My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > @revanant has already stated he’d be happy with some type of a forged CB if he were starting from scratch. But since he already has 2 sets of irons (which he got a deal on), he’s simply using what he has on hand.

> >

> > So it’s really a debate about whether a 20+ handicap should play a GI iron (AP1) or whether it’s okay _(or even potentially better)_ for that level of player to **upgrade to a smaller forged CB/MB** from the get go (MP4).

> > I started out on a set of blades so it worked fine for me. **In my universe, there are forged MBs and forged CBs and that’s it**. I don't actually advise people who are serious about the game to use GI irons unless they legitimately have concerns about hitting the ball a reasonable distance.

>

> > I think there is a level of proficiency where equipment does matter. For that level of player it's virtually always a question of practicality via the **forged CB** vs pure feedback via the forged MB.

>

> @MelloYellow, just curious...do you believe that it's important that the "smaller/player's CB is forged v. cast? There are plenty of smaller player's CB irons that are not manufactured via a forging process. Ping, most notably comes to mind.

>

 

Between you and me I would include both. I only said "forged CB" because it's implied to be a non-GI club.

 

While you're correct about there being a few non-forged options (A) most players seem to prefer the feel of forged if/when they can get it and (2) you never see GI clubs that are forged.

 

Based on what I've read (which could be complete BS) it's just not that practical to physically forge a complicated "GI" type of club geometry. I know we get hybrid options like the AP2 where various forged components are welded together. That seems to be the middle ground.

 

So, if you're asking my personal opinon...well...I just don't see buying a player's club that isn't forged but IDK. Are your Ping's cast? How are they working out?

 

I do recall having some Cleveland CG-10 wedges which I liked that were done with a CMM material (Carbon Metal Matrix, I think?). And to my knowledge, Vokey's are cast, too, right? I would definitely say that my forged Nike VR and Mizuno MP-T wedges felt a tad sweeter than my current Vokeys.

 

But with irons, IDK if I could go cast with all the forged options available. I've never been a Ping guy though.

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > @revanant has already stated he’d be happy with some type of a forged CB if he were starting from scratch. But since he already has 2 sets of irons (which he got a deal on), he’s simply using what he has on hand.

> > >

> > > So it’s really a debate about whether a 20+ handicap should play a GI iron (AP1) or whether it’s okay _(or even potentially better)_ for that level of player to **upgrade to a smaller forged CB/MB** from the get go (MP4).

> > > I started out on a set of blades so it worked fine for me. **In my universe, there are forged MBs and forged CBs and that’s it**. I don't actually advise people who are serious about the game to use GI irons unless they legitimately have concerns about hitting the ball a reasonable distance.

> >

> > > I think there is a level of proficiency where equipment does matter. For that level of player it's virtually always a question of practicality via the **forged CB** vs pure feedback via the forged MB.

> >

> > @MelloYellow, just curious...do you believe that it's important that the "smaller/player's CB is forged v. cast? There are plenty of smaller player's CB irons that are not manufactured via a forging process. Ping, most notably comes to mind.

> >

>

> Between you and me I would include both. I only said "forged CB" because it's implied to be a non-GI club.

>

> While you're correct about there being a few non-forged options (A) most players seem to prefer the feel of forged if/when they can get it and (2) you never see GI clubs that are forged.

>

> Based on what I've read (which could be complete BS) it's just not that practical to physically forge a complicated "GI" type of club geometry. I know we get hybrid options like the AP2 where various forged components are welded together. That seems to be the middle ground.

>

> So, if you're asking my personal opinon...well...I just don't see buying a player's club that isn't forged but IDK. Are your Ping's cast? How are they working out?

>

> I do recall having some Cleveland CG-10 wedges which I liked that were done with a CMM material (Carbon Metal Matrix, I think?). And to my knowledge, Vokey's are cast, too, right? I would definitely say that my forged Nike VR and Mizuno MP-T wedges felt a tad sweeter than my current Vokeys.

>

> But with irons, IDK if I could go cast with all the forged options available. I've never been a Ping guy though.

 

Well I find the forged v. cast debate to be interesting both from a practical perspective and as a consumer case study. Certain manufacturers have been telling us for years that forged irons provide superior feel to the point where it's been pretty much accepted as gospel. It's amusing to me to read here on the forums that certain players believe they've finally improved enough to "step up to forged irons," lol. I think it's nonsense and I'll explain...

 

IMHO, the sweet feel of a perfectly struck true MB blade is because with a true MB design, the majority of the clubs mass is located directly behind the sweet spot, not because of the manufacturing process (forged v. cast). Striking it dead solid perfect with an MB blade provides certain unique acoustics and minimal vibration inherent in this design. The sensation is soft in your hands, and to your ears the sound is muted. Anytime you remove the mass from behind the sweet spot and spread it out to the perimeter, you lose that. So it's no surprise that when Ping first introduced investment cast perimeter weighted irons, they did not provide the same soft, vibration dampening sensation on perfectly struck shots the way an MB blade would (all of which were forged at the time). So, I think this is what initially got us heading down the path toward the belief that forged irons are inherently softer than cast.

 

To further substantiate my point, why do MB blades sting your freakin' hands so bad when you miss one? I mean, they're forged right? If forging the metal makes it soft, it should feel soft from a relative perspective no matter where you strike it, no? If it was the manufacturing process (forging), or even the relative softness of the metal itself, shouldn't they still feel softer than their investment cast and perimeter weighted counterparts? Hint: they don't! It's because of the instability of the design that miss hits with a blade feel awful and provide unpleasing vibration and audible feedback. (which ironically and as discussed, some folks find helpful in trying to improve their ball striking)

 

Furthermore, Mizuno, undoubtedly the king of producing forged irons and a company that has even gone so far as to advertise and market the virtues of the soft feel of their irons due to their grain-flow forging process, puts inserts and badges made of various alloys, elastomers, or thermoplastics behind the sweet spot of many of their thinner faced forged, but perimeter weighted offerings to dampen vibration and improve acoustics. (see the JPX 900/919 forged, MP25s, etc.). Why are those badges and inserts necessary. Shouldn't the fact that they're forged provide that soft feel by itself?

 

Now don't get me wrong, I love Mizunos and think they make great products and their irons do feel sweet when struck purely, as do many of the JDM manufacturers. The JDM market has bought into this entire forging myth hook, line , and sinker...even more so than in the rest of the world. Almost all Pings are cast with the exception of a some limited product runs that were made largely to satisfy a market niche. In fact, years ago Ping engineers created irons of identical design, one forged, the other cast. Without knowing which was which, not a single one of their Tour pros on staff could tell the difference!

 

And yes, my Ping i200s are cast, like 99% of Pings. They have some sort of elastomer badge/insert behind the sweet spot to improve feel and acoustics, and to me feel just about as good as a perimeter weighted player's CB iron can feel. They're also more durable than the similar forged offerings of other manufacturers, so that's a bonus as the grooves stay in shape longer and they don't sustain all of that bag chatter.

 

Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

[mahonie]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > >

> > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> >

> > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

>

> The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

 

[BiggErn]

> @mahonie said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > > >

> > > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> > >

> > > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

> >

> > The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

> What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

>

 

The clubs they’re reviewing aren’t even blades.

[mahonie]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > > > >

> > > > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> > > >

> > > > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

> > >

> > > The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

> > What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

> >

>

> The clubs they’re reviewing aren’t even blades.

Please, please, please read the article through. Your understanding of the issues with CBs (and benefits) will be enhanced. The review highlights the issues with the Rocketbladz Tour irons that the TaylorMade engineers tried to fix...I just highlighted the problem that TM had experienced with flyers from normal lies and the resulting loss in distance control...read the article...it explains it in words of one syllable ;-)

 

[BiggErn]

> @mahonie said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> > > > >

> > > > > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

> > > >

> > > > The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

> > > What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

> > >

> >

> > The clubs they’re reviewing aren’t even blades.

> Please, please, please read the article through. Your understanding of the issues with CBs (and benefits) will be enhanced. The review highlights the issues with the Rocketbladz Tour irons that the TaylorMade engineers tried to fix...I just highlighted the problem that TM had experienced with flyers from normal lies and the resulting loss in distance control...read the article...it explains it in words of one syllable ;-)

>

 

You said they claimed a mishit blade had the same forgiveness as mishit CB. They never said that. There was a certain mishit with the CB that it flew a little farther than expected vs a SLIGHT mishit with a blade. The only mishit they were referring to was center slightly high on the face. You tried to twist the words to fit a certain narrative and it in no way said what you were claiming. There’s not any double digit HCs that don’t hit ALL OVER the face and couldn’t use the forgiveness of a CB.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @revanant has already stated he’d be happy with some type of a forged CB if he were starting from scratch. But since he already has 2 sets of irons (which he got a deal on), he’s simply using what he has on hand.

> > > >

> > > > So it’s really a debate about whether a 20+ handicap should play a GI iron (AP1) or whether it’s okay _(or even potentially better)_ for that level of player to **upgrade to a smaller forged CB/MB** from the get go (MP4).

> > > > I started out on a set of blades so it worked fine for me. **In my universe, there are forged MBs and forged CBs and that’s it**. I don't actually advise people who are serious about the game to use GI irons unless they legitimately have concerns about hitting the ball a reasonable distance.

> > >

> > > > I think there is a level of proficiency where equipment does matter. For that level of player it's virtually always a question of practicality via the **forged CB** vs pure feedback via the forged MB.

> > >

> > > @MelloYellow, just curious...do you believe that it's important that the "smaller/player's CB is forged v. cast? There are plenty of smaller player's CB irons that are not manufactured via a forging process. Ping, most notably comes to mind.

> > >

> >

> > Between you and me I would include both. I only said "forged CB" because it's implied to be a non-GI club.

> >

> > While you're correct about there being a few non-forged options (A) most players seem to prefer the feel of forged if/when they can get it and (2) you never see GI clubs that are forged.

> >

> > Based on what I've read (which could be complete BS) it's just not that practical to physically forge a complicated "GI" type of club geometry. I know we get hybrid options like the AP2 where various forged components are welded together. That seems to be the middle ground.

> >

> > So, if you're asking my personal opinon...well...I just don't see buying a player's club that isn't forged but IDK. Are your Ping's cast? How are they working out?

> >

> > I do recall having some Cleveland CG-10 wedges which I liked that were done with a CMM material (Carbon Metal Matrix, I think?). And to my knowledge, Vokey's are cast, too, right? I would definitely say that my forged Nike VR and Mizuno MP-T wedges felt a tad sweeter than my current Vokeys.

> >

> > But with irons, IDK if I could go cast with all the forged options available. I've never been a Ping guy though.

>

> Well I find the forged v. cast debate to be interesting both from a practical perspective and as a consumer case study. Certain manufacturers have been telling us for years that forged irons provide superior feel to the point where it's been pretty much accepted as gospel. It's amusing to me to read here on the forums that certain players believe they've finally improved enough to "step up to forged irons," lol. I think it's nonsense and I'll explain...

>

> IMHO, the sweet feel of a perfectly struck true MB blade is because with a true MB design, the majority of the clubs mass is located directly behind the sweet spot, not because of the manufacturing process (forged v. cast). Striking it dead solid perfect with an MB blade provides certain unique acoustics and minimal vibration inherent in this design. The sensation is soft in your hands, and to your ears the sound is muted. Anytime you remove the mass from behind the sweet spot and spread it out to the perimeter, you lose that. So it's no surprise that when Ping first introduced investment cast perimeter weighted irons, they did not provide the same soft, vibration dampening sensation on perfectly struck shots the way an MB blade would (all of which were forged at the time). So, I think this is what initially got us heading down the path toward the belief that forged irons are inherently softer than cast.

>

> To further substantiate my point, why do MB blades sting your freakin' hands so bad when you miss one? I mean, they're forged right? If forging the metal makes it soft, it should feel soft from a relative perspective no matter where you strike it, no? If it was the manufacturing process (forging), or even the relative softness of the metal itself, shouldn't they still feel softer than their investment cast and perimeter weighted counterparts? Hint: they don't! It's because of the instability of the design that miss hits with a blade feel awful and provide unpleasing vibration and audible feedback. (which ironically and as discussed, some folks find helpful in trying to improve their ball striking)

>

> Furthermore, Mizuno, undoubtedly the king of producing forged irons and a company that has even gone so far as to advertise and market the virtues of the soft feel of their irons due to their grain-flow forging process, puts inserts and badges made of various alloys, elastomers, or thermoplastics behind the sweet spot of many of their thinner faced forged, but perimeter weighted offerings to dampen vibration and improve acoustics. (see the JPX 900/919 forged, MP25s, etc.). Why are those badges and inserts necessary. Shouldn't the fact that they're forged provide that soft feel by itself?

>

> Now don't get me wrong, I love Mizunos and think they make great products and their irons do feel sweet when struck purely, as do many of the JDM manufacturers. The JDM market has bought into this entire forging myth hook, line , and sinker...even more so than in the rest of the world. Almost all Pings are cast with the exception of a some limited product runs that were made largely to satisfy a market niche. In fact, years ago Ping engineers created irons of identical design, one forged, the other cast. Without knowing which was which, not a single one of their Tour pros on staff could tell the difference!

>

> And yes, my Ping i200s are cast, like 99% of Pings. They have some sort of elastomer badge/insert behind the sweet spot to improve feel and acoustics, and to me feel just about as good as a perimeter weighted player's CB iron can feel. They're also more durable than the similar forged offerings of other manufacturers, so that's a bonus as the grooves stay in shape longer and they don't sustain all of that bag chatter.

>

> Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

 

I think the Vokeys are the best example of this. No one complains about the lack of feel on these clubs. Also consider the old Ping irons made out of nickel or copper. The metal hardness was the same as steel. But the metal was more dense and it made the sound softer - hence people associated this softer sound with feel.

 

Personally, I think a truly flushed shot with any club feels about the same. There is no vibration and the ball flight when you look up is perfect. I play GI clubs, and I can tell when I've just barely missed one despite these clubs supposedly providing little feedback. I don't doubt the feedback is less compared to a smaller CB or blade, but I think if you know your swing and know what the perfect shot should look like it isn't hard to tell whether you did it or not.

[nostatic]

> @dpb5031 said:

 

> Now don't get me wrong, I love Mizunos and think they make great products and their irons do feel sweet when struck purely, as do many of the JDM manufacturers. The JDM market has bought into this entire forging myth hook, line , and sinker...even more so than in the rest of the world. Almost all Pings are cast with the exception of a some limited product runs that were made largely to satisfy a market niche. In fact, years ago Ping engineers created irons of identical design, one forged, the other cast. Without knowing which was which, not a single one of their Tour pros on staff could tell the difference!

>

> And yes, my Ping i200s are cast, like 99% of Pings. They have some sort of elastomer badge/insert behind the sweet spot to improve feel and acoustics, and to me feel just about as good as a perimeter weighted player's CB iron can feel. They're also more durable than the similar forged offerings of other manufacturers, so that's a bonus as the grooves stay in shape longer and they don't sustain all of that bag chatter.

>

> Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

 

fwiw, I was shocked at how "soft" the i210s felt when I hit them correctly. I think there is a lot of historical bias that colors perception of current equipment. The process employed (forged vs. cast) seems to be much less of a black/white situation than it was a couple decades ago.

[playa]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

 

>

> Short game is incredibly dependent on your long-game ability to leave easy short game shots.

>

>

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

 

This is all very true. I'm an 11, but from personal experience I can say I get up and down as well as most low singles, but a couple times a round I leave myself in diabolical places around the green that better players wouldn't find themselves in. With me it's usually a lapse in concentration cause as soon as I've hit the approach I cuss myself out for finding the one place you don't wanna be. All the great short game players on tour, with the possible exception of Phil, are great course managers who miss in the right places to leave an easy up and down.

[nsxguy]

> @nostatic said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

>

> > You have a lot of doubters out there, however I am not one of them. You must be tired by now of trying to answer these ridiculous comments where each guy tries to find a new angle to discredit what you are saying. Asking "are you saying you can reliably shape your shots" is painful to read when you clearly stated above that "Basically, when I do my job, I know my numbers—-145 carry with a 6 iron, a little less than 1000 x iron for spin, and shot shape as I choose it." I think your point was very clear to me.

>

> We all have our own experiences that have shaped our opinions. I have seen very few players who are 20+ handicap, hit a 6i 145, and can *reliably* shape their shots. Not saying it isn't impossible, just not something I find to be typical. Ymmv.

>

> As I've stated before - people should play what they want, and player psychology has a huge impact on performance.

>

>

 

 

[BiggErn]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> >

> > > You have a lot of doubters out there, however I am not one of them. You must be tired by now of trying to answer these ridiculous comments where each guy tries to find a new angle to discredit what you are saying. Asking "are you saying you can reliably shape your shots" is painful to read when you clearly stated above that "Basically, when I do my job, I know my numbers—-145 carry with a 6 iron, a little less than 1000 x iron for spin, and shot shape as I choose it." I think your point was very clear to me.

> >

> > We all have our own experiences that have shaped our opinions. I have seen very few players who are 20+ handicap, hit a 6i 145, and can *reliably* shape their shots. Not saying it isn't impossible, just not something I find to be typical. Ymmv.

> >

> > As I've stated before - people should play what they want, and player psychology has a huge impact on performance.

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

Lol yea. I can work it both ways at will I just can’t break 100.

 

[gbartko]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> >

> > > You have a lot of doubters out there, however I am not one of them. You must be tired by now of trying to answer these ridiculous comments where each guy tries to find a new angle to discredit what you are saying. Asking "are you saying you can reliably shape your shots" is painful to read when you clearly stated above that "Basically, when I do my job, I know my numbers—-145 carry with a 6 iron, a little less than 1000 x iron for spin, and shot shape as I choose it." I think your point was very clear to me.

> >

> > We all have our own experiences that have shaped our opinions. I have seen very few players who are 20+ handicap, hit a 6i 145, and can *reliably* shape their shots. Not saying it isn't impossible, just not something I find to be typical. Ymmv.

> >

> > As I've stated before - people should play what they want, and player psychology has a huge impact on performance.

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

DeNinny can work a baby blade 2 iron six ways to Sunday.

[nsxguy]

> @gbartko said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > >

> > > > You have a lot of doubters out there, however I am not one of them. You must be tired by now of trying to answer these ridiculous comments where each guy tries to find a new angle to discredit what you are saying. Asking "are you saying you can reliably shape your shots" is painful to read when you clearly stated above that "Basically, when I do my job, I know my numbers—-145 carry with a 6 iron, a little less than 1000 x iron for spin, and shot shape as I choose it." I think your point was very clear to me.

> > >

> > > We all have our own experiences that have shaped our opinions. I have seen very few players who are 20+ handicap, hit a 6i 145, and can *reliably* shape their shots. Not saying it isn't impossible, just not something I find to be typical. Ymmv.

> > >

> > > As I've stated before - people should play what they want, and player psychology has a huge impact on performance.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

> DeNinny can work a baby blade 2 iron six ways to Sunday.

 

Oh no, you didn't.

 

Please edit your post and take out he whose name cannot be spoken.

[mahonie]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > > > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

> > > > >

> > > > > The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

> > > > What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The clubs they’re reviewing aren’t even blades.

> > Please, please, please read the article through. Your understanding of the issues with CBs (and benefits) will be enhanced. The review highlights the issues with the Rocketbladz Tour irons that the TaylorMade engineers tried to fix...I just highlighted the problem that TM had experienced with flyers from normal lies and the resulting loss in distance control...read the article...it explains it in words of one syllable ;-)

> >

>

> You said they claimed a mishit blade had the same forgiveness as mishit CB. They never said that. There was a certain mishit with the CB that it flew a little farther than expected vs a SLIGHT mishit with a blade. The only mishit they were referring to was center slightly high on the face. You tried to twist the words to fit a certain narrative and it in no way said what you were claiming. There’s not any double digit HCs that don’t hit ALL OVER the face and couldn’t use the forgiveness of a CB.

I didn’t imply that a blade had the same forgiveness as a CB on slight mishits, I said it was BETTER! Control of distance is one of the key elements to good scoring...Tiger had it with his MBs on the 12th, Brooks and Frankie with their CBs didn’t.

 

It is a bit of a generalisation to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face. In my experience, mishits are more likely to be fats and thins where the only real advantage of a CB is on fat shots if it has lots of bounce...and this sometimes turns the fat into a thin if the lie is tight anyway.

 

If anyone is hitting it all over the face, they would be better served getting lessons and improving their swing rather than being sucked into the fallacy that they can buy a game with a set of CBs.

 

[gbartko]

> @mahonie said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @mahonie said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > > > > Just throw this in here from an old article on here when Sean Toulon was at TM:

> > > > > > > > > ‘So why would a tour player choose to play a shorter-flying iron with the sweet spot the size of a pea when he or she could have a longer-flying iron with a sweet spot the size of a quarter? According to Toulon, tour players like blade irons despite their small sweet spots because they’re “slow everywhere.” So even though one-piece forged irons don’t fly as far as multi-material irons, they tend to fly around the same distance on center hits as on slight mis-hits. For better players who make contact near the sweet spot nearly every time, the improved distance control means more birdie chances.’

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lol that’s complete bs. For one most don’t use blades and it’s not really close. Two, those that do play blades virtually never miss that pea size sweet spot. It must’ve been a putter article instead of irons.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Don’t shoot the messenger, I was only quoting the Chief Exec of one of the biggest club manufacturer’s on the planet at the time. The article was about Rocketbladz Tour Irons as reviewed by Zak. Here’s the link: http://www.golfwrx.com/112242/taylormade-rocketbladez-tour-irons-editor-review/

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Actually it’s the complete opposite.

> > > > > What I said was taken verbatim from the article!?! It seems that if a reasoned argument backed up by experts doesn’t suit your point of view you tend to deflect...if the truth hurts that much I’d give up golf if I were you.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The clubs they’re reviewing aren’t even blades.

> > > Please, please, please read the article through. Your understanding of the issues with CBs (and benefits) will be enhanced. The review highlights the issues with the Rocketbladz Tour irons that the TaylorMade engineers tried to fix...I just highlighted the problem that TM had experienced with flyers from normal lies and the resulting loss in distance control...read the article...it explains it in words of one syllable ;-)

> > >

> >

> > You said they claimed a mishit blade had the same forgiveness as mishit CB. They never said that. There was a certain mishit with the CB that it flew a little farther than expected vs a SLIGHT mishit with a blade. The only mishit they were referring to was center slightly high on the face. You tried to twist the words to fit a certain narrative and it in no way said what you were claiming. There’s not any double digit HCs that don’t hit ALL OVER the face and couldn’t use the forgiveness of a CB.

> I didn’t imply that a blade had the same forgiveness as a CB on slight mishits, I said it was BETTER! Control of distance is one of the key elements to good scoring...Tiger had it with his MBs on the 12th, Brooks and Frankie with their CBs didn’t.

>

> It is a bit of a generalisation to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face. In my experience, mishits are more likely to be fats and thins where the only real advantage of a CB is on fat shots if it has lots of bounce...and this sometimes turns the fat into a thin if the lie is tight anyway.

>

> If anyone is hitting it all over the face, they would be better served getting lessons and improving their swing rather than being sucked into the fallacy that they can buy a game with a set of CBs.

>

 

if brooks and frankie had MBs they would've been short of the water!!!!! am i right?????

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> IMHO, the sweet feel of a perfectly struck true MB blade is because with a true MB design, the majority of the clubs mass is located directly behind the sweet spot, not because of the manufacturing process (forged v. cast).

 

This is the crux of your view so I need not go any further. This simply isn't the full-story based on the underlying physics. I appreciate you re-iterating all the rest and yes, mass placement is likely a critical feature. However, the act of trying to control feedback (both vibration & sound) through the application of structural dynamics principles will absolutely take into consideration material properties.

 

Think of how woods make massive differences in the world of musical instruments. While steel is not the same as wood, I doubt it's safe for us to assume all steels would respond perfectly equally when we're talking about something as slight as the sound of a (relatively soft) golf ball impact.

 

I'm not saying I'm the guy designing these clubs. Thus I can't state what kinds of trade-offs there are amongst the variables and to what degree things like mass placement and forging ultimately matter in golf clubs. But being an engineer who's more familiar than the average person with say, structural dynamics, I can certainly tell you that it would be foolish to forget (or blindly ignore) the impact of a material and how that material's properties factor into the performance of some structure or object.

 

So there's a flaw in your argument that could only be resolved by a case study showing how golfers showed no preference to forged vs. cast when tested. However, based on the feedback from all levels of golfers, there does seem to be a widespread preference for forging.

 

It seems like your hunch / hypothesis is that this is the result of marketing. I would disagree based on both my own experience hitting clubs as well as the preferences expressed by others. Not only do people seem to prefer forged but they often have preferences to certain types of forging as well.

 

For instance, Mizuno is widely regarded to do it (forging) better than say, Titleist. In my experience, there is a consistent separation between blades from those two OEMs. It's not random either. Year after year, regardless of who you ask, you'll find that most people report the Mizuno blades as feeling just a little softer.

 

In the end, I doubt manufacturers would continue to push forging unless there was really something there. I don't see why they would. There are a multitude of reasons why they might want to shut the whole forging thing down:

 

1 - Forging naturally limits what club designers can do. Casting provides more flexibility.

2 - Forging drives up costs.

3 - Forged clubs simply aren't as durable as their cast counterparts.

 

Casting makes more sense in almost every way except people don't think it feels as good. Given just the historical info alone, I sincerely doubt it's all just a myth. But sensing there's something in the physics to back it all up seals it for me. Again, I'm not an expert in the field of actually making clubs so I can only speak from my own experience / knowledge.

 

All this being said, casting has changed over the years. Casting today is not what it was in 1985. Today, steels can be cast which are considerably softer than decades ago. Advances may open the door to more companies doing full sets of high-end cast irons as the process catches up to rival forging. Someday we'll see cast options which are on par with forged alternatives. Maybe we're getting there now? Nonetheless, there will be a time-lag so at best I would think it'd still be decades until casting becomes the norm. There certainly are biases. But those biases are based on real experience.

 

> @dpb5031 said:

> Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

 

Are material properties as important to OEMs when it comes to making wedges versus say, irons? I don't know how safe that assumption is. Wedges have some other unique factors that might affect costs thereby pushing certain manufacturers to try and get by with cast.

 

Besides, in the end I certainly do believe I'm giving up feel to play my Vokeys. I wouldn't hesitate to say the forged options from Nike and Mizuno that I've played previously felt noticeably different and yes, probably "better" in the same way that forged irons do.

 

That said, if casting is part of what allows companies like Titleist and Cleveland to produce the multitude of bounce & grind options while keeping costs (relatively) affordable, then I'm content with cast despite how forging might feel just a tad better.

[mantan]

> @nostatic said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

>

> > Now don't get me wrong, I love Mizunos and think they make great products and their irons do feel sweet when struck purely, as do many of the JDM manufacturers. The JDM market has bought into this entire forging myth hook, line , and sinker...even more so than in the rest of the world. Almost all Pings are cast with the exception of a some limited product runs that were made largely to satisfy a market niche. In fact, years ago Ping engineers created irons of identical design, one forged, the other cast. Without knowing which was which, not a single one of their Tour pros on staff could tell the difference!

> >

> > And yes, my Ping i200s are cast, like 99% of Pings. They have some sort of elastomer badge/insert behind the sweet spot to improve feel and acoustics, and to me feel just about as good as a perimeter weighted player's CB iron can feel. They're also more durable than the similar forged offerings of other manufacturers, so that's a bonus as the grooves stay in shape longer and they don't sustain all of that bag chatter.

> >

> > Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

>

> fwiw, I was shocked at how "soft" the i210s felt when I hit them correctly. I think there is a lot of historical bias that colors perception of current equipment. The process employed (forged vs. cast) seems to be much less of a black/white situation than it was a couple decades ago.

 

Ping has gone a long way in improving the feel of their clubs. For a long time their bottom line was about equipment that worked, not trying to make the best looking or feeling clubs. After the G2/G5 line they seemed to make huge strides in using dampeners and inserts to vastly improve the feel of their clubs while maintaining the core playing characteristics for the G and i line. There was no longer a the feeling that clubs had to feel numb or dead as a tradeoff for forgiveness.

 

My G25s feel really good when they are flushed. The differences between the feeling at impact between my G25s and Srixon 565s are pretty small...much smaller than the Ping ISI and Mizuno MX-23's I had back in the day.

 

The conversation seemed to have drifted from blades/cavity backs (a forum staple) to forged vs. cast (another forum staple).

 

Both arguments pretty much running the same course since I joined in 2005. Blades/cavities are a personal choice where guys want to talk themselves into the fact blades aren't harder to hit or don't impact their score. Forged/cavity being the same confusion about the construction of the club being related to its forgiveness.

[Tree Levino]

 

> @mahonie said:

 

> > You said they claimed a mishit blade had the same forgiveness as mishit CB. They never said that. There was a certain mishit with the CB that it flew a little farther than expected vs a SLIGHT mishit with a blade. The only mishit they were referring to was center slightly high on the face. You tried to twist the words to fit a certain narrative and it in no way said what you were claiming. There’s not any double digit HCs that don’t hit ALL OVER the face and couldn’t use the forgiveness of a CB.

> I didn’t imply that a blade had the same forgiveness as a CB on slight mishits, I said it was BETTER! Control of distance is one of the key elements to good scoring...Tiger had it with his MBs on the 12th, Brooks and Frankie with their CBs didn’t.

>

> It is a bit of a generalisation to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face. In my experience, mishits are more likely to be fats and thins where the only real advantage of a CB is on fat shots if it has lots of bounce...and this sometimes turns the fat into a thin if the lie is tight anyway.

>

> If anyone is hitting it all over the face, they would be better served getting lessons and improving their swing rather than being sucked into the fallacy that they can buy a game with a set of CBs.

>

 

You say it's a generalization to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face and then you generalize and say they mostly have low point issues? I'd say 99% of them are not hitting within a few mm of centre every time. I'd argue that _most_ have issues with both low point and lateral strike. Your argument that Brooks and Frankie would've been better off with MBs makes no sense. Tiger took a different line at the green and didn't go for the sucker pin. A Titleist CB is flat out more forgiving than the MB (as an example - I've used both). I don't know how this is even an argument.

[MelloYello]

> @mantan said:

>

> Ping has gone a long way in improving the feel of their clubs. For a long time their bottom line was about equipment that worked, not trying to make the best looking or feeling clubs. After the G2/G5 line they seemed to make huge strides in using dampeners and inserts to vastly improve the feel of their clubs while maintaining the core playing characteristics for the G and i line. There was no longer a the feeling that clubs had to feel numb or dead as a tradeoff for forgiveness.

>

> My G25s feel really good when they are flushed. The differences between the feeling at impact between my G25s and Srixon 565s are pretty small...much smaller than the Ping ISI and Mizuno MX-23's I had back in the day.

>

> The conversation seemed to have drifted from blades/cavity backs (a forum staple) to forged vs. cast (another forum staple).

>

> Both arguments pretty much running the same course since I joined in 2005. Blades/cavities are a personal choice where guys want to talk themselves into the fact blades aren't harder to hit or don't impact their score. Forged/cavity being the same confusion about the construction of the club being related to its forgiveness.

 

First, there have definitely been advances in the casting of steels which have led to softer, better feeling options for golf clubs.

 

But as an engineer, I would wonder if the advances you talk about also had something to do with the incorporation of (FEA) modeling through which the engineers could do things like modal analysis thereby putting a finger on something quantitative?

 

That could represent a huge break-through versus the traditional alternative of simply designing based on aesthetics and the (subjective) input of certain top professionals.

[pinestreetgolf]

Force = (.5)*mv^2

 

1. More mass means more force all else being equal. It is a fact that CBs are more forgiving than MBs - they have more mass at impact toward the edge of the head at equal velocity. You can't argue that. You can make arguments about mentality looking down at the ball and so forth but you can't argue the CB will not maintain ball speed on mistakes better. Its physics.

2. There is no such thing as a "hot miss" with a CB that blades don't have. We have a word for clubs who have higher speed not at the middle - non-conforming. A club cannot have hot spots or it is non-conforming. The dead center must have the highest COR and highest mass. Its all in your head (<- which, if it is, maybe play blades because this is a mental game). What you're referring to is not velocity, its spin. A ball hit slightly high on the face with a CB can have spin killed but it gets killed with a blade too. A blade goes shorter, so misses go shorter. But if its your contention that the blade somehow doesn't spin less when hit without the correct groove that's not true. Its just not true. Its less noticeable because they have way less mass (see above equation) but that's a silly reason. If you're worried about going long just take less club, don't build your bag around a non-sensical potential that out of deep rough you might catch a non-existent low-spin "flyer".

3. What you said about the Masters makes me think you're trolling us, but balls hit off of a tee cannot by definition have the effect you describe. Nothing can get between the club and the ball so spin is equal. A heavier may have gone further or a lighter one shorter, but it wasn't a low-spin shot that dunked them. It was off a tee. That doesn't exist. When grass gets between your club and the ball and the ball is hit on a spot with less mass the grass can have enough weight to kill the spin resulting a lower ball flight shot that feels thin and goes long. Off a tee that isn't a thing.

 

Mahonie's posts in this thread are a good example of a fine decision (playing blades) made for hokum reasons. Just admit you like having and playing blades but you'd be better off with something else. We already know.

[BiggErn]

> @balls_deep said:

>

> > @mahonie said:

>

> > > You said they claimed a mishit blade had the same forgiveness as mishit CB. They never said that. There was a certain mishit with the CB that it flew a little farther than expected vs a SLIGHT mishit with a blade. The only mishit they were referring to was center slightly high on the face. You tried to twist the words to fit a certain narrative and it in no way said what you were claiming. There’s not any double digit HCs that don’t hit ALL OVER the face and couldn’t use the forgiveness of a CB.

> > I didn’t imply that a blade had the same forgiveness as a CB on slight mishits, I said it was BETTER! Control of distance is one of the key elements to good scoring...Tiger had it with his MBs on the 12th, Brooks and Frankie with their CBs didn’t.

> >

> > It is a bit of a generalisation to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face. In my experience, mishits are more likely to be fats and thins where the only real advantage of a CB is on fat shots if it has lots of bounce...and this sometimes turns the fat into a thin if the lie is tight anyway.

> >

> > If anyone is hitting it all over the face, they would be better served getting lessons and improving their swing rather than being sucked into the fallacy that they can buy a game with a set of CBs.

> >

>

> You say it's a generalization to say that double digit HCs hit all over the face and then you generalize and say they mostly have low point issues? I'd say 99% of them are not hitting within a few mm of centre every time. I'd argue that _most_ have issues with both low point and lateral strike. Your argument that Brooks and Frankie would've been better off with MBs makes no sense. Tiger took a different line at the green and didn't go for the sucker pin. A Titleist CB is flat out more forgiving than the MB (as an example - I've used both). I don't know how this is even an argument.

 

Nobody even knows that Brooks and Molinari mishit their shot. Maybe they just picked the wrong club. Not sure how one vs the other fixes that.

[MelloYello]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> Force = (.5)*mv^2

>

> 1. More mass means more force all else being equal. It is a fact that CBs are more forgiving than MBs - they have more mass at impact toward the edge of the head at equal velocity. You can't argue that. You can make arguments about mentality looking down at the ball and so forth but you can't argue the CB will not maintain ball speed on mistakes better. Its physics.

> 2. There is no such thing as a "hot miss" with a CB that blades don't have. We have a word for clubs who have higher speed not at the middle - non-conforming. A club cannot have hot spots or it is non-conforming. The dead center must have the highest COR and highest mass. Its all in your head (<- which, if it is, maybe play blades because this is a mental game). What you're referring to is not velocity, its spin. A ball hit slightly high on the face with a CB can have spin killed but it gets killed with a blade too. A blade goes shorter, so misses go shorter. But if its your contention that the blade somehow doesn't spin less when hit without the correct groove that's not true. Its just not true. Its less noticeable because they have way less mass (see above equation) but that's a silly reason. If you're worried about going long just take less club, don't build your bag around a non-sensical potential that out of deep rough you might catch a non-existent low-spin "flyer".

> 3. What you said about the Masters makes me think you're trolling us, but balls hit off of a tee cannot by definition have the effect you describe. Nothing can get between the club and the ball so spin is equal. A heavier may have gone further or a lighter one shorter, but it wasn't a low-spin shot that dunked them. It was off a tee. That doesn't exist. When grass gets between your club and the ball and the ball is hit on a spot with less mass the grass can have enough weight to kill the spin resulting a lower ball flight shot that feels thin and goes long. Off a tee that isn't a thing.

>

> Mahonie's posts in this thread are a good example of a fine decision (playing blades) made for hokum reasons. Just admit you like having and playing blades but you'd be better off with something else. We already know.

 

I would implore everyone to step back on the physics. Let's not make false claims. While the intention is good, I think a lot of people are too quick to start giving lectures. Let's not do that.

 

First things first. Newton's second law says that F = ma. We can re-arrange that to say m = F/a or a = F/m.

 

Meanwhile, KE = 0.5mv^2 where KE is a moving object's "kinetic" energy. Another similar quantity is momentum which is expressed as mass*velocity.

 

In physics, quantities like force, momentum and energy are all different and cannot be used interchangeably. They have different units. Note how momentum and energy involve velocity while force involves the _change in velocity_ (aka acceleration).

 

That being said. Impact is a dynamic thing involving rotation so we very quickly get into dealing with more complicated physics. Still, there are basic properties of an object like various moment of inertia values which reflect how an object's mass is spread throughout its volume and away from it's CG.

 

We can readily talk about some of that in general terms. Increasing MOI does in theory produce a more forgiving golf club. Most golfers are happy to report they can sense that. But trying to dig into it further...let's not.

[mahonie]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> Force = (.5)*mv^2

>

> 1. More mass means more force all else being equal. It is a fact that CBs are more forgiving than MBs - they have more mass at impact toward the edge of the head at equal velocity. You can't argue that. You can make arguments about mentality looking down at the ball and so forth but you can't argue the CB will not maintain ball speed on mistakes better. Its physics.

> 2. There is no such thing as a "hot miss" with a CB that blades don't have. We have a word for clubs who have higher speed not at the middle - non-conforming. A club cannot have hot spots or it is non-conforming. The dead center must have the highest COR and highest mass. Its all in your head (<- which, if it is, maybe play blades because this is a mental game). What you're referring to is not velocity, its spin. A ball hit slightly high on the face with a CB can have spin killed but it gets killed with a blade too. A blade goes shorter, so misses go shorter. But if its your contention that the blade somehow doesn't spin less when hit without the correct groove that's not true. Its just not true. Its less noticeable because they have way less mass (see above equation) but that's a silly reason. If you're worried about going long just take less club, don't build your bag around a non-sensical potential that out of deep rough you might catch a non-existent low-spin "flyer".

> 3. What you said about the Masters makes me think you're trolling us, but balls hit off of a tee cannot by definition have the effect you describe. Nothing can get between the club and the ball so spin is equal. A heavier may have gone further or a lighter one shorter, but it wasn't a low-spin shot that dunked them. It was off a tee. That doesn't exist. When grass gets between your club and the ball and the ball is hit on a spot with less mass the grass can have enough weight to kill the spin resulting a lower ball flight shot that feels thin and goes long. Off a tee that isn't a thing.

>

> Mahonie's posts in this thread are a good example of a fine decision (playing blades) made for hokum reasons. Just admit you like having and playing blades but you'd be better off with something else. We already know.

 

1. The mass of a clubhead, whether it is MB or CB, is practically the same and the differential is so minuscule as to have a very limited impact overall. I hear what you’re saying that there is more mass at the perimeter but that is to the detriment to some other part of the head. My Mac Pro-Cs (which are in the bag this weekend) have a very thin topline for a CB but it means that there is hardly any mass to the middle of the blade above the centreline on the club face.

2. The article I quoted above refers to the ‘hot spot’ phenomenon with certain CBs. The larger sweetspot means that ballspeed does not drop off with slight mishits and if that is combined with a drop off in spin because the contact is slightly high on the face you get the knuckleball that flies farther. Spin rates with some CBs are much lower than with an MB as so much of the mass is positioned further back from the clubface. High launch, low spin is the design model - take even more spin away by that contact high on the face and you get a flier no doubt. Anecdotal I know, but it was said when Justin Rose tried the Rocketbladz Tour, he occasionally got a flier out of the fairway that flew two clubs further than his normal distance hence they never went in his bag.

3. My Masters comment was tongue in cheek - I don’t deny it. Just stoked that Tiger won it to be honest ;-). In fact Frankie said in his interview after that he had the right club and hit a good shot but just didn’t hit it hard enough...can’t explain that one.

 

You know nothing about my game so to call my decision to play blades hokum is a bit out of order. I’ve played plenty of CBs over the years and found absolutely no difference to my average scoring. As I said earlier, my Pro-Cs are in the bag this weekend. They look tremendous, feel softer but slightly less solid than my MP-4s, fly slightly higher but same distance and by all accounts (or at least according to you) I should be a few shots better off at the end of the round. We’ll see....if I don’t shoot par or better on Saturday I’ll sue you for misrepresentation ;-)

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > IMHO, the sweet feel of a perfectly struck true MB blade is because with a true MB design, the majority of the clubs mass is located directly behind the sweet spot, not because of the manufacturing process (forged v. cast).

>

> This is the crux of your view so I need not go any further. This simply isn't the full-story based on the underlying physics. I appreciate you re-iterating all the rest and yes, mass placement is likely a critical feature. However, the act of trying to control feedback (both vibration & sound) through the application of structural dynamics principles will absolutely take into consideration material properties.

>

> Think of how woods make massive differences in the world of musical instruments. While steel is not the same as wood, I doubt it's safe for us to assume all steels would respond perfectly equally when we're talking about something as slight as the sound of a (relatively soft) golf ball impact.

>

> I'm not saying I'm the guy designing these clubs. Thus I can't state what kinds of trade-offs there are amongst the variables and to what degree things like mass placement and forging ultimately matter in golf clubs. But being an engineer who's more familiar than the average person with say, structural dynamics, I can certainly tell you that it would be foolish to forget (or blindly ignore) the impact of a material and how that material's properties factor into the performance of some structure or object.

>

> So there's a flaw in your argument that could only be resolved by a case study showing how golfers showed no preference to forged vs. cast when tested. However, based on the feedback from all levels of golfers, there does seem to be a widespread preference for forging.

>

> It seems like your hunch / hypothesis is that this is the result of marketing. I would disagree based on both my own experience hitting clubs as well as the preferences expressed by others. Not only do people seem to prefer forged but they often have preferences to certain types of forging as well.

>

> For instance, Mizuno is widely regarded to do it (forging) better than say, Titleist. In my experience, there is a consistent separation between blades from those two OEMs. It's not random either. Year after year, regardless of who you ask, you'll find that most people report the Mizuno blades as feeling just a little softer.

>

> In the end, I doubt manufacturers would continue to push forging unless there was really something there. I don't see why they would. There are a multitude of reasons why they might want to shut the whole forging thing down:

>

> 1 - Forging naturally limits what club designers can do. Casting provides more flexibility.

> 2 - Forging drives up costs.

> 3 - Forged clubs simply aren't as durable as their cast counterparts.

>

> Casting makes more sense in almost every way except people don't think it feels as good. Given just the historical info alone, I sincerely doubt it's all just a myth. But sensing there's something in the physics to back it all up seals it for me. Again, I'm not an expert in the field of actually making clubs so I can only speak from my own experience / knowledge.

>

> All this being said, casting has changed over the years. Casting today is not what it was in 1985. Today, steels can be cast which are considerably softer than decades ago. Advances may open the door to more companies doing full sets of high-end cast irons as the process catches up to rival forging. Someday we'll see cast options which are on par with forged alternatives. Maybe we're getting there now? Nonetheless, there will be a time-lag so at best I would think it'd still be decades until casting becomes the norm. There certainly are biases. But those biases are based on real experience.

>

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > Ping has an entire stable of elite Touring professionals playing their investment cast irons, yet everywhere you look on these forums there are recreational players who absolutely must own forged irons for the soft feel...lol! As you mentioned, Vokey wedges are cast (as are Cleveland and Ping), yet they remain the most popular on Tour.

>

> Are material properties as important to OEMs when it comes to making wedges versus say, irons? I don't know how safe that assumption is. Wedges have some other unique factors that might affect costs thereby pushing certain manufacturers to try and get by with cast.

>

> Besides, in the end I certainly do believe I'm giving up feel to play my Vokeys. I wouldn't hesitate to say the forged options from Nike and Mizuno that I've played previously felt noticeably different and yes, probably "better" in the same way that forged irons do.

>

> That said, if casting is part of what allows companies like Titleist and Cleveland to produce the multitude of bounce & grind options while keeping costs (relatively) affordable, then I'm content with cast despite how forging might feel just a tad better.

 

I appreciate your response @MelloYello! This has been a good (and very civil) discussion. I'll address a few of your points:

 

First, you claim a potential flaw in my argument based on real-life golfers "wide-spread preference for forged irons." I'd agree that the general belief exists that "forged" is somehow superior. How do you know that this "preference" is not purely market perception based on what we've been fed by manufacturers? Or perhaps it's because many players (especially older guys who began playing when forged blades were the only option) have had experience hitting MB blades out of the middle and believe the soft feeling is because it's forged, rather than because the mass is behind the sweet spot as I've suggested. There's often a subconscious "follow the herd" mentality among consumers, especially those trying to convince themselves that they should be upgrading to what better players use because they're improving or aspiring to improve. Don't underestimate the power of marketing and the nuances of consumer behavior here.

 

Further, you claim that there are discernible differences in feel in irons produced by different manufacturers (you mention Mizuno v. Titleist). I do not disagree. What we don't know is if this anything to do with the manufacturing process, the type or relative hardness of the metal used, or if it is because of the physical design elements & characteristics of the clubs themselves (i.e. location of mass). You conclude that Mizuno is highly regarded as being better at forging than Titleist. Well, Mizuno is known to focus their engineering and design as much around feel as performance. They conduct extensive modal frequency and acoustics testing to fine tune feel. This includes moving weight around in their designs, varying face thickness, center of gravity, etc. Perhaps their irons are just better designs in terms of placement of mass, COG, etc.? Since most classic Mizunos are all forged from the same 1025 steel, this seems to support my idea that the actual design of the club head, not the manufacturing process (forged v. cast) has a greater influence on feel, even though their marketing claim is that that their "grain flow forging process" is the true differentiator.

 

You have not responded to a few of my other points, specifically:

 

Why do forged MB blades sting the heck out of your hands on miss hits if the forging process produces a softer steel? Shouldn't it feel softer everywhere? My investment cast Ping i200s and even my ancient eye 2s are WAY less harsh on a 1cm toe miss hit than my MP33 blades.

 

Why are Mizuno (and many other manufacturers) finding it necessary to use elastomers, thermoplastics, and certain alloys in the cavities of their thinner faced perimeter weighted designs? If the forged metal itself were so soft, why should this be necessary to improve feel, modality and acoustics? It's actually the same thing and for the same reasons Ping has been doing it for quite a while now with their CTPs (custom tuning ports).

 

Ping engineers and separately, club designer Roger Maltby have both conducted blind studies with Tour pros and regular golfers. They made clubs of identical design (size, shape, mass properties, etc.), other than the fact that one was forged, the other cast. No one could tell the difference! Although not exactly the same, Tom Wishon has stated multiple times that it's practically impossible for a player to tell the difference between different types of steel used...e.g. 1025, 1030, etc. What's your response to this?

 

All of the above seem to support my hypothesis (though I'm not a physicist, engineer, or metallurgist...lol :) ) that the design of the club head and the location of mass relative to the sweet spot is by far and away the primary influencer of feel and acoustics on center struck shots when your'e talking about single material iron designs, not whether it's cast or forged. Of course, once you begin talking about multi-material designs with dampening devices of various materials integrated into the club head, it's a different story, but again, they're trying to accommodate for the absence of mass directly behind the sweet spot, which is my primary point.

 

I'd argue that the softness of the golf ball used and the type of shaft used each have a much greater effect on feel than whether a club us is forged v. cast. Again, I agree that nothing feels as gratifying, soft and solid as a perfectly struck iron shot with a true MB blade like my MP33s, but in my view it's primarily because the club is designed with the majority of its mass concentrated directly behind the sweet spot, not the fact that the club head is forged rather than cast.

[MelloYello]

@dpb5031

In places where we have circumstantial evidence we have to accept a narrative. I don't believe your narrative that it's all marketing. There are logical wrinkles there which I pointed out. It's not the interest of OEMs to do it the hard way if casting would be just as good. At the end of the day, clubs aren't sold based on the fact they have "1025" carbon steel. Very few people know that. A person will simply say "X feels better than Y." I have no reason to believe cast blade irons would somehow be impossible to sell because people are obsessed with the details of forging. I don't buy that. Advertising does not control as you're describing. It's a cop out argument IMHO.

 

Also, you keep saying "most of the mass behind the sweet spot" when obviously that isn't true. A blade doesn't clump the mass behind the sweet spot at all. The muscle extends rather uniformly from heel to toe, not to mention the thickness of the club varies from the sole to the top-line going from thicker at the bottom to thinner at the top with a slight drop-off near the middle where the top of the muscle ends.

 

So I don't quite see why you're so obsessed with this notion that placing mass close to the CG results in better feel. What exactly is your reasoning for saying that? If you're saying there is wide-spread anecdotal evidence based on what people say, well, you can't criticize that line of reasoning in the case of forged vs cast, can you?

 

Again, we're not metallurgists so to speak as though all forgings are the same or all castings are the same is probably not safe. I just know that when two companies make clubs which are really close to being the same in geometry (i.e. Mizuno blades versus Titleist blades) and yet people seem to prefer the form in feel, there might be something to the material argument.

 

I prefer not to have uneducated debates. I'm fine leaving it there. A certain percentage of cast clubs may rival the feel or forged. I just don't have the answer to whether that's true, let alone exactly why.

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> @dpb5031

> In places where we have circumstantial evidence we have to accept a narrative. I don't believe your narrative that it's all marketing. There are logical wrinkles there which I pointed out. It's not the interest of OEMs to do it the hard way if casting would be just as good. At the end of the day, clubs aren't sold based on the fact they have "1025" carbon steel. Very few people know that. A person will simply say "X feels better than Y." I have no reason to believe cast blade irons would somehow be impossible to sell because people are obsessed with the details of forging. I don't buy that. Advertising does not control as you're describing. It's a cop out argument IMHO.

>

> Also, you keep saying "**most of the mass behind the sweet spot**" when obviously that isn't true. A blade doesn't clump the mass behind the sweet spot at all. The muscle extends rather uniformly from heel to toe, not to mention the thickness of the club varies from the sole to the top-line going from thicker at the bottom to thinner at the top with a slight drop-off near the middle where the top of the muscle ends.

>

> So I don't quite see why you're so obsessed with this notion that placing mass close to the CG results in better feel. What exactly is your reasoning for saying that? If you're saying there is wide-spread anecdotal evidence based on what people say, well, you can't criticize that line of reasoning in the case of forged vs cast, can you?

>

> Again, we're not metallurgists so to speak as though all forgings are the same or all castings are the same is probably not safe. I just know that when two companies make clubs which are really close to being the same in geometry (i.e. Mizuno blades versus Titleist blades) and yet people seem to prefer the form in feel, there might be something to the material argument.

>

> I prefer not to have uneducated debates. I'm fine leaving it there. A certain percentage of cast clubs may rival the feel or forged. I just don't have the answer to whether that's true, let alone exactly why.

 

Upon reviewing my previous post I almost went back and edited because I knew my statement (bolded above) was not entirely accurate, and I suspected someone might point that out...lol. I should have said MB blades have "**substantial mass behind the sweet spot**" relative to a perimeter weighted designs, but I'm fairly certain you understood what I meant within the context of this discussion.

 

I agree, this is just a debate among enthusiasts, not SMEs or scientists in the golf club design business. Still, I posed several legitimate questions in my previous posts that serve to illustrate contradictions and logic gaps in the widely held narrative that the forging process by itself provides superior/softer feel. You have not addressed any of these with either fact or opinion. You also did not comment on the studies conducted by Ping and Maltby. In my view, the combination of these points offers significant "circumstantial evidence" supporting my claims that the actual design of the club head has much more of an influence on feel than whether the it is forged or cast.

[Nard_S]

Regarding feel?

Forged CB's pale to traditional MB. If I'm going CB I'll stick with cast. Someone once commented that forged CB is the worst of both. I agree.

Saying you cannot tell the difference between cast or forged Endo or Mizuno or Miura or Hoffman is like saying all coffee tastes the same.

 

 

[dpb5031]

> @Nard_S said:

> Regarding feel?

> Forged CB's pale to traditional MB. If I'm going CB I'll stick with cast. Someone once commented that forged CB is the worst of both. I agree.

> Saying you cannot tell the difference between cast or forged Endo or Mizuno or Miura or Hoffman is like saying all coffee tastes the same.

>

>

 

Agree wholeheartedly with you 1st paragraph... maybe not so much with your 2nd...lol! ?

[Nard_S]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > Regarding feel?

> > Forged CB's pale to traditional MB. If I'm going CB I'll stick with cast. Someone once commented that forged CB is the worst of both. I agree.

> > Saying you cannot tell the difference between cast or forged Endo or Mizuno or Miura or Hoffman is like saying all coffee tastes the same.

> >

> >

>

> Agree wholeheartedly with you 1st paragraph... maybe not so much with your 2nd...lol! ?

Honestly do not put much stock in feel, but to say a Ping feels like a Mizuno, feels like a Miura, feels like an Endo is willed ignorance. Forging houses have their flavor and OEM brands seek an identifying feel in their gear. You ho enough clubs it's plain as day. :)

 

[BMC]

> @MelloYello said:

> @dpb5031

> In places where we have circumstantial evidence we have to accept a narrative. I don't believe your narrative that it's all marketing. There are logical wrinkles there which I pointed out. It's not the interest of OEMs to do it the hard way if casting would be just as good. At the end of the day, clubs aren't sold based on the fact they have "1025" carbon steel. Very few people know that. A person will simply say "X feels better than Y." I have no reason to believe cast blade irons would somehow be impossible to sell because people are obsessed with the details of forging. I don't buy that. Advertising does not control as you're describing. It's a cop out argument IMHO.

>

> Also, you keep saying "most of the mass behind the sweet spot" when obviously that isn't true. A blade doesn't clump the mass behind the sweet spot at all. The muscle extends rather uniformly from heel to toe, not to mention the thickness of the club varies from the sole to the top-line going from thicker at the bottom to thinner at the top with a slight drop-off near the middle where the top of the muscle ends.

>

> So I don't quite see why you're so obsessed with this notion that placing mass close to the CG results in better feel. What exactly is your reasoning for saying that? If you're saying there is wide-spread anecdotal evidence based on what people say, well, you can't criticize that line of reasoning in the case of forged vs cast, can you?

>

> Again, we're not metallurgists so to speak as though all forgings are the same or all castings are the same is probably not safe. I just know that when two companies make clubs which are really close to being the same in geometry (i.e. Mizuno blades versus Titleist blades) and yet people seem to prefer the form in feel, there might be something to the material argument.

>

> I prefer not to have uneducated debates. I'm fine leaving it there. A certain percentage of cast clubs may rival the feel or forged. I just don't have the answer to whether that's true, let alone exactly why.

These are my 1990 VIPs. They're cast and have a substantial muscle behind the sweet spot. I've owned many true blades, and the cast blades feel as good as any of the forged ones I've played.