My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[Exactice808]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> No offense my young friend but while not exactly "cherry picking" this time, how can you say smash factor is BS and then rely on the results ? Because they (seem to) prove what you want them to ?

>

> Smash factor is simply ball speed divided by swing speed. In both cases you showed us the 1.45 is right. So if it's BS then either SS or BS MUST be wrong, no ? So if either one of them is wrong the conclusion has to be wrong, right ?

>

> As for the rest, if you can't try to be more clear, it's just gibberish.

>

> And you're picture ? I expect YOU highlighted the "Total Spin", no ? What on earth IS total spin ? It's not the addition of sidespin to backspin so what the heck IS it and why should anyone care about it ?

>

> Then you say "Same golfer, 76.3 mph SS". Say what ? Idon't see that SS is either of the 2 samples on that screen.

>

> But gee, 2 swings, 2.7 mph apart with the higher speed producing 900 rpn LESS spin and it went 11 yards further - 2 somewhat different sets of distance. Who'd a thunk it ?

Not sure if you are aware how the GC2 works but you can manually set the Smash to a certain number and manipulate the data. SO swing speed is normally measured and correct on the GC2 you set the smash compared to a Trackman that measure both swing speed and ball speed.

 

What I mean is if you look the CB smash is set to 1.36 BUT they set the smash to 1.45 on the MB There is NO human that I am aware of that can get a smash factor of 1.45 with a 6iron. Tour players at best get about 1.38, So I assume and likely true they forgot to change the smash to 1.36 but left it at 1.45 that was set at a driver. Which is a GROSS misinterpretation of ball speed.

 

*edit* GC2 measures ball data @ impact and swing data, but does not have a radar to collect the balls speed. The New GC quad does but I think in the video they lacked both the Quad and the HMT system.

 

SO the ball speed is likely wrong. I dont want to use the 1.36 smash either to calculate as that would not be fair to be indicative of the CB vs MB debate as I doubt he is getting similar smash factors. I did my OWN 1.34 smash on a launch monitor and plugged in the true other data of launch angle and average spin and got about 20 Yard less average. MORE then the 35* MB, but surely less than the 29.5* SGI, So LOFT is the FACTOR here not the discretionary weight.

 

Next it is a screen shot I DID NOT highlight the total spin sorry again just a screen capture.

 

Next I put 73.6mph not 76.3mph look at the bottom of the average 2 shots 73.6mph.

 

With that YES less loft will decrease the spin axis, SO yes The caption person with a 6iron loft of 31* vs the 35* on the 7iron that was closer to the 29.5* SGI would have MORE ball speed, less spin an MORE distance....

 

The issue again is that the smash factor was intentionally set to misreprsent the ball speed, BUT I am taking purely the LAUNCH data, that would be the launch angle the swing speed, the spin and the decent angle to incite that the ball goes the SAME peak height less spin more distance.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> No offense my young friend but while not exactly "cherry picking" this time, how can you say smash factor is BS and then rely on the results ? Because they (seem to) prove what you want them to ?

>

> Smash factor is simply ball speed divided by swing speed. In both cases you showed us the 1.45 is right. So if it's BS then either SS or BS MUST be wrong, no ? So if either one of them is wrong the conclusion has to be wrong, right ?

>

> As for the rest, if you can't try to be more clear, it's just gibberish.

>

> And you're picture ? I expect YOU highlighted the "Total Spin", no ? What on earth IS total spin ? It's not the addition of sidespin to backspin so what the heck IS it and why should anyone care about it ?

>

> Then you say "Same golfer, 76.3 mph SS". Say what ? Idon't see that SS is either of the 2 samples on that screen.

>

> But gee, 2 swings, 2.7 mph apart with the higher speed producing 900 rpn LESS spin and it went 11 yards further - 2 somewhat different sets of distance. Who'd a thunk it ?

 

Here is the full screen shot of the comparison between CB & MB

Notice the CB has 1.36 smash and the MB has 1.45 they screwed up.... gross misrepresentation, BUT the Ball Data outside of estimated ball speed is likely correct

 

NO I did not highlight the carry LOL! it was a screen shot!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!

 

here is the estimated LM info that seems more realistic

More distance than the 35* 7iron used to compare against a 29.5* SGI....

 

 

 

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > You implied that the lower loft increased ball speed but launch increased due to the CG

> > > >

> > >

> >

> Stronger lofts and lower CG offset....hence the same peak height. That's the intention of the club designer. The higher ball-speed is a net gain for the guy in the video.

> > >

> > > Not only does he hit the ball (1) just as high but also (2) further and (3) more consistently the appropriate distance.

> > >

> > > You keep misinterpreting my statements and then arguing.

> > >

> > >

> > I am not misinterpreting anything. You are claiming that the CG helps aid in height and Ball speed.

> >

> > **I am disproving your claim. LOFT is what aids in Height and ball speed.** The SGI MAY help in retention of ball speed on less than optimal shots.

> >

> > BUT the disparity of 5.5* of loft is the greatest current factor to the distance disparity. The heights are the same. the Trajectory are the same as evident by launch conditions.

> >

> > If the player used a 29.5* lofted MB. they WOULD SEE an increase of ball speed and DISTANCE. can you refute that in any shape or form.

> >

> > If the player used a 35* lofted SGI, the player would see DECREASED ball speed and distance. CG has is not the major factor of launch and distance in the spread of shots.

> >

> > *EDIT*

> >

> > Well just poked more holes in the SGI LOFT CG,

> >

> > Same Golfer, 6 iron MB 31* lofts.

> > **73.6 mph SS, the Smash is BS so Ball speed is BS. No way hes getting a 1.45 smash**

> > But lets look at ball data shall we.

> >

> > With less loft, almost 4* hes getting almost 1000* less spin JUST like the SGI's that 4200 range. OH... his peak height is the same @ 24yards... odd I thought the SGI helped get the ball higher. But the MB is getting the same height at closer lofts. THATS weird. Decent angle yikes is the same too 41*..... odd... You would think it would be flatter... since MB's cant get in the air and since the SGI have CG to increase launch it should be steeper..nope..

> >

> > Finally the BS distance due to the smash...146 & 157 carry... 160 & 170 total. Yeah wont buy that. BUT lets face it we can decrease smash to get a realistic balls speed, BUT the true loft to the SGI will net closer distance gaps. Average carry of the 35* 127 carry & 137 total. YES he will get more distance due to loft.

> >

> >

> >

>

> No offense my young friend but while not exactly "cherry picking" this time, how can you say smash factor is BS and then rely on the results ? Because they (seem to) prove what you want them to ?

>

> Smash factor is simply ball speed divided by swing speed. In both cases you showed us the 1.45 is right. So if it's BS then either SS or BS MUST be wrong, no ? So if either one of them is wrong the conclusion has to be wrong, right ?

>

> As for the rest, if you can't try to be more clear, it's just gibberish.

>

> And you're picture ? I expect YOU highlighted the "Total Spin", no ? What on earth IS total spin ? It's not the addition of sidespin to backspin so what the heck IS it and why should anyone care about it ?

>

> Then you say "Same golfer, 76.3 mph SS". Say what ? Idon't see that SS is either of the 2 samples on that screen.

>

> But gee, 2 swings, 2.7 mph apart with the higher speed producing 900 rpn LESS spin and it went 11 yards further - 2 somewhat different sets of distance. Who'd a thunk it ?

 

Here's the same golfer testing the 716 CB 6 iron. That iron is at 31 degrees of loft and 37 inches in length, so very comparable to the MCGB 7 iron at 29.5 and 37 inches.

 

The results from the CB 6 iron look very close to the MCGB--it's fewer shots, but it seems like most of the metrics line up.

 

So, to me, given how closely the MCGB lines up with the 716 CB, it really seems like the MCGB 7 iron is just a 6 iron--same length, slightly stronger loft, and similar metrics.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @revanant said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > > You implied that the lower loft increased ball speed but launch increased due to the CG

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > Stronger lofts and lower CG offset....hence the same peak height. That's the intention of the club designer. The higher ball-speed is a net gain for the guy in the video.

> > > >

> > > > Not only does he hit the ball (1) just as high but also (2) further and (3) more consistently the appropriate distance.

> > > >

> > > > You keep misinterpreting my statements and then arguing.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > I am not misinterpreting anything. You are claiming that the CG helps aid in height and Ball speed.

> > >

> > > **I am disproving your claim. LOFT is what aids in Height and ball speed.** The SGI MAY help in retention of ball speed on less than optimal shots.

> > >

> > > BUT the disparity of 5.5* of loft is the greatest current factor to the distance disparity. The heights are the same. the Trajectory are the same as evident by launch conditions.

> > >

> > > If the player used a 29.5* lofted MB. they WOULD SEE an increase of ball speed and DISTANCE. can you refute that in any shape or form.

> > >

> > > If the player used a 35* lofted SGI, the player would see DECREASED ball speed and distance. CG has is not the major factor of launch and distance in the spread of shots.

> > >

> > > *EDIT*

> > >

> > > Well just poked more holes in the SGI LOFT CG,

> > >

> > > Same Golfer, 6 iron MB 31* lofts.

> > > **73.6 mph SS, the Smash is BS so Ball speed is BS. No way hes getting a 1.45 smash**

> > > But lets look at ball data shall we.

> > >

> > > With less loft, almost 4* hes getting almost 1000* less spin JUST like the SGI's that 4200 range. OH... his peak height is the same @ 24yards... odd I thought the SGI helped get the ball higher. But the MB is getting the same height at closer lofts. THATS weird. Decent angle yikes is the same too 41*..... odd... You would think it would be flatter... since MB's cant get in the air and since the SGI have CG to increase launch it should be steeper..nope..

> > >

> > > Finally the BS distance due to the smash...146 & 157 carry... 160 & 170 total. Yeah wont buy that. BUT lets face it we can decrease smash to get a realistic balls speed, BUT the true loft to the SGI will net closer distance gaps. Average carry of the 35* 127 carry & 137 total. YES he will get more distance due to loft.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > No offense my young friend but while not exactly "cherry picking" this time, how can you say smash factor is BS and then rely on the results ? Because they (seem to) prove what you want them to ?

> >

> > Smash factor is simply ball speed divided by swing speed. In both cases you showed us the 1.45 is right. So if it's BS then either SS or BS MUST be wrong, no ? So if either one of them is wrong the conclusion has to be wrong, right ?

> >

> > As for the rest, if you can't try to be more clear, it's just gibberish.

> >

> > And you're picture ? I expect YOU highlighted the "Total Spin", no ? What on earth IS total spin ? It's not the addition of sidespin to backspin so what the heck IS it and why should anyone care about it ?

> >

> > Then you say "Same golfer, 76.3 mph SS". Say what ? Idon't see that SS is either of the 2 samples on that screen.

> >

> > But gee, 2 swings, 2.7 mph apart with the higher speed producing 900 rpn LESS spin and it went 11 yards further - 2 somewhat different sets of distance. Who'd a thunk it ?

>

> Here's the same golfer testing the 716 CB 6 iron. That iron is at 31 degrees of loft and 37 inches in length, so very comparable to the MCGB 7 iron at 29.5 and 37 inches.

>

>

> The results from the CB 6 iron look very close to the MCGB--it's fewer shots, but it seems like most of the metrics line up.

>

> So, to me, given how closely the MCGB lines up with the 716 CB, it really seems like the MCGB 7 iron is just a 6 iron--same length, slightly stronger loft, and similar metrics.

>

>

 

BINGO!!!! But watch out people will still say a CB is a cavity back that moved weight to help with ball speed and launch still trying to figure out how 5.5* of loft disparity is NOT the discussion rather than grams of weight moved to help with CG? LOL

[revanant]

Here's both the MB and CB against each other from the same video.

 

I'm actually wrong--the 6 iron for the MB and CB are 37.5, not 37 inches. That being said, there isn't such a stark difference between the results of the MB vs. the CB in this test (though obviously, it's a tiny sample). However, it's not like the tester is hitting perfect shots. His contact isn't perfect, but the results aren't night and day.

 

So, the MCGB at 29.5 degrees of loft is able to achieve similar results to an MB and CB 6 iron at 31 degrees of loft, with the major difference being half an inch of length. In some ways, as long as you can hit an iron that's half an inch longer, it seems like you can take your pick of your preferred aesthetic/feel package.

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @revanant said:

> The results from the CB 6 iron look very close to the MCGB--it's fewer shots, but it seems like most of the metrics line up.

>

> So, to me, given how closely the MCGB lines up with the 716 CB, it really seems like the MCGB 7 iron is just a 6 iron--same length, slightly stronger loft, and similar metrics.

>

>

 

> @Exactice808 said:

 

> BINGO!!!! But watch out people will still say a CB is a cavity back that moved weight to help with ball speed and launch still trying to figure out how 5.5* of loft disparity is NOT the discussion rather than grams of weight moved to help with CG? LOL

 

I can only speak for myself but if you guys, who are clearly "wrapped up" in all the other posts, think that I am going back to try to figure out what you're talking about you're mistaken.

 

You guyz sound like this is a "Eureka" moment. NOBODY is disputing that a 31* CB and a 31* MB are going to go roughly the same distance when struck on the SS.

 

What does give the GI club a slight advantage is that is usually spins a bit less than the MB. Lower spin increases distance NOT ONLY in the driver.

 

The lower CG "advantage" to the GI club is that more weight is towards the bottom. That helps less accomplished golfers get the ball airborne,,,,,,,,,,,, which is often the case with higher handicappers.

 

So what's the "Bingo" again ? LOL

 


 

[Exactice808]

> @revanant said:

> Here's both the MB and CB against each other from the same video.

>

> I'm actually wrong--the 6 iron for the MB and CB are 37.5, not 37 inches. That being said, there isn't such a stark difference between the results of the MB vs. the CB in this test (though obviously, it's a tiny sample). However, it's not like the tester is hitting perfect shots. His contact isn't perfect, but the results aren't night and day.

>

> So, the MCGB at 29.5 degrees of loft is able to achieve similar results to an MB and CB 6 iron at 31 degrees of loft, with the major difference being half an inch of length. In some ways, as long as you can hit an iron that's half an inch longer, it seems like you can take your pick of your preferred aesthetic/feel package.

>

>

>

 

I took that into consideration look at my Trajectory optimizer for estimated Honest MB 31* distances. MORE than the 35* MB and a little less then the 29.5* SGI....

 

[revanant]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

>

> > The results from the CB 6 iron look very close to the MCGB--it's fewer shots, but it seems like most of the metrics line up.

> >

> > So, to me, given how closely the MCGB lines up with the 716 CB, it really seems like the MCGB 7 iron is just a 6 iron--same length, slightly stronger loft, and similar metrics.

> >

> >

>

> > @Exactice808 said:

>

> > BINGO!!!! But watch out people will still say a CB is a cavity back that moved weight to help with ball speed and launch still trying to figure out how 5.5* of loft disparity is NOT the discussion rather than grams of weight moved to help with CG? LOL

>

> I can only speak for myself but if you guys, who are clearly "wrapped up" in all the other posts, think that I am going back to try to figure out what you're talking about you're mistaken.

>

> You guyz sound like this is a "Eureka" moment. NOBODY is disputing that a 31* CB and a 31* MB are going to go roughly the same distance when struck on the SS.

>

> What does give the GI club a slight advantage is that is usually spins a bit less than the MB. Lower spin increases distance NOT ONLY in the driver.

>

> The lower CG "advantage" to the GI club is that more weight is towards the bottom. That helps less accomplished golfers get the ball airborne,,,,,,,,,,,, which is often the case with higher handicappers.

>

> So what's the "Bingo" again ? LOL

>

> 

>

 

My point is really just this--Mr. Mid Handicap isn't really making great contact. But the blades aren't killing him, and the MCGB aren't transforming his game. The shots look generally consistent across the irons, and the only thing he's changing from his standpoint is .5 inches of length for the CB and MB. This is what I've generally seen myself when I test my MB vs other irons I own--the differences aren't night and day.

 

I'm looking forward to testing the 716 CBs when they come in and comparing them against my MP-4s. But if all the forgiveness baked into the MCGB only results in turning MCGB 7 iron into a 6 iron, we all probably should take a step back and focus on our short game, because the differences between irons isn't worth the focus. : )

[Exactice808]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @revanant said:

>

> > The results from the CB 6 iron look very close to the MCGB--it's fewer shots, but it seems like most of the metrics line up.

> >

> > So, to me, given how closely the MCGB lines up with the 716 CB, it really seems like the MCGB 7 iron is just a 6 iron--same length, slightly stronger loft, and similar metrics.

> >

> >

>

> > @Exactice808 said:

>

> > BINGO!!!! But watch out people will still say a CB is a cavity back that moved weight to help with ball speed and launch still trying to figure out how 5.5* of loft disparity is NOT the discussion rather than grams of weight moved to help with CG? LOL

>

> I can only speak for myself but if you guys, who are clearly "wrapped up" in all the other posts, think that I am going back to try to figure out what you're talking about you're mistaken.

>

> You guyz sound like this is a "Eureka" moment. NOBODY is disputing that a 31* CB and a 31* MB are going to go roughly the same distance when struck on the SS.

>

> What does give the GI club a slight advantage is that is usually spins a bit less than the MB. Lower spin increases distance NOT ONLY in the driver.

>

> The lower CG "advantage" to the GI club is that more weight is towards the bottom. That helps less accomplished golfers get the ball airborne,,,,,,,,,,,, which is often the case with higher handicappers.

>

> So what's the "Bingo" again ? LOL

>

> 

>

 

Are you really going to take it that way So you completely disregard my FACTS I took the time to correct.

 

You went out of your way to accuse me of all kinds of stuff yet

1) Disregarding Ball speed which was FALSE to begin with because of the smash factor issue

2) Then you said I highlighted total spin but its a screen shot.

3) You said 76.3mph yeah no 73.6mph

 

I even RE did a quantifiable launch data based on the actual data and a fair ball speed

YET did not want to address my prior post. Okie dokie...

 

so easy to accuse and scream but not worth the debate...okay!

 

ALSO NO the CB and MB did NOT go the same distance when struck with the swing speed. the smash was WRONG.

I concede that the CB by perimeter weight have an advantage.

 

BUT LOFT is the factor of discussion and finally dispersion is there a detrimental loss of playing a 31* SGI vs 31* MB if distance are relevant..... and dispersion is the same... a miss is a miss....but this will go over your head.. I get it...

[Bigmean]

Ok......

 

You guys who are smarter than me, determine what one could do with cbs and blades and a GC2 across time to give numbers in a real world you can control what the golfer does.

 

I possess all 3, but shafts are Different. Closest I am going to have to similar are recoil 110protos vs the 10s attas jdm models, but they are not speced the same exact on curve and torque, just same manufacturer for jdm and USA product.

 

Anyway, I am happy to ginnea pig whatever if anyone Has a constructive way to do it.

 

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @Bigmean said:

> Ok......

>

> You guys who are smarter than me, determine what one could do with cbs and blades and a GC2 across time to give numbers in a real world you can control what the golfer does.

>

> I possess all 3, but shafts are Different. Closest I am going to have to similar are recoil 110protos vs the 10s attas jdm models, but they are not speced the same exact on curve and torque, just same manufacturer for jdm and USA product.

>

> Anyway, I am happy to ginnea pig whatever if anyone Has a constructive way to do it.

>

>

>

 

Bigmean, if I may help... I HAVE done this stupid crazy test as I lied SO Many damn times to myself about it.....

 

1) My goal was to fit a shot window. PERIOD. So I took whatever the hell club I felt that time to try and fit the shot window based on my current at the time swing speed.

 

So before when I was really crappy. I had nike forged blades traditional lofts. 49* PW. I wanted my PW to go 130 yards. have a shot window 100ft apex height on average. with 9500rpms of spin.

 

So with the fitter we got the set running, we bent the lofts, starting at 46* PW and then progressive from there. So that means my PW was going about 130ish and +9iron 142 ish, 8iron 155ish etc... looking for the certain distance, spin and height... THIS was when I was a complete hack..... trying to lie to myself.

 

2 years later gave up and got a set of AP2's which I did the same thing (Shot window goal), but the lofts were already set to the 46* PW 42* 9 iron ect..... I then put in X100 to help with the spin... as I was spinning it more than I wanted... it lowerd the flight from 120ft and 9800 down to 100ft and 9300. This gave me way more forgiveness than the nike forged blades for SURE during this development period.

 

I played about 3 years with this set, but noticed my body broke down a lot and I would fatigue. Went back and re fit a lighter shaft setup. 130grs vs 115grams... I moved to NS pro1150gh. in stiff rather than X100. I develop my swing yet again for the better. Swung with a better tempo not so explosive still having the same SHOT WINDOW I wanted.

 

100ft apex with the correct decent angle and spin for the intended distance.

 

2 years ago came across the PW -6iron Cobra amp cell pros' for $120 basically brand new. It was an impulse buy that I could not pass up.

 

At that point I was likely a 7 handicap. Guess what??? Took that set to the fitters.... got the launch window dialed in and have been playing them ever since. Currently PX 6.0's

 

The reason I play the Cobra's now over the MB's as I like the Cobra's they achieve the same shot window I want and distances that I want on a desired shot. When I hit a bad shot I suck it up and hope my short game is good enough. THE Cobras vs the AP2's dont seem to net me much of a difference in overall score so I play what I prefer thats it!

 

MY whole point....

 

What I would do is FIND a launch window or preference FIRST then work with the fitter to hit that window SO if you want an SGI for X launch window because you prefer the look and feel tune it with shaft and loft to achieve the window.

 

If you want MB's do the same, tune the shaft and the lofts to match the window. What you expect for each club. Then play your rounds and figure out your dispersion. if your dispersion is SO horrible with the MB's then its time to hang them up and find something that again MATCHes the shot window but provides you the best scoring opportunity IF score is important.

 

[Bigmean]

Yeah, I need to revisit my lofts and lies and club map all the sets.....

 

I was just offering in case maybe there was some way I could perform a series of comparative club fitting sequences or something and just give the numbers over to be argued about ?

 

I use it to practice on and play quite a bit of rounds on it for kicks at night. I actually love playing 18 in it with auto putt. I don’t look at the numbers really, I just look at the yellow line and cuss at it after a bad swing hoping the yellow line will not do that sharp hook at the end of a pull I know I just hit.

[Exactice808]

> @Bigmean said:

> Yeah, I need to revisit my lofts and lies and club map all the sets.....

>

> I was just offering in case maybe there was some way I could perform a series of comparative club fitting sequences or something and just give the numbers over to be argued about ?

>

> I use it to practice on and play quite a bit of rounds on it for kicks at night. I actually love playing 18 in it with auto putt. I don’t look at the numbers really, I just look at the yellow line and cuss at it after a bad swing hoping the yellow line will not do that sharp hook at the end of a pull I know I just hit.

 

See this is where this conversation gets painful. I Know factually forgiveness is a factor. I know it SHOULD weigh heavy on ANY player PERIOD of any skill group.

But thats when and where I draw the line. If I take 2 sets that I took the time to build data on. They produce similar intended results. Good and Bad........ why not play the one you like the most.

 

I did personally take the time to research this. I did take the time to pay money to get shafts fit. I did take the time to evaluate my game. I DID lie to myself before... now I have just fallen on the facts.. I am playing what I want to play..... Heck I crazy enough to have data sheets on all my shafts and clubs. I have 2 package scales to measure each club, head, shaft and total weight to figure out the swing weight. I bought a crap ton of lead tape just to get the swing weights close.

 

Personally why do I do it? Because I love the tinker aspect. I am NOT a talented golfer in the slightest. BUT I really really really enjoy the tampering, tinkering and data part of golf honestly probably more than I DO playing the game itself....

 

So if choosing the iron head is the goal then at least place an intent. FIT the shot window you WANT or need to score the best. who says you have to have progressive 3* lofts gaps in your irons. if you struggle with your 6 & 5 iron and lack distance bend them stronger... by 5* who the hell cares. If you are hell bent on playing blades at least do the data to allow you to shoot the best scores you can.

[Chuck905]

> @revanant said:

> So, in the name of science, and in an effort to take maximum advantage of the golf simulator in my apartment building, I've got a set of Titleist 716 CBs on the way. They have Aerotech Steelfiber i95s in them, which was a shaft recommended to me. Price was $460 for 4-PW, which is close to the costs of the shafts alone, but still a little steep for a vanity purchase.

>

> If I like them, I can flip my AP1s to drop the cost by a fair chunk, which makes just enough sense to me to justify the experiment. : ) Plus, it's a 30 day return policy, so I can back out if the irons don't justify the expense.

>

> I've only hit the 716 CB in the stock AMT S300, and those gave me a lot of height. With the Steelfiber 95s, I should be getting a little more swing speed (due to the lighter shafts) and even more height. I'll be curious to see if there's a dramatic difference in my carry and height, and to really see what I think of the feel and aesthetics. To a degree, I suspect the difference may not be so dramatic, mainly because the AP1s theoretically have a lot more forgiveness-boosting features and light/high launching shafts, but didn't really separate from the MP-4s in my hands.

>

> Best case, I'll have three iron sets in rotation in my tiny apartment. Worst case...I'll have three iron sets in rotation in my tiny apartment. : )

 

The shaft can make or break the iron experience.

 

I jumped on the light shaft band wagon based on recommendations coming off injuries. Was losing a full club distance once I got healthy. Shaft feel was aweful and I couldn’t find the sweet spot as often due to shaft being too light.

 

My threshold was 110 grams which is a Recoil 110 in the two iron and the result or optimal.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @Bigmean said:

> Yeah, I need to revisit my lofts and lies and club map all the sets.....

>

> I was just offering in case maybe there was some way I could perform a series of comparative club fitting sequences or something and just give the numbers over to be argued about ?

>

> I use it to practice on and play quite a bit of rounds on it for kicks at night. I actually love playing 18 in it with auto putt. I don’t look at the numbers really, I just look at the yellow line and cuss at it after a bad swing hoping the yellow line will not do that sharp hook at the end of a pull I know I just hit.

 

AHAHAH I just had to check if you didnt already think im nuts now.....

this is how ADD/OCD ridiculous I am..... cant believe I still have them

 

 

literally took the specs to make sure I was trying to get as close to apples to apples for that launch window.

 

[Bigmean]

Yeah....my monitor time definitely involves more rum ?

 

I have however been watching YouTube on monitors and learned what azimuth is, which is key becuase it is basically path confirmation for me with GC2.

 

I think that will help with my Outside pull hook tendency....

[uglande]

Hitting a flush shot with a forged blade is the best sensation in golf. Even though I've moved away from blades this season and have gotten sucked into the P790 vortex (where I'm perfectly happy), I will always turn back to blades from time to time in order to chase that magical, buttery feeling you can only get from a quality forged iron. I wouldn't try to talk any golfer out of playing blades or forged cavity-backs, regardless of handicap.

[pinestreetgolf]

> @Exactice808 said:

> See this is where this conversation gets painful. I Know factually forgiveness is a factor. I know it SHOULD weigh heavy on ANY player PERIOD of any skill group.

 

Correct.

 

> But thats when and where I draw the line. If I take 2 sets that I took the time to build data on. They produce similar intended results. Good and Bad........ why not play the one you like the most.

 

This isn't where you draw the line, its where you start playing word games. You say "similar", which is an interesting word there. Are they "similar" or is one better and one more fun / cooler? You know you can't say "the same" because you've posted a ton of data that shows the opposite of that, so they are "similar". One is better than the other. We are finally getting close to what is actually going on - forgiveness is way more improtant to your score, blades are way more important to 1. your feeling at impact 10% of the time and 2. your self-image. And nothing wrong with that.

 

But this is what I've been talking about throughout the thread. You use words like "similar" to lie to yourself. You're not saying "well, CBs give me slightly better numbers so I'm going with blades even though it will hurt me over a lot of rounds player, its more fun." you just say they're both "similar".

 

Whenever anyone as painstaking as you seem to be does all that work and then at the end waves a hand and says "eh, similar, imma do what I want" its a cop out and a word perfect for self-deception.

 

Somehow we went from "the same" on page 30-31 to "similar" on page 42. That isn't an accident.

 

> I did personally take the time to research this. I did take the time to pay money to get shafts fit. I did take the time to evaluate my game. I DID lie to myself before... now I have just fallen on the facts.. I am playing what I want to play..... Heck I crazy enough to have data sheets on all my shafts and clubs. I have 2 package scales to measure each club, head, shaft and total weight to figure out the swing weight. I bought a **** ton of lead tape just to get the swing weights close.

 

An old saying would apply here. Its better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.

 

 

[Bigmean]

I think what everyone is missing for real is that the true “costing of shots” is just not accurate or at the least a one size fits all answer. I think blades and cbs for more golfers than would believe (not all) is no different that choosing different driver heads and shafts/length with different trade offs. It is really that simple.

 

There is no universal same, better, worse, similar....it is a bunch of trade offs that may or may not effect specific shots/swings on course at a detriment or enhancement or indifference to where the next shot is played.

 

That’s it really in a nutshell....

[MelloYello]

> @Bigmean said:

> I think what everyone is missing for real is that the true “costing of shots” is just not accurate or at the least a one size fits all answer. I think blades and cbs for more golfers than would believe (not all) is no different that choosing different driver heads and shafts/length with different trade offs. It is really that simple.

>

> There is no universal same, better, worse, similar....it is a bunch of trade offs that may or may not effect specific shots/swings on course at a detriment or enhancement or indifference to where the next shot is played.

>

> That’s it really in a nutshell....

 

I don't know, man...it's pretty cut and dry in my experience.

 

I'll agree that extreme lateral misses are usually due to pushes and pulls which are club-invariant, but CBs result in more consistent carry distances by a pretty wide margin, while going slightly straighter, too. And they still provide you with all the same feel of an iron versus say, a different style of club like a graphite-shafted hybrid.

 

It's hard to make the case such a feature doesn't help mid- and high-handicaps.

 

When the blade guys are literally basing their argument on _"I'd rather be 5-yds further away anyhow,"_ I think the conversation is over. If we can't agree that we're trying to minimize our average proximity to the pin with an iron in hand, I just don't see us resolving anything.

 

[revanant]

> @Bigmean said:

> I think what everyone is missing for real is that the true “costing of shots” is just not accurate or at the least a one size fits all answer. I think blades and cbs for more golfers than would believe (not all) is no different that choosing different driver heads and shafts/length with different trade offs. It is really that simple.

>

> There is no universal same, better, worse, similar....it is a bunch of trade offs that may or may not effect specific shots/swings on course at a detriment or enhancement or indifference to where the next shot is played.

>

> That’s it really in a nutshell....

 

I totally agree. Personally, at my high handicap (but dropping!), what really stacks up the score and gets me into ESC territory is a horizontal miss. The worst thing I can do is hit a ball into trash, which usually means uneven dirt or heavy brush or the side of a hill (my home course has a lot of sandy hills guarding the fairways to keep people from running into neighboring holes on an errant shot).

 

On the other hand, the worst thing that will happen if I lose lateral distance is I’ll dunk a ball into water or a bunker. I usually get out of bunkers on the first try, which I attribute 100% to my 58 degree, 14 bounce wedge. And a water splash is only a stroke, which is usually better than the cost of me trying to hit out of a horizontal miss that’s now in trouble.

 

This is not to say that I actually want to hit my ball short. I don’t. I want to hit the number I planned. That being said, I have yet to find a club that narrows my lateral miss to less than 10 yards, but I have found clubs that I control/shape better and worse. The clubs I control better for horizontal dispersion are really helping me play better golf.

 

To the extent that horizontal dispersion is an Indian consideration, rather than arrow, it still leads me to the same place. I can’t explain why I tend to hit smaller and less chunky irons better, but as long as they keep performing for me, I think I’d be wrong to swap to a club that retains more ballspeed on a hypothetical miss but that I hit more offline.

 

In other words, since I can lose at least 10 yards of lateral distance with any iron (and I’m not alone in that drop off—Mr. Mid Handicap had similar lateral issues across his test), I care less about cutting the lateral loss (I just play around a potential 10 yard drop with any iron choice and choose my poison) and a lot more about minimizing the horizontal miss, however I can manage it.

[chisag]

> @Bigmean said:

> I think what everyone is missing for real is that the true “costing of shots” is just not accurate or at the least a one size fits all answer. I think blades and cbs for more golfers than would believe (not all) is no different that choosing different driver heads and shafts/length with different trade offs. It is really that simple.

>

> There is no universal same, better, worse, similar....it is a bunch of trade offs that may or may not effect specific shots/swings on course at a detriment or enhancement or indifference to where the next shot is played.

>

> That’s it really in a nutshell....

 

 

... I usually have or more shots a round that are better with the forgiveness of perimeter weighting in my irons. For me, that is enough. One shot can mean the difference of being buried in a bunker lip or on the fringe of the green, in the water or on the edge of the red line, in the woods or hitting a knockdown under some limbs. The bottom line for me is I want to shoot the lowest number possible every time I play.

 

... Feel is nice and a determining factor if I am down to choosing between 2 clubs that perform very similar, but it is at the bottom of my list of iron requirements. I know for some here, feel is the #1 requirement and I completely disagree with Mellow Yellow in that I think anyone should play what gives them the most enjoyment. Even if they delude themselves into thinking they play better with MB's, although I have no doubt that a select few excellent ball strikers do play better wit MB's but that is a very small fraternity. But as has been stated ad nauseam from those o us that are not zealots in either camp, if shooting your lowest score is not your #1 priority, your choice of iron is personal and nobody on a forum or anywhere else can tell you that you are wrong.

[Exactice808]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > See this is where this conversation gets painful. I Know factually forgiveness is a factor. I know it SHOULD weigh heavy on ANY player PERIOD of any skill group.

>

> Correct.

>

> > But thats when and where I draw the line. If I take 2 sets that I took the time to build data on. They produce similar intended results. Good and Bad........ why not play the one you like the most.

>

> This isn't where you draw the line, its where you start playing word games. You say "similar", which is an interesting word there. Are they "similar" or is one better and one more fun / cooler? You know you can't say "the same" because you've posted a ton of data that shows the opposite of that, so they are "similar". One is better than the other. We are finally getting close to what is actually going on - forgiveness is way more improtant to your score, blades are way more important to 1. your feeling at impact 10% of the time and 2. your self-image. And nothing wrong with that.

>

> But this is what I've been talking about throughout the thread. You use words like "similar" to lie to yourself. You're not saying "well, CBs give me slightly better numbers so I'm going with blades even though it will hurt me over a lot of rounds player, its more fun." you just say they're both "similar".

>

> Whenever anyone as painstaking as you seem to be does all that work and then at the end waves a hand and says "eh, similar, imma do what I want" its a cop out and a word perfect for self-deception.

>

> Somehow we went from "the same" on page 30-31 to "similar" on page 42. That isn't an accident.

>

> > I did personally take the time to research this. I did take the time to pay money to get shafts fit. I did take the time to evaluate my game. I DID lie to myself before... now I have just fallen on the facts.. I am playing what I want to play..... Heck I crazy enough to have data sheets on all my shafts and clubs. I have 2 package scales to measure each club, head, shaft and total weight to figure out the swing weight. I bought a **** ton of lead tape just to get the swing weights close.

>

> An old saying would apply here. Its better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.

>

>

 

Why cant I draw the line, Why cant I have my own opinion why cant I make my own decision. What gives you the right to dictate my game. THAT is the problem. You guys have your own preconceived notions NO different then "SOME" of the blade guys. YOU then force your OPINION's, personal experiences. On others. YES Have dropped a TON of data out here. Yet they CANNOT refute them or they accuse me of twisting or lying, when I CATCH them in their own lie they dont respond and or make stupid responses like if you dont agree with me dont respond.

 

Everything I have stated has been relevant to 1 person's game and 1 person's alone. MINE no one else. I have not forced my experiences as universal truth. I have shared my experience, that maybe out there in the sea of billions of golfers 1 person may a similar situation. YES i have stated it forgiveness is a factor, it is important. But the game can be played in so many ways and fashions the truth is it how fast you get it in the hole. In the sea of golfers forgiveness can be negated for another facet to allow a player to shoot better.

 

LET me say it again. TW just won the master with Blades... WHY, if forgiveness is for everyone and everyone misses TW is NOT immune to misses. Proximity is EVERYTHING and CB's will allow for reductions total proximity by making the distance losses minimal WHY does TW and a percentage of tour players not play CB's.

 

How about this, Speith was on the hottest streak in years playing AP2's and fell of the planet. He played Player's GI's and WON and now no where to be found... Why is that....should he now switch to SGI's? That will bring him back to number 1 status?

 

The word games etc. Someone made a pretty damn good statement that I would 100% agree thinking more and more.

A mid capper lets use 14hdcp. likely does not see or feel or sense a benefit if they found that +/-1 shot. If they shot a 85 one day then a 87 the next day. BUT I think it becomes well more evident at 80 vs 79 and on the GHIN sheet an 82 vs 81 seems to matter more.... as we went from double digits to single digits.

 

NOW you make great point. OVER the course of time.... lets do the one year......to make it factually true what you are saying. IF a 14hdcp played blades and shot fluctuating shots ranging from 87-85 and we got the average of 14 it is what it is, BUT say the play with Cavity backs' and over the course of the year shoots more 85's than 87's lowering the average by one shot, YOU ARE 100% the CB were factually better and reduced the hdcp..... BUT again is the 1 stroke what we are trying to do or are we trying to reach the next level of being a single digit. So as I have stated on numerous occasions. If the 1 stroke over a long period of benefits is NOT worth the sacrifice of enjoyment. I would gladly give up that 1 stroke hdcp over the course of the year to play a club I am having fun with. As my TRUTH the only way I can get to a single digit again? Is good hard focused practice and commitment to the game. NO CB or SGI will take me to a single digit alone. SO again I have stated it many times, I CHOSE to personally play it as the disparity is NOT substantial in my mind. In my current form and current commitment to golf the "similarities" are to close to not just go out and have fun.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Bigmean said:

> > I think what everyone is missing for real is that the true “costing of shots” is just not accurate or at the least a one size fits all answer. I think blades and cbs for more golfers than would believe (not all) is no different that choosing different driver heads and shafts/length with different trade offs. It is really that simple.

> >

> > There is no universal same, better, worse, similar....it is a bunch of trade offs that may or may not effect specific shots/swings on course at a detriment or enhancement or indifference to where the next shot is played.

> >

> > That’s it really in a nutshell....

>

> I don't know, man...it's pretty cut and dry in my experience.

>

> I'll agree that extreme lateral misses are usually due to pushes and pulls which are club-invariant, but CBs result in more consistent carry distances by a pretty wide margin, while going slightly straighter, too. And they still provide you with all the same feel of an iron versus say, a different style of club like a graphite-shafted hybrid.

>

> It's hard to make the case such a feature doesn't help mid- and high-handicaps.

>

> When the blade guys are literally basing their argument on _"I'd rather be 5-yds further away anyhow,"_ I think the conversation is over. If we can't agree that we're trying to minimize our average proximity to the pin with an iron in hand, I just don't see us resolving anything.

>

 

While again I concede I made an stupid claim and I dont know why I was holding on to it for no good reason. Proximity is Important to ALL golfers, the closer in general we are to the whole the better.... I 100% agree.. Is this universal though is the the "law" no does it have to apply to all golfers. NO.

 

Let me leave this here

 

 

 

DJ #1 in the world, is used in a short game video on the tube...and HE admits that he would NEVER leave himself in these shot situations.

AGAIN not universal, But relevant to certain golfs. Why do these things state HAVE to be universal truths WHY can it NOT just be a person's personal experiences sharing with others for them to make their OWN decision.

 

[MelloYello]

> @chisag said:

> ...I completely disagree with @MelloYello in that I think anyone should play what gives them the most enjoyment.

 

With all due respect, we are not debating whether golfers have the freedom to prioritize things like feel, distance and looks according to their own wishes.

 

Virtually everyone has agreed that if someone wants to choose aesthetics over performance we should respect that so long as the player is forthright about it.

 

What drives these threads is the fact certain individuals report that they score better with blades. These reports almost always contain (1) limited data and (2) anecdotal scenarios concocted to sell the idea that misses are somehow more manageable with blades.

 

We have heard how being further from the hole is better. We have heard about how there is a "capitalist conspiracy" in place.

 

If you ask me, these threads elucidate the psychological pitfalls of lusting after blades which predictably ends in the golfer attempting to justify their irrational decisions to the unbiased observer.

 

The data has shown a practical benefit to cavities. The testimony of numerous people sharing their own experience has backed that up. Many of these people have been low-handicaps who have talked in-depth about their experiences with blades.

 

I really don't know how much softer and more sympathetic these threads can be.

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> DJ #1 in the world, is used in a short game video on the tube...and HE admits that he would NEVER leave himself in these shot situations.

> AGAIN not universal, But relevant to certain golfs. Why do these things state HAVE to be universal truths WHY can it NOT just be a person's personal experiences sharing with others for them to make their OWN decision.

 

Please don't link me a 19-minute video expecting me to drop everything I'm doing at work and watch it (I can't). Include a time-stamp if there's a certain portion you want to highlight or simply quote from the video.

 

That said, please summarize what he said so I can respond accordingly. Thanks.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @chisag said:

> > ...I completely disagree with @MelloYello in that I think anyone should play what gives them the most enjoyment.

>

> With all due respect, we are not debating whether golfers have the freedom to prioritize things like feel, distance and looks according to their own wishes.

>

> Virtually everyone has agreed that if someone wants to choose aesthetics over performance we should respect that so long as the player is forthright about it.

>

> What drives these threads is the fact certain individuals report that they score better with blades. These reports almost always contain (1) limited data and (2) anecdotal scenarios concocted to sell the idea that misses are somehow more manageable with blades.

>

> We have heard how being further from the hole is better. We have heard about how there is a "capitalist conspiracy" in place.

>

> If you ask me, these threads elucidate the psychological pitfalls of lusting after blades which predictably ends in the golfer attempting to justify their irrational decisions to the unbiased observer.

>

> The data has shown a practical benefit to cavities. The testimony of numerous people sharing their own experience has backed that up. Many of these people have been low-handicaps who have talked in-depth about their experiences with blades.

>

> I really don't know how much softer and more sympathetic these threads can be.

 

Tired of being nice. Going to call out all your BS right there.

 

1) Your very first post to me was to attack my clubs I play, that was in my SIG because I choose to play a split set, And I admitted at the end of my post that I play what I wanted.

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18898125#Comment_18898125

 

2) You then openly admit you were intentionally trolling and baiting...... (How nice, how open minded you are)

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18899674#Comment_18899674

 

3) We then go on to the data subject, Where you make the claim that the Perimeter weight they moved increase launch due to the CG movement. When I show that there is a 5.5* Loft disparity and that the LOFTS by launch characteristics are TRUE, more loft = higher launch, less distance and more spin. THAT is universal due to physics.

 

 

So if you TRULY believed what you said, that anyone has the ability to play what they want, how about not attacking someone for playing what they want....

 

The rest of your post HOLD much truth and fact, IT does go haywire, with capital conspiracy while funny and outrages...could be true?

 

Finally. I Know FACTUALLY I have NEVER once stated that blades made me better.... nor have I stated CB made me better either..... I have ultimately state that focused practices has made me better. I just did the LAUNCH characteristics to get the club to the shot window I expected based on my current skill set.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > DJ #1 in the world, is used in a short game video on the tube...and HE admits that he would NEVER leave himself in these shot situations.

> > AGAIN not universal, But relevant to certain golfs. Why do these things state HAVE to be universal truths WHY can it NOT just be a person's personal experiences sharing with others for them to make their OWN decision.

>

> Please don't link me a 19-minute video expecting me to drop everything I'm doing at work and watch it (I can't). Include a time-stamp if there's a certain portion you want to highlight or simply quote from the video.

>

> That said, please summarize what he said so I can respond accordingly. Thanks.

 

Sorry place stamping it! my apologies i figured you want to watch the whole context later, but on my way to work so I will get you that time stamp shortly! Sorry about that. Just didnt want to lose the thought process!

 

 

Here is the cut frame, NOW fair in context this is not exact to the specified topic, BUT this is specific to "CHOICE" the he would NOT leave himself a 50 yards shot. MUCH like some may NOT want a 5 yard shot compared to a 10 yard... for whatever reason in specific to ones personal game.

 

AGAIN for you to apply your opinions as UNIVERSAL and it applies to all's ones game is my contention with you. YOUR opinions should be shared experiences equal to my opinion no better or no worse to allow another person onlooking to take it into account and make their OWN finalized decisions. NEITHER of our experiences are wrong.

[Bigmean]

Actually nothing is proven but people’s preferences, the same as putters. People shoot their best with billy baroo or Scotty Cameron or whatever in between that they are comfortable in aiming and hitting where they want.

 

You all refuse to acknowledge that in fact a solid preshot routine is likely more of an outcome on a scorecard than the irons used BECAUSE the mental aspect of this game trumps the trade offs in equipment. Again, I will use the example of the Vsteel crew, there is better forgiveness out there and tech right? But they are at home with that 3wood and score better with it. I have a 913f that isn’t going anywhere for same reasons.

 

Where the mistake is made is when people make the parallel that the fact that scientifically ballspeed has a larger surface area on a cb blade than a mb blade that = forgiveness which in turn = better scores. Sorry, no way and why this whole thing never dies.

 

The reality is that the ball speed area of a blade is not a pin head, and the best stroke is going to be put on the ball by the golfer with the best possible mental attitude, confidence, and faith in what he is doing and believing in what he is seeing behind the ball before walking up and that Mindset is a larger factor than iron or 3 wood tech differences.

 

Do some guys make bad arguments for both sides, sure. But don’t let they muddy the water. Clubs need to be comfortable, you need to believe in what you can do and know what you can’t, and the greater that comfort level with any conforming club that is the club you will shoot your potential with.

 

My problem is that all these low handicap anti blades guys have to know at that level how important the mental aspect is, and how it trumps equipment. He’ll most of the time equipment helps spark a new exciting mental outlook....most of the time we pay for that placebo, like a rally cap, we want to hear it is longer straighter more forgiving And we stand over the ball feeling that and swinging with confidence in it......

 

Scores tied to science are NEVER going to win any argument in sports. How many on paper statistical favorites lose across all sports all the time? There is the intangible mental factor that is always a part of best scores, and whether that is putting your socks on backwards, being free and clear, listening to heavy metal all round, talking smack to your partner, not saying anything and enjoying the scene more than thinking score, or your confidence in your bag, is all the same damn thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gbartko]

i have it on good authority that ping hired the same team that covered up the jfk assassination, 9/11 and the frozen envelope in the 1985 nba draft to cover up why they won't make a true blade as well as produce the bulk of their marketing materials.