again we all learn in different ways, we all perceive things differently, and we all have different abilities to strike a golf ball. So with that said... is he good enough or not?

>

Its illogical to play a blade because your misses are shorter and therefore stay out of trouble. That doesn't make any sense.

 

I have no idea if he is good enough or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

When does a golfer stop existing in one state (best with GI) and begin to exist in another (best with blades)? Who knows? Certainly not the golfer himself. Is the cat alive or dead?

 

You can say "on average, a player of that skill level will do better with game improvement" and that is probably correct but like a lot of things it breaks down when applied to the individual golfer on a micro level because all golf games are snowflakes. We don't know if the cat will be alive or dead until we open up the Priority Mail box and head to the range!

[nostatic]

Careful - when you start to invoke quantum mechanics things get very weird, very quick (e.g. Everett's multiverses). My shot is neither in the hole or out of the hole - though it would explain a couple of lost shots that I swear were in-bounds...

 

This is the problem with "data" - there is good data, there is bad data, there is good analysis, there is bad analysis. As you point out, total distance on a sim is pretty much bad data. That is why the teachers/fitters I know always go with carry on a sim. Looking at distance percentages is an interesting perspective, but doesn't get a lot of air time, in part I think due to the industry. Are you willing to pay $700 for a driver that gives you 10 extra yards or 4% increase? 10 extra yards is the lingua franca of golfers, percent increase less so.

 

But I think there are two very different arguments being offered. One is that blades help on the course for a mid-capper. Physics says probably not. Psychology would say, "perhaps...but how does that make you feel?" The other is that blades can help a mid-capper groove his/her swing on the range (then presumably game a CB or GI club). That one seems more feasible.

[cliffhanger]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > This is all good information, with that said is this a distance discussion or a discussion about the forgiveness of one club compared to another? I can’t think that anyone could argue distance differences from one club type to another. **** I saw a 4-5 MPH increase in ball speed from a P730/P760 iron to a P790. If we talk in pure distance, I would imagine comparing these two clubs for all of us would result in similar gaps, just in different places based on our own ability. So is our player here good enough to play blades or not... that is the question. If he wants to give up distance that’s his concern right?

> > >

> > > Nobody knows, because it is golf. We can argue physics but we can't argue what someone sees when they look down at an iron framing a ball. So we can't answer the "is this the best iron for you?" question. Its like food. Let's take a steak at a five-star restaurant versus a hamburger at Applebee's. Which is "better" ? Well, you could probably find one guy who thinks the burger is better, but when we talk about statistics and dispersion/distance we talk about an abstract golfer. We have to. We can't talk about a specific golfer because of the brain's role in the swing and the role confidence plays.

> > >

> > > To the meat of your post he isn't just giving up distance. He's giving up a massive amount of carry distance on mishits. That's a huge deal. On a real golf course (well, most) when you land 20 yards short of your target on a line drive bad things happen. You usually don't just skip up 20 more yards to where it would have gone had you carried it that far. So based on this example, the abstract golfer seems way better off with the non-blade club given this data.

> > >

> > > The mistake made is to think distance and dispersion are different. They're not. They are very closely related. What is the number one component to dispersion? Distance. You hit your SW in a much tighter cluster than your driver. So when we talk about "forgiveness" we are talking 95% about distance. Again, you have to get out of the trap of thinking in flat numbers and start thinking in percent. A ball that lands 5 yards short on a 50 yard shot is a 10% miss, not a 5 yard miss. That is an atrocious miss, even if it looks OK to your eye. Increasing ball speed on hits not in the center of the face is the number one way a club can help a golfer who isn't hitting it in the center of the face, because then that golfer can go down club(s) and get the same result.

> > >

> > > So if this was a math problem, the golfer with those stats would be nuts to play the blades - they have zero advantage. Its like telling me you want to drive a car that can't go over 40 mph so when you get in an accident it won't be that bad. It doesn't make any sense. That said, its not a math problem, and if he likes the blades better he should play them.

> > >

> > > The other issue is that high caps tend to be bad course managers. So picture your guy with a 7 iron blade and a 7 iron GI club with water right and back pin right side. He hits the GI, blocks the **** out of it and splashes. Then he hits the blade, blocks the **** out of it and lands on dry land. "Thank god my blade has better dispersion" the player says "even on mishits, I stay short of the trouble." But that is backwards thinking to a good golfer. He should have just hit the GI 8 iron and not taken on the trouble. The idea that a blade is better because the misses are shorter with tighter dispersion is silly. Just go down one GI club if you want that. It'll be the same.

> > >

> > > EDIT:

> > > But again, I point out, that this is golf not science. I play RSI1 wedges (sig old). I have for awhile. I love them. ATV sole, offset, there is no reason I "should" play these wedges but one is for tight lies and the other fluffy and my short game is really good with them. I can't make an argument why I don't play a more traditional wedge, and mathematically speaking I am probably worse off. I've literally never seen anyone else a decent am event playing iron set wedges all the way to the top of the bag. But they fit my eye and I really trust them, so they are in the bag. If a high cap wants to say that about blades my hat is off to them. 100%. I just post up when I think people are giving reasons that are attempting to logically explain a decision that is illogical but correct (and since it is golf "illogical but correct" makes up a lot of the decisions!)

> > >

> > >

> > illogical because he is giving up distance to the GI club or illogical because he doesn't have the ability to hit a blade? I do think we are getting away from the heart of this debate here. I know that at times we tend to over explain things in an attempt to clarify our situation... that may be the case here. Again we all learn in different ways, we all perceive things differently, and we all have different abilities to strike a golf ball. So with that said... is he good enough or not?

> >

> Its illogical to play a blade because your misses are shorter and therefore stay out of trouble. That doesn't make any sense.

>

> I have no idea if he is good enough or not.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

> When does a golfer stop existing in one state (best with GI) and begin to exist in another (best with blades)? Who knows? Certainly not the golfer himself. Is the cat alive or dead?

>

> You can say "on average, a player of that skill level will do better with game improvement" and that is probably correct but like a lot of things it breaks down when applied to the individual golfer on a micro level because all golf games are snowflakes. We don't know if the cat will be alive or dead until we open up the Priority Mail box and head to the range!

 

If his reality is being in better overall shape on a mishit from a blade (based on his explanation), how is that illogical? The laws of averages do apply to an extent that would indicate otherwise however the players uniqueness (as per a snowflake) will determine the effectiveness of the tool being used.

 

If we are talking straight distance it’s a no brainer, again this conversation was about a mid cap striking blades well enough to play them, it wasn’t simply a distance debate. If that were the case this debate would have been over long ago.

 

I don’t like the overall perception of relying on misses however that’s me, I focus on the target and less on the things around it... that hasn’t necessarily equated into better scores but it’s how I am wired.

 

If we are talking logical, the best players in the world don’t do what I think at times of as being a logical play. Decisions are just that, a decision and they are ours to own and accept the outcome. Do some people not understand logic? I would say yes, however some do... deciferring between who can and who can’t is a tricky slope I chose not to go down. Unless of course we utilize averages to do so then it’s easy to group everyone together.

 

If the players intent is to hit the target (which should be the number 1 goal) and as a rule any mishit will end up short and out of trouble seems pretty logical to me.

[MelloYello]

Ah, so now we're playing _Copenhagen golf_?

 

When not on the course one's game simply ceases to exist in a traditional sense wherein it jumps to a superposition of all possible games until observed at which point through random collapse the true game is revealed!

 

Next you'll tell me you're a _frequentist_!

 

[nostatic]

Right before impact, all shots, good and bad exist. The moment of contact collapses the wave equation and I'm either on the green or in the lake. Or somewhere outside Nebula 314...