My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[dpb5031]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @kiwihacker said:

> > >

> > > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> > >

> > > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> > But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models, they moved so much weight, more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight.......... yeah........ok!

> >

>

> Honest question - have you hit the 716 or 718 CB?

 

I have hit the 716 CBs. My buddy plays them. Nice clubs, but not a whole lot of difference in terms of forgiveness/ease of use than most modern blades IMO.

 

If you're a mid cap looking for some forgiveness and help with your iron play, there are much better options.

 

 

[MelloYello]

I think the amount of play has a lot to do with one's perspective on forgiveness.

 

This year I am averaging roughly 36 holes per week in addition to some moderate practice in between with all clubs. I've had multiple weekends with over 60 holes.

 

Throughout, my primary goal has been to lower my handicap. To me though, it feels like I'm fixing a number that's artificially-inflated by a lack of practice, some sloppy strategy and a slew of on-again, off-again feels. All along my game has sort of coalesced into a rather consistent thing.

 

I could play and/or practice more often. I could do it every single day if I _really_ wanted but I don't mostly out of laziness. Honestly, I'm not sure I have the faith for that. If I practiced every day and didn't improve I'd get really down on myself, really quick. If I were playing 60+ holes every week and not threatening par I'd be pretty angry. Long story short, I've been in that headspace and I don't want to go back.

 

There are days where if I can't play, I won't even go to the course to practice (beyond maybe putting) because I don't have any range-oriented stuff to work on. I feel that sometimes that's legitimately better. I know my swing right now. I'm at a point where I need about 6-8 balls at the range to get warmed up. When you're at that place, the idea of beating balls is not just pointless, it's risky.

 

I simply don't want to F with what I have going.

 

So I'm not giving everything I have towards lowering my handicap but I'm still giving more than I ever have which feels good. A lot of my push came from meeting up with friends who play a lot as well.

 

But all along I'm thinking score, score, score. For me, I don't see making the game harder as a good thing. My wedges are my strength. My short irons are better than average. My mid-irons are okay. They could use some improvement. I may transition to some hybrids in the longer stuff. That's probably a good idea. I've got a stupid-friendly fairway and driver, too.

 

I just don't see the point in not trying to lower scores. What good is a flushed shot if you shoot 95 that day? To me, that's just mental weakness creeping in letting you pretend you're actually reaching your goals when you're really not.

 

Nobody dreams of hitting killer irons shots only to miss putts or hit their driver OB on the next hole. Yeah, blades feel nifty but a single good shot is worthless on it's own. The point of the game is to master the 100 different facets involved.

 

Most of the lower handicaps I've come across didn't impress me with their 7-irons anyway. It was the rhythm, the tempo, the ability to focus, the natural concentration, the driving, the wedge play, the putting, the consistency, the power, and even the lack thereof.

 

I think the less time one spends on the course and the more people get obsessed with having to prove they can play a particular type of equipment, the more easily they will become distracted from the ultimate goal which is to suck as little as possible, LOL.

[Golfer4Life]

I’m more concerned with people playing the right tees in accordance to their skills. I don’t care what clubs people use, but when someone can’t hit a driver over 200 yds, that individual has no business playing from the tips, and even at 200 yds, playing a 7200 yds golf course is a stretch. I never understood people paying $500.00+ to play a nice golf course to score a 150 because they are playing the wrong tees. I’ll rather play at 6200 yds and score well, to me that’s fun.

[Tree Levino]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > @kiwihacker said:

> > > >

> > > > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> > > >

> > > > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> > > But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models, they moved so much weight, more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight.......... yeah........ok!

> > >

> >

> > Honest question - have you hit the 716 or 718 CB?

>

> I have hit the 716 CBs. My buddy plays them. Nice clubs, but not a whole lot of difference in terms of forgiveness/ease of use than most modern blades IMO.

>

> If you're a mid cap looking for some forgiveness and help with your iron play, there are much better options.

>

>

 

I would say 1) shots are way easier to elevate if slightly miss hit compared to MB and 2) slight toe hits go the distance and tug slightly. At my cap and lack of playing years, I find them as forgiving as AP2. I’d say in the 4-7 irons there is a drastic difference when compared to a blade but maybe that’s just me. The benefit is they still look identical to one at address.

[MelloYello]

I can see where @dpb5031 is coming from. If you want more forgiveness than a Titleist CB, you have options from basically every OEM now in either their PCB or Player's Distance iron category.

 

That said, I've been delighted with the CB performance thus far. They provide me the neutral look of a blade with far greater performance on toe-strikes. I guess that's because the CG must be a little further out? I'm only half-joking when I say that some of my best shots have been on the toe-side of center.

[MelloYello]

> @Golfer4Life said:

> I’m more concerned with people playing the right tees in accordance to their skills. I don’t care what clubs people use, but when someone can’t hit a driver over 200 yds, that individual has no business playing from the tips, and even at 200 yds, playing a 7200 yds golf course is a stretch. I never understood people paying $500.00+ to play a nice golf course to score a 150 because they are playing the wrong tees. I’ll rather play at 6200 yds and score well, to me that’s fun.

 

People are way too quick to always play the same tees, too. I mostly play from the same tee boxes but that's one nice thing about having friends of varying skill level. They won't all expect to play the same tees.

[Nard_S]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> I think the less time one spends on the course and the more people get obsessed with having to prove they can play a particular type of equipment, the more easily they will become distracted from the ultimate goal which is to suck as little as possible, LOL.

 

I'm lucky if I get out 15-20 times a year. I do have time to practice 3-5 hours a week though. Sucking as little as possible means working on the very things that make you suck. Scratch guys have a lot of assets, among them a serviceable P6 position, hands that are neutral & impact that's several grooves up on face with a bottoming 3" beyond ball. Blades impose that standard, thin misses are not rewarded, there's a price to them, not omg price but a reminder to get that right. You start building genuine lag in the swing the hardest thing to do is to avoid that miss because you spent years straightening up to compensate for your cheap down strike. They also impose a standard where flipping the club to save bad mechanics is not tolerated as well. Biggest adjustment I had to make was quieting the hands but to do that I needed to improve the body movements first. So I'm not wasting time trying to prove anything, I'm addressing systemic faults via the gear I play.

 

Does it work? Yes and no. Yes, I hit the ball much better with smaller misses and with more speed. No. Because score wise you can ignore 2-3 years of index, you start making significant changes, plan on that. You play a lot, use a Pro, still 18 months. Only when you bleed in things and play a lot will scores go right direction, till then it's Jekyll & Hyde performance on the course and the MB's are not really to blame.

[MelloYello]

> @Nard_S said:

>

> Blades impose that standard...

 

I don't agree with that sort of attitude. It's horribly ineffective based on what I've seen and experienced. I think the golf swing and golf club are two separate entities and whatever feedback loop there is in between the two pales in comparison to simply working on your swing directly.

 

Improving one's swing is an honorable and practical goal. Hoping to get there by some circular and indirect route by which a certain type of club pushes you is just not the way to go about it IMHO.

 

I played blades for 10 years and never fixed my swing flaws. What allowed me to fix my flaws was looking at my swing on video and getting into positions that I never would have without realizing what mistakes I was making.

 

THAT was meaningful feedback.

 

What might take you literally a decade or more with a blade you can see in 5 minutes of work with video.

 

I use small PCB irons _because_ I've put in the work to a craft good swing. Hoping to get a good swing just by purchasing a certain type of iron isn't very effective. It would be great if that were guaranteed to work but it's not. TBH, that work really didn't have anything to due with the club nor would the club have taught me those things.

 

I won't say that what you're arguing for is patently false, but it's a huge waste of time IMHO. It's a poor reason to play blades. Just play 'em because they look snazzy and be happy with that.

 

The best ball-strikers I've seen all used Player's irons. There's an obvious correlation (preference) there. Whether you play a blade or not is just personal preference. As much as I can tell, it's all about looks and feel. The guys who were super picky about blades stuck with them for various personal reasons while the guys who didn't really worry too much all went with the most forgiving iron they could stand.

[nsxguy]

> @kiwihacker said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @kiwihacker said:

> > > Just a question for the blades players on this thread. Does a small head players cb also work for you? My first experiment with blades was a mixed set MP-30 3-5 and MP-33 6-PW. They blended beautifully and I would have been just as happy playing the MP-30 in the 6-PW. They both looked and felt sweet to me. The appearance at address was very similar.

> >

> > I had a chance a while back to actually test. First lets set the tone;

> > 1) MB is an MB no cavity not pockets just MB

> > 2) Players Cavity is like a Titliest CB, Slight perimeter weight, traditional lofts, lies, offset. thin soled and thinner topline

> > 3) Players GI is like an AP2, or Mizuno 919 forged, pocket cavities, slightly larger soles, slight offset at the long irons.

> >

> > OK So difference I saw or experienced with Players Cavity. Height. Club for club, loft for loft the ball would go a little higher. couple of ft higher. This was translated by the slight increase of ball speed and distance gain. a 46* PCB vs MB, was about 6ft higher and about 3 yards longer, touch less spin about 100rpms.

> >

> > **A players CB though is still very demanding the slight cavity did not seem to net much gains on a miss hit.** If it was missed it would still be penalized. THE only benefit that I could take a way, was the slight groove low shots. They did NOT lose as much like on a MB, they still kept their flight so maintained some height and carry. Did not spin as much as a missed MB. So if you tend to thin the ball or hit more lower shots than higher shots the CB's can help on the low faced missed and also increase flight just a touch. that was my take, when demoing the 714 CB's.

> >

>

> Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

>

> Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

 

While I can't speak for the "anti blades brigade", I don't believe they care what you, or anyone else, plays. Why ? Because most(?) of them have said exactly that.

 

What they do (appear to mostly) care about is how the "anti CB brigade" keeps defending their choice of blades with "There's so little difference it doesn't MAKE any difference" or even "There IS no difference",,,,,,,,,,, when CB guys, who have tried both, know there IS a difference, at least to them. And their anecdotal evidence is at least as valid as the anti-CB guys.

 

And I asked once before and got "crickets" but why do you suppose that virtually NO Tour Pro, or amateur for that matter, does NOT use a blade (NON-heel toe weighted) putter or anything but one of the most forgiving drivers.

 

I see no wailing to bring back the Bullseye or 8802 or the SLDR or the Super Deep, you know, so they can "work" the ball better off the tee. And even the lowest spinning drivers on the market right now have a TON of forgiveness built into them that dwarfs any forgiveness factor in the SLDR or SD drivers. So I have to wonder why they want to work the ball with their irons yet don't feel the need to work it off the tee.

 

Sure, you see Corey with his Bullseye and I, once in a blue moon see an 8802 style putter, but at least 3 of the Top 10 in the world are playing the TM Spider-X,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I posted this elsewhere and it is not "proof" of anything except I "got away with one. I have some physical issues that cause me problems with my balance. I sometimes finish my driver swing with dancing moves that Nuryev would be jealous of LOL

 

I carry a very well struck drive about 240 MAX with my new Epic Flash SZ. Playing a scramble some week ago, and with 230+ to carry a water penalty area and a 2 club wind at my back I hit the shot shown below. I lost my balance on the downswing and hit the ball way towards the toe. I saw the direction and immediately said "That's wet. Since I was hitting directly over a villa we couldn't see the ball splash.

 

So we're riding out there and see the other 3 balls and off in the distance see another one roughly in the direction I hit. No way. Turns out the ball was about 250 off the tee (remember, 2 club wind).

 

Now I am NOT saying this translates directly to SGI or even GI but, I mark a "V" over the number on my ball and I face a "V" directly down the target line so I very often have a "V" on my iron's club face after the shot and I have seen a fair number of marks well off the quarter(?) sized sweet spot and ended up with a relatively "reasonable" result and from hitting blades into a sim can tell you that a similar hit off the sweet spot gives me a FAR less acceptable result.

 

Anywho, here's the driver pic. You can see the imprint of the ball's dimples all the way on the toe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> >

> > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> >

> > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models, they moved so much weight, more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight.......... yeah........ok!

>

 

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @kiwihacker said:

> >

> > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> >

> > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models, they moved so much weight, more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight.......... yeah........ok!

>

 

With all your declarations of being all about facts, debates and evidence and your (assumed) stance of being objective, you show, by just these derisive posts that you're clearly a blade guy - not that there's anything wrong with that LOL

 

And not that anybody thought otherwise before but thanks for the ~~edification~~ confirmation. [wink]

[revanant]

> @Exactice808 said:

> @revanant

> perfect! Yups looks like at least the shot window is there. Couple thoughts

> 1) Launch is a little low (peak height looks to be about 63ft) , height is your friend with the lower swing speed ( 16.6* launch for a 6 iron vs the 19 or 20* (74ft) that would really bring up your peak height)

>

> 2) Spin while low helps for distance to an extent you are hitting low bullets that have a shallow decent and less spin to hold greens. so a little more spin couldnt hurt. 6000rpms vs the average 5770

>

> OK shot data out the window couple swing thoughts.

>

> 1) Shot dispersion as you edified that you were concerned about horizontal dispersion right?

> First picture shows 33.7 yards dispersion 101.1ft dispersion thats a pretty wide dispersion number for 140 yard shot. Average green diameter is about 30 yards, So at a par 3 scoring distance (150 yard average for a generic par 3) You are potentially missing the green. the next follow are , 17.9, 15.2 (Average mean is still 22.2y dispersion)

> https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.339.html

> The lowest guy 214th place, 125-150 yards from the green is 31ft. thats 10 yards dispersion. I dont expect you to be that point, but at least maybe strive to have that right?

>

> 2) secondly I see the spin numbers on that specific screen shot 6758 high, 4784 low, this does indicate strike variance. This is edified by the other screen shots, you have high 6200 and lows 4300 that wide spin variance for a shot window is pretty inconsistent. For Irons and distance control your spin is the likely factor of getting the shot to go the consistent distance you want. Again for a 6 iron going 145 carry that you want, with 6000rpms of spin is the generic goal, but if you got a shot that is skulled with 4300rpms for an intended 6 iron you have no idea where or when the shot will stop.

>

> 3) So Shafts help with tempo and timing as well. What kind of tempo are you swinging with? Deliberate or controlled? Medium or explosive and or hard? As stated by others opinion. I agree to an extent that looking for shaft options as well might be something to consider. MOST demo clubs are in 6 irons and that means there are a sea of options. KBS, DG S300, PX, NS pro etc..... While you seem to be stuck on the PX 6.0 for what ever reason the edification of shot dispersion is there. So honestly I cant imagine you would swing any worse than a PX 5.0 or NS pro 950gh, or KBS regulars. I know you stated that you hit the PX 6.0 fine..... but I am curious why your dispersion is so wide for a 140 yard shot. 22yard average again in my opinion is wide.

>

> Anyways as far a data goes I dont think I can offer much more.

> Practice and lessons should help key in the swing to find out why. I am with the other poster as a shaft evaluation to find the shot window, gather your tempo and load profiles may benefit more than you think but again that just a humble opinion from the observed data.

>

> Good Luck!

>

>

>

>

>

>

Thanks for digging into this.

 

So, would it be fair to characterize the Project X 6.0 as playable/fine?

 

It looks to me like the metrics are close enough, especially given the human factor. I do have shots that launch closer to 18, or that spin a little bit closer to 6000 rpm, but I don’t always take pictures—figures these were close enough.

 

Ultimately, I’m fine if spin doesn’t exactly hit 6k or if launch is a degree lower than ideal. To my mind, a few hundred rpm is a marginal difference, compared to the cost of a shaft change. I could also swap balls and see if numbers shift a little.

 

In other words, I’m not wedded to the Project X 6.0. I’ll play any shaft at any flex and weight. It’s more that a shaft change is pricey, and it doesn’t seem like a pressing need at the moment. I think this was the perspective of my fitter as well—there may be more optimal shafts out there, but the cost of a shaft change is high and the difference between the shafts in my hands weren’t huge. I did get slightly higher launch and peak height in the low 70 ft vs high 60s with the KBS Tour 90s and Steelfiber 80 and 95. But changing the shafts on my MP-4s will be more than I paid for my irons themselves. If I’m spending a few hundred dollars, I think I’m better off putting it into lessons, rather than putting it into an iron reshaft. If I’m buying gear, the money is going to a 3 wood with baffler rails. : )

 

On the horizontal dispersion point, I think I used the wrong word. I’m not worried about the spread of my shots. I’m just worried about a wide horizontal miss. I’m not entirely sure what the dispersion criteria measures—it might be total distance between shots. First shot is about 20 feet right of target, 2nd shot is on the line, and third shot is 15 feet left. So my kids isn’t actually more than 6 or 7 yards, max, even if the gap between my shots is wide (at least, that how I view it)—and these are small samples, so I don’t read much into them.

 

Happy to hear your thoughts, though. : )

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> >

> > Blades impose that standard...

>

> I don't agree with that sort of attitude. It's horribly ineffective based on what I've seen and experienced. I think the golf swing and golf club are two separate entities and whatever feedback loop there is in between the two pales in comparison to simply working on your swing directly.

>

> Improving one's swing is an honorable and practical goal. Hoping to get there by some circular and indirect route by which a certain type of club pushes you is just not the way to go about it IMHO.

>

> I played blades for 10 years and never fixed my swing flaws. What allowed me to fix my flaws was looking at my swing on video and getting into positions that I never would have without realizing what mistakes I was making.

>

> THAT was meaningful feedback.

>

> What might take you literally a decade or more with a blade you can see in 5 minutes of work with video.

>

> I use small PCB irons _because_ I've put in the work to a craft good swing. Hoping to get a good swing just by purchasing a certain type of iron isn't very effective. It would be great if that were guaranteed to work but it's not. TBH, that work really didn't have anything to due with the club nor would the club have taught me those things.

>

> I won't say that what you're arguing for is patently false, but it's a huge waste of time IMHO. It's a poor reason to play blades. Just play 'em because they look snazzy and be happy with that.

>

> The best ball-strikers I've seen all used Player's irons. There's an obvious correlation (preference) there. Whether you play a blade or not is just personal preference. As much as I can tell, it's all about looks and feel. The guys who were super picky about blades stuck with them for various personal reasons while the guys who didn't really worry too much all went with the most forgiving iron they could stand.

 

I won't rehash my arguments, but I do agree with @Nard_S 's points and believe that PRACTICING with a true MB blade can help your swing, strike consistency, and precision for all of the reasons he mentioned. Doesn't mean I discount or favor it over other training methods, and I play i200s on the course, not MB blades because blades quite frankly are more demanding, and my moderate player's CBs are more forgiving IMO.

 

I caution against becoming overly reliant on video though. Plenty of guys screw up their swings chasing positions and certain "looks" on video, and it's often folly trying to achieve these positions on one's own without the aid of a knowledgeable instructor and a pretty good understanding of cause & effect in the golf swing.

 

The old timers didn't use video but still developed some of the best swings of all-time...even by today's standards. And they did it without slow-mo hi-def video, launch monitors, bio-mechanics, force plates, modern training aids, etc. Think Hogan, Nelson, Snead to name just a few. And they used very demanding equipment through the bag, and the blades they used were considerably more difficult to hit effectively than modern versions.

 

So how'd they get there? Mostly they used the ball. Ball flight told them most of what they needed to know, and their ability to find the form that produced it reliably and repeatably is what they sought. Sure, knowledge and tips were shared amongst the players of the day, but mostly they dug it out of the dirt, trial and error...

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @kiwihacker said:

> > >

> > > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> > >

> > > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> > But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models, they moved so much weight, more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight.......... yeah........ok!

> >

>

> Honest question - have you hit the 716 or 718 CB?

 

Honest answer, Yes, I have hit them but I have not tested them as extensively as I did back when I got my AP2's so I really had a good test on the 714's but just whacked the 716 and 718 because they were in arms reach. Again though I did not notice anything significant. other than what I previously stated about the extensive CB test I did comparing the clubs.

[Exactice808]

> @nsxguy said:

>

> With all your declarations of being all about facts, debates and evidence and your (assumed) stance of being objective, you show, by just these derisive posts that you're clearly a blade guy - not that there's anything wrong with that LOL

>

> And not that anybody thought otherwise before but thanks for the ~~edification~~ confirmation. [wink]

LOL..... In all honesty..... I am not sure if you could sense the *sarcasm* from my first post about the CB's to the next comments..... You do realize it was a "dig" at a specified poster right..... one of which hurls a bunch of hypocritical statements. Makes some what egregious statements but cant take it when called out....

 

But LOL!.... but for the edification I gotta be a blade guys cause I play them right *wink*

 

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

>

> I won't rehash my arguments, but I do agree with @Nard_S 's points and believe that PRACTICING with a true MB blade can help your swing, strike consistency, and precision for all of the reasons he mentioned. Doesn't mean I discount or favor it over other training methods, and I play i200s on the course, not MB blades because blades quite frankly are more demanding, and my moderate player's CBs are more forgiving IMO.

 

Using blades is a very indirect way of trying to improve.

 

Besides, I keep hearing about how a blade trains you to hit the very center blah, blah, blah...okay, well then here's an obvious question. Why play that club instead of just going with a club that looks nearly identical but doesn't require such a precise strike!?

 

I get that Tiger Woods can utilize the precise control offered by a blade so let's not resort to talking about guys who hit 1,000 balls a day. Let's talk about a mid-handicap. Even _IF_ the blade actually did make his swing better,_ that gain would be countered by the more demanding nature of the blade anyway!_

 

In the end, it's obvious to everyone that the guy who actually games blades just wants the snazzy looks and neat feel.

 

And in regard to using video too much, I mean, be mindful of the audience. Nobody posting here is in danger of putting in _too much_ work. Nobody here has a golf swing that couldn't use some refining. If any here screws up their swing because of video it's because they didn't know what the heck they were doing which is only going to be worse for the guy who's blindly use a blade and feel, lol. He'll be 10x as lost, haha.

 

> @dpb5031

> So how'd they get there? Mostly they used the ball. Ball flight told them most of what they needed to know, and their ability to find the form that produced it reliably and repeatably is what they sought. Sure, knowledge and tips were shared amongst the players of the day, but mostly they dug it out of the dirt, trial and error...

 

I'm all about "swing(ing) _your_ swing" and following the ball-flight but today's results speak for themselves. Not everyone will end up on Tour left to their own devices. Video ensures that virtually anyone who wants to have a top-quality swing, can, by replacing "feel" with "real" to the extent that it's possible.

 

Not only that, but video allows a player to improve as fast as he/she wants. Anyone not starting with video isn't really trying at all in which case, it's a moot point.

[revanant]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > >

> > > For what it’s worth, I generally agree with you. I only posted the 6 irons since @Exactice808 wanted to drill into the metrics.

> > >

> > > I’m with you on there being a real difference between playing on course vs sim practice. Playing in the elements, with wind, off of uneven lies is vastly different from range practice off an indoor mat.

> > >

> > > I here you regarding speeding up my swing. I think I can do it—I get spikes to 80 mph with my 6 iron every so often. I may start a workout plan this summer with a golf focus. But partly, my mindset is that I don’t care if my 6 iron goes 145 or 155, since my ultimate bottleneck is my swing speed and I phase into 5 wood for my longer par 4s and par 5s anyway. If I’m getting the right spin and I’m hitting an iron consistently, all I care is that I pull my iron and can hit my number with accuracy. If I get the shot I want, I don’t care what the number is on the sole.

> > >

> > > On golf, I absolutely want to score my best. But I’m a glass-half full kind of guy. I need on-course practice, and a lot of that is just taking your lumps, seeing different lies, and learning for the future. Basically, learning course management the hard way. : ) But, even a bad round is something I just chalk up to extra practice. I’m not a club thrower—I’m the guy who thinks about his good shots all week, even when he shoots 102, and looks forward to more good shots the next weekend.

> > >

> > > In terms of improvement, I’m losing a lot of strokes with balls out of bounds and putting/chipping. By and large, it’s not my iron play.

> > >

> > > I played a round on Saturday down in my Miami with my spare T-zoids. I’m not as familiar with my distances for those clubs. I lost one ball in the water for being too long, 3 balls out of bounds, two balls sailed the green with my pw, and I couldn’t buy a putt—only one putt got me up and down in a single stroke. I also had two 4 irons that hit middle of the green but didn’t stick—I’m not sure what my spin was, but I was short a club with that set (it was a 155 carry shot, and that’s normally a comfortable 5 iron for me with around 5k spin). I did make par nonetheless on one of the holes—it was my lone 1-putt. More importantly, I made $4 bucks on match play with my handicap—my scores are usually pars and bogeys, with a few blowups, so match play suits me.

> > >

> > > On iron play, though, I’m not a bad ball striker. I think I should be able to see a difference between my 716 CBs with a 95 gram shaft and my MP-4s with a 120 gram shaft. I do love the 716 aesthetics, and may just keep them as my spare set and flip the AP1s I have. But, essentially, to the extent there’s forgiveness in play, I would think I should find the 716 CBs noticeably easier to hit well. Otherwise, what am I spending my money on, right?

> > >

> > > I’m going to keep testing this week, and really put the 716 CBs through their paces.

> > >

> > > Long story short, though, my MP-4s are $280, my 716 CBs are $450, and my actual priorities are improving my putting, taking more lessons, and getting a 3 wood I like hitting off the deck (probably an F9). If it turns out my good strikes go my expected distances, and my bad shots aren’t noticeably better with the CBs, such that I only have 1 shot that drops 10 yards instead of 20 because I’m either making good strikes or bad strikes and not a lot of intermediate misses, then my gut says that the line between the blades and the CBs isn’t so pronounced and my mental and aesthetic preferences should be the major factor, as you say.

> > >

> > > Anyway, always appreciate these back and forths, @MelloYello. I find your advice and outlook helpful, and I’m excited to see what my game looks like at the end of the summer and into next year.

> >

> > Honestly? Just film yourself and work on full-swing mechanics. Watch video and make your swing positions look more and more like the guys on tour. That's it. That doesn't take that much time to do but the sooner you address it, the sooner you can start getting comfortable with a better swing. Whatever your flaws are, just focus on improving them. When you're not doing that, try to improve your chipping & putting. You can do that at home on carpet.

> >

> > Improving at golf isn't that hard. Beating mid-irons is better than nothing but you'll never actually become good that way. That was my experience.

> >

> > You have a lot of golf ahead of you if you're just 3 years in, however it's like investing. You want to start early and be aggressive. The more grinding you do early on, the easier it becomes. You don't need launch monitor data. You need video. Fix the basic stuff and worry about spin rates later.

> >

>

> Agree with Mellos comments here. I think getting focused too much on data could be a negative thing - especially at such a high HC. Golf is a lot of feels and doing video drilling is probably the best option. I was lucky and it came very naturally to me, however I'm the opposite of you and I get upset with myself for bad shots and it takes an exceptional shot for me to feel satisfied. I hit 10 greens today and shot 81 but it didn't feel good. Left a lot out there. Maybe being hard on myself is a bad thing but it helped me improve very fast. I know we've had this discussion before but I really think you are doing yourself a disservice if you're genuinely only getting 145ish out of a 6 iron on good hits. The game is a lot easier if the course seems shorter. After adapting to my new clubs, I'm hitting 155 as my stock 8 iron. The problem with hitting a 6 that short is that either your gapping will get out of whack between 4i and 5w or you just completely lose the ability to play long holes. The other thing that should be touched is your comments about putting and chipping. I don't believe that just counting putts or up-and-downs is a good way to keep stats. Your putting and chipping could be bad because your proximity to the hole/misses are larger than they could be if you were hitting a shorter iron that gets you more distance into the green. I know I'm more accurate with an 8 iron than a 6 iron. You losing drives OB is a whole other issue and something lessons could help. I will say that I would generally rather miss short and right than long and left. I have a good amount of speed and I do miss long sometimes and absolutely hate it. Lots of trouble you can get into. Short and right fringe though not 20 yards short in some water...

 

I’m with you on the data. I’m not hung up on the data points-it’s helpful, but as long as I’m in the right range, I’m fine. That’s why I’m fine playing the Project X 6.0, etc. If the difference is small and might not show up on the course, I’m not worried about it.

 

In terms of distance, I think the only solution is increased swing speed over time, and playing the appropriate tees in the meantime. At my ~90 mph swing speed, my drives get me out about 200 yards of carry. That’s my bottleneck. I am looking at a 3 wood upgrade, just to give me a longer second shot for par 5s and long par 4s. But the rest of my bag is appropriately gapped. I tested my AP1 against my Mp-4s in a separate thread. The AP1 7 iron I own is a little bit shorter in carry than my MP-4 6 iron, and only a quarter inch shorter. I haven’t hit an iron that gives me more than a club length of difference, and when you dig into the metrics, there’s usually a trade-off on spin or it’s just a labeling illusion.

 

On putting/chipping—it’s not that I’m having trouble landing a ball in a good spot on the green. It’s that I’m absolutely wasting strokes on putts I should make. E.g., my best score on 9 came last month with a 46. That 46 had a 4 putt from within 5 feet. With more normal putting, that’s a 43 or 44 on 9. I’m not so worried about it, as it was early season and I’ve got a putt-out that I’m using a lot more, so those wasted strokes should drop. But it’s not that I’m trying to salvage 40 foot putts—it’s that my overall game is uneven, and I genuinely have a lot of room to pick up strokes in chipping/putting.

[Exactice808]

> @revanant said:

>

> So, would it be fair to characterize the Project X 6.0 as playable/fine?

>

> It looks to me like the metrics are close enough, especially given the human factor. I do have shots that launch closer to 18, or that spin a little bit closer to 6000 rpm, but I don’t always take pictures—figures these were close enough.

>

> Ultimately, I’m fine if spin doesn’t exactly hit 6k or if launch is a degree lower than ideal. To my mind, a few hundred rpm is a marginal difference, compared to the cost of a shaft change. I could also swap balls and see if numbers shift a little.

>

> In other words, I’m not wedded to the Project X 6.0. I’ll play any shaft at any flex and weight. It’s more that a shaft change is pricey, and it doesn’t seem like a pressing need at the moment. I think this was the perspective of my fitter as well—there may be more optimal shafts out there, but the cost of a shaft change is high and the difference between the shafts in my hands weren’t huge. I did get slightly higher launch and peak height in the low 70 ft vs high 60s with the KBS Tour 90s and Steelfiber 80 and 95. But changing the shafts on my MP-4s will be more than I paid for my irons themselves. If I’m spending a few hundred dollars, I think I’m better off putting it into lessons, rather than putting it into an iron reshaft. If I’m buying gear, the money is going to a 3 wood with baffler rails. : )

>

> On the horizontal dispersion point, I think I used the wrong word. I’m not worried about the spread of my shots. I’m just worried about a wide horizontal miss. I’m not entirely sure what the dispersion criteria measures—it might be total distance between shots. First shot is about 20 feet right of target, 2nd shot is on the line, and third shot is 15 feet left. So my kids isn’t actually more than 6 or 7 yards, max, even if the gap between my shots is wide (at least, that how I view it)—and these are small samples, so I don’t read much into them.

>

> Happy to hear your thoughts, though. : )

How extensive effort have you put to putting in some "shaft time"?

I ask as the other poster seems to agree as well as the setup may not be the most optimal, yet while it gets your around the course due to your current ability the loss shots are not quite pinpoint yet.

 

1) Your fluctuation of spin is more of a concern rather than being able to hit 6000rpms at one point or another. You want to establish some type of consistency. At this point when you range 2000-3000 rpms of spin from a specific shot (that can be a difference of 2 clubs different). Looking at your actual flight you will notice some that I higher and other that are lower, How do you consciously play a hole when you are not sure how the ball will react? meaning when trying to play to a middle flag and you aim middle some shots are low bullets that will skip off the green, others will land nice and soft.... yikes I want to hit a shot that I know will react with the intent I put.

 

2) As I stated you dont need to do a FULL set change, most demo clubs are 6irons. At this point you agree you are mentally comfortable hitting a blade, so if you walked into your local golf store or a second hand store there should be a golf bag/shelf of demo 6irons ranging in shafts and heads......I would say look for the a players GI head with varying shafts. If you like the PX. See if you can find a PX 5.0 first and try that.

 

Shafts are particular in a couple senses - (This next is my personal opinion, I am not an instructor, just how I have collected info over the years, so take it with a grain of salt, and just additional info to help make your next decision)

2a) Tempo, The Faster or more explosive your tempo is the harder the flex, So do you have a crazy explosive swing, medium swing or deliberate swing. examples

Jason Day is pretty explosive or Michelle Wie - That would be a X flex, What this also means is how they load the shaft at the down swing this is how the shaft will react and time with your swing at impact.

Luke Donald or has a more medium tempo - so a mid flex or stiff flex

Lydia Ko has a more deliberate tempo - to a more regular flex

 

What is your swing tempo and or profile. At least start there to match the flex. again 6.0 is pretty hefty for a 75mph 6iron swing

 

 

2b) Next is weight, I believe now play the lightest weight you can can control the best, What do I mean, Lets face it lighter does mean faster. Also lighter will not deteriorate your swing over the course of 18 holes. I know this for a fact when I played X100 @ 130grams it beat me up by the 16th hole. So I switched the 1150gh (114grams), and currently settled on 120gram PX 6.0.

 

Just my random test if you have the time and opportunity. Heck you got the simulator why not right?

1) ITS been stated MUCH and I cannot agree more, Fix the kinks in your swing.....You got kinks no doubt.... But during this time you want to experiment with equipment have at it. Why? Well by the time you have fixed a lot of the kinks in the swing you should then have a lot of info in your head of what works best and what equipment to narrow that you prefer.

2) OK outside of the actual swing but equipment to try?

2a) Try find a PX 5.0 demo 6 iron. Its a 120 grams so same weight as your PX 6.0 but 2 flexes softer. JUST see what that does, in your numbers....

2b) Find an NSpro 950 stiff or regular - this should be about 95-98grams.... So a big drop in weight

3c) DG R300 - 130gram shaft,

 

The above shafts should be easy to source and likely in a cheap demo club, I know I have a used shop that has about 100 6iron demos lying around for 30 bucks a piece and I can "Borrow" them for 7 days for free. I know Roger Dunn usually has the 90 day return, drop the $30 bucks for one, Try it for a couple of weeks, return rinse and repeat.

 

Good Luck, this is just all my humble opinions. so take it for what its worth..... about.....$.000002.......

 

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> >

> > I won't rehash my arguments, but I do agree with @Nard_S 's points and believe that PRACTICING with a true MB blade can help your swing, strike consistency, and precision for all of the reasons he mentioned. Doesn't mean I discount or favor it over other training methods, and I play i200s on the course, not MB blades because blades quite frankly are more demanding, and my moderate player's CBs are more forgiving IMO.

>

> Using blades is a very indirect way of trying to improve.

>

> Besides, I keep hearing about how a blade trains you to hit the very center blah, blah, blah...okay, well then here's an obvious question. **Why play that club instead of just going with a club that looks nearly identical but doesn't require such a precise strike!**?

>

> I get that Tiger Woods can utilize the precise control offered by a blade so let's not resort to talking about guys who hit 1,000 balls a day. Let's talk about a mid-handicap. Even _IF_ the blade actually did make his swing better,_ that gain would be countered by the more demanding nature of the blade anyway!_

>

> In the end, it's obvious to everyone that the guy who actually games blades just wants the snazzy looks and neat feel.

>

> And in regard to using video too much, I mean, be mindful of the audience. Nobody posting here is in danger of putting in _too much_ work. Nobody here has a golf swing that couldn't use some refining. If any here screws up their swing because of video it's because they didn't know what the heck they were doing which is only going to be worse for the guy who's blindly use a blade and feel, lol. He'll be 10x as lost, haha.

>

> > @dpb5031

> > So how'd they get there? Mostly they used the ball. Ball flight told them most of what they needed to know, and their ability to find the form that produced it reliably and repeatably is what they sought. Sure, knowledge and tips were shared amongst the players of the day, but mostly they dug it out of the dirt, trial and error...

>

> I'm all about "swing(ing) _your_ swing" and following the ball-flight but today's results speak for themselves. Not everyone will end up on Tour left to their own devices. Video ensures that virtually anyone who wants to have a top-quality swing, can, by replacing "feel" with "real" to the extent that it's possible.

>

> Not only that, but video allows a player to improve as fast as he/she wants. Anyone not starting with video isn't really trying at all in which case, it's a moot point.

 

I disagree on several fronts. First of all I've been very clear that I do not advocate that mid-high handicappers should play blades. I've simply stated that I believe there are benefits to using one for practice.

 

See your question above (bolded). Again, I don't think a mid-high capper should PLAY blades for the very reason you've stated. I just said using one in practice can be beneficial. The nature of the precision required to strike a blade perfectly translates very well to a more forgiving design, plus a player will often have more confidence, which is valuable in and of itself.

 

Most knowledgeable teaching professionals will caution against relying on video. Again, chasing positions to achieve a look can be disastrous to someone who has no idea how the parts need to fit together. The golf swing is very nuanced. There are different patterns, and it's far from one size fits all. Just as one example, something as simple as strength of the left hand grip will completely change how different players will look (and should look) on video at any number of freeze frame stills during the swing.

 

Last, let's not discount talent. Some players have exceptional proprioception and feel. They're typically decent athletes and pick up others sports fairly easily. They can make slight adjustments based on feedback, whether it be ball flight, feel of the strike on the ball or through the turf, or trying to achieve a certain position at any point in their swing. Others couldn't hit an elephant in the backside with a snow shovel if you gave 'em a dozen tries, and likely wouldn't know the difference if they did versus flushing a Mizuno MP4...lol!

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> >

> > Blades impose that standard...

>

> I don't agree with that sort of attitude. It's horribly ineffective based on what I've seen and experienced. I** think the golf swing and golf club are two separate entities **and whatever feedback loop there is in between the two pales in comparison to simply working on your swing directly.

>

I respectfully disagree with this.

 

The Golf Swing and Club are 2 important issue that are "timed" together.

As I responded to @revanant .

 

In the "General" sense, there are standards of fitting.

Swing Tempo Dictates shaft flex, based on how you load the shaft. The swing itself dictates bend profiles and reaction at impact

Swing speed is dictated by Weight, a slowing swing speed person would not benefit from a heavier shaft... simple example if a player has a 85mph driver swing speed would we really put them in a 80+gram driver shaft? Many of those 85mph swingers also have a smooth and deliberate swing would we put them in a Tour Xstiff flex shaft as well? The equipment is in relation to the golf swing.

 

Here is my contention to the HIGH handicapper.

19 year old athletic college kid wants to get into golf **never swung a club**. BUT they are athletic..... 90% of the time what clubs does someone hand them? An ultralight SGI. because it is the gateway club (pun intended). Now here is the downside the 19 year old kid is athletic with a 110mph driver swing speed. translating to a 95mph 6 iron. Handing him a 95gram SGI club in no way helps him out as it does not match his swing speed, load profile. What happens for the first 6 months using the SGI, develops bad habits. trying to maintain a club that never fit him in the first place... But because he is a new golfer they get handing a stock SGI.

 

Instead at least getting him into something that better fits him from the get go. DEVELOPS a good SWING and narrows his club options from the get go helps to learn and evolve faster in my opinion.

 

That is why when I speak about the club head I never base it on the handicap but the individual SWING. The players swing on MOST accounts actually dictates the club. NOW I will admit there is anomalies in any situation period. BUT I do feel the Clubs should match the swing regardless of the handicap.

 

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> Most knowledgeable teaching professionals will caution against relying on video. Again, chasing positions to achieve a look can be disastrous to someone who has no idea how the parts need to fit together.

 

Achieve a look? We're talking about making a 15- or 20-handicap into a decent player.

 

Worry about a look? Let's let Martin Kaymer worry about himself, okay?

 

I really don't see why you're so hung up on this. Every teacher out there now uses video to communicate with their students. It's a massive tool in being able to show a student what they're doing and where they need to be. It helps when you're standing there in person. It helps when you're miles apart. It works for Tour guys and hackers alike. It helps communicate ideas when you can't do it in real time.

 

Literally any beginner who takes their camera phone and gets a video of themselves swinging will be better for it. Just doing that alone is better than hacking around with blades until you randomly stumble across some feel that works for a few days.

 

> @dpb5031 said:

> The golf swing is very nuanced.

 

Thankfully golf doesn't require we understand the minutia in order to develop a repeatable, good-looking swing that is an improvement upon the noobish hackery of our golfing youth. And that's what I'm talking about.

 

 

I can't speak for you but the question I come away with here is just why a 25-handicap is worrying about equipment to begin with!?

 

When I was getting into the game I was just happy to have a SW, LOL. I wasn't debating forged vs cast or giving 2 craps if I was too much of a hack to use blades (which I most definitely was, lol).

 

This thread is evidence that equipment is distracting in general.

 

Best golfer I played with over the last year uttered something about his Mizzy 2-iron having a graphite shaft. That's as much as he cared, haha.

 

I love that.

[BIG STU]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > >

> > > > > Mello, taking all the points you’ve said about your game (and everyone else’s for that matter) I cannot for the life of me understand why you haven’t got at least a set of AP1s in your bag! You’ve just admitted that you can’t really hit 3 and 4 irons, which is no surprise as your CBs have a relatively high CG. Now that you seem to be enjoying the high launch and forgiveness of hybrids, the next natural step seems to be the AP1, particularly if score is so important to you. However, a little anecdote that might influence your decision:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Read the thread. No reason we can't be serious. I don't mind discussing equipment with folks but you gotta be serious. If you're talking to me about AP1's and saying I "can't hit long irons" it's obvious that you're being sarcastic and snarky.

> > > >

> > > > My question is why? Why do that? Why can't we be serious while still being friendly? Why do you choose to be sarcastic about it?

> > > >

> > > > Just seem inappropriate. Bad for the forum.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You posted that blade users weren’t open to hearing suggestions. Just wanted to see what you’re reaction was when I made a suggestion to you. Pot...kettle...black are a few words that spring to mind.

> > >

> > > Point made...we can go back to being friendly now ;-)

> >

> > So now I'm expected to entertain your nonsense ****-posting?

> >

> > Good to know. That's what the ignore list is for.

> >

> > See you around...or I guess I won't. Nice knowing ya. Thanks for wasting all of our time.

>

> Speak for yourself. @mahonie has never wasted my time. I consider his posts genuine, insightful and informative. Always a pleasure to read :-)

>

 

I agree with you 110% on that and I also find your posts to be the same way

[BIG STU]

> @mahonie said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > > @kiwihacker said:

> > > > >

> > > > > Totally agree with the bold part. Very little difference yet the whole blades v cavity back argument is based around the idea the blades are so much harder to hit.

> > > > >

> > > > > Would the anti blades brigade get as upset if we play a players CB like the Titleist CB and insist we should instead be using an easier to hit GI design like the AP 2, 3 or 1?

> > > > But but .... but , CB's with their perimeter weight moved a significant amount to change the CoG allow for help in the launch department..... IT was SO significant.........Even in the Titleist CB models WORLD more CoG moved...... to aid in ball flight...

> > > >

> > > I don’t hold much with the Maltby Playability Factor apart from the vertical COG measurement. With the Titleist CBs, the VCOG is relatively high, much higher than MP4s for example, which should mean that they are harder to launch...

> > >

> >

> > But, but but, but... the matlby playability factor rates the CB's higher than the AP2's.... so the CB are way more Cavity back than the AP2s..... LOL!

>

> Funny you should say that. I tested MP4s against Ping S55s, AP2s and AP1s (both 2014 models). The MP4s and S55s were very similar in terms of feel, distance drop offs on mishits and the launch monitor numbers were practically the same. AP2s, for me, were off the scale awful. Harsh feeling, mishits were going nowhere and good hits were just not that nice.

>

> AP1s on the other hand were stupid easy to hit. High launch, good distance (7-iron was carrying 164ish against my usual 148ish ) and I couldn’t tell you what a mishit felt like...every hit felt the same if a bit clicky...all going slightly straight left. The issue for me was that after ten minutes I was just trying to hit them harder and harder and my dispersion was all over the place.

>

 

That last sentence is exactly what I do trying to hit CBs. For some reason in my pea brain I know the limits on my old antique blades and do not try to push the envelope so to speak. And who says golf is not 99% mental?

[Tree Levino]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > >

> > > Blades impose that standard...

> >

> > I don't agree with that sort of attitude. It's horribly ineffective based on what I've seen and experienced. I** think the golf swing and golf club are two separate entities **and whatever feedback loop there is in between the two pales in comparison to simply working on your swing directly.

> >

> I respectfully disagree with this.

>

> The Golf Swing and Club are 2 important issue that are "timed" together.

> As I responded to @revanant .

>

> In the "General" sense, there are standards of fitting.

> Swing Tempo Dictates shaft flex, based on how you load the shaft. The swing itself dictates bend profiles and reaction at impact

> Swing speed is dictated by Weight, a slowing swing speed person would not benefit from a heavier shaft... simple example if a player has a 85mph driver swing speed would we really put them in a 80+gram driver shaft? Many of those 85mph swingers also have a smooth and deliberate swing would we put them in a Tour Xstiff flex shaft as well? The equipment is in relation to the golf swing.

>

> Here is my contention to the HIGH handicapper.

> 19 year old athletic college kid wants to get into golf **never swung a club**. BUT they are athletic..... 90% of the time what clubs does someone hand them? An ultralight SGI. because it is the gateway club (pun intended). Now here is the downside the 19 year old kid is athletic with a 110mph driver swing speed. translating to a 95mph 6 iron. Handing him a 95gram SGI club in no way helps him out as it does not match his swing speed, load profile. What happens for the first 6 months using the SGI, develops bad habits. trying to maintain a club that never fit him in the first place... But because he is a new golfer they get handing a stock SGI.

>

> Instead at least getting him into something that better fits him from the get go. DEVELOPS a good SWING and narrows his club options from the get go helps to learn and evolve faster in my opinion.

>

> That is why when I speak about the club head I never base it on the handicap but the individual SWING. The players swing on MOST accounts actually dictates the club. NOW I will admit there is anomalies in any situation period. BUT I do feel the Clubs should match the swing regardless of the handicap.

>

 

We certainly agree here as you're basically describing me (though I'm 10 years older). I started not that long ago with SGI 85g "stiff" shafts etc etc. Near 110 driver 90mph or slightly over 6i and I needed more weight and a lot more stiffness. The habits have been hard to rid myself of. I'm now in the process of trying to develop a repeatable swing but getting rid of the tendency to overswing has been difficult.

 

@revanant " I did get slightly higher launch and peak height in the low 70 ft vs high 60s"

Still seems quite low and could be killing your distance. Do you have your angle of attack numbers in here somewhere? I'm quite sure that PX shaft is probably robbing you of a lot of distance. Trackman website info below:

 

TrackMan Optimizer Values

6 iron (optimized for carry and landing angle)

 

@ 95 mph club speed = height of 36 yards

@ 85 mph club speed = height of 32 yards

@ 75 mph club speed = height of 26 yards

@ 65 mph club speed = height of 19 yards

 

[revanant]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @revanant said:

> >

> > So, would it be fair to characterize the Project X 6.0 as playable/fine?

> >

> > It looks to me like the metrics are close enough, especially given the human factor. I do have shots that launch closer to 18, or that spin a little bit closer to 6000 rpm, but I don’t always take pictures—figures these were close enough.

> >

> > Ultimately, I’m fine if spin doesn’t exactly hit 6k or if launch is a degree lower than ideal. To my mind, a few hundred rpm is a marginal difference, compared to the cost of a shaft change. I could also swap balls and see if numbers shift a little.

> >

> > In other words, I’m not wedded to the Project X 6.0. I’ll play any shaft at any flex and weight. It’s more that a shaft change is pricey, and it doesn’t seem like a pressing need at the moment. I think this was the perspective of my fitter as well—there may be more optimal shafts out there, but the cost of a shaft change is high and the difference between the shafts in my hands weren’t huge. I did get slightly higher launch and peak height in the low 70 ft vs high 60s with the KBS Tour 90s and Steelfiber 80 and 95. But changing the shafts on my MP-4s will be more than I paid for my irons themselves. If I’m spending a few hundred dollars, I think I’m better off putting it into lessons, rather than putting it into an iron reshaft. If I’m buying gear, the money is going to a 3 wood with baffler rails. : )

> >

> > On the horizontal dispersion point, I think I used the wrong word. I’m not worried about the spread of my shots. I’m just worried about a wide horizontal miss. I’m not entirely sure what the dispersion criteria measures—it might be total distance between shots. First shot is about 20 feet right of target, 2nd shot is on the line, and third shot is 15 feet left. So my kids isn’t actually more than 6 or 7 yards, max, even if the gap between my shots is wide (at least, that how I view it)—and these are small samples, so I don’t read much into them.

> >

> > Happy to hear your thoughts, though. : )

> How extensive effort have you put to putting in some "shaft time"?

> I ask as the other poster seems to agree as well as the setup may not be the most optimal, yet while it gets your around the course due to your current ability the loss shots are not quite pinpoint yet.

>

> 1) Your fluctuation of spin is more of a concern rather than being able to hit 6000rpms at one point or another. You want to establish some type of consistency. At this point when you range 2000-3000 rpms of spin from a specific shot (that can be a difference of 2 clubs different). Looking at your actual flight you will notice some that I higher and other that are lower, How do you consciously play a hole when you are not sure how the ball will react? meaning when trying to play to a middle flag and you aim middle some shots are low bullets that will skip off the green, others will land nice and soft.... yikes I want to hit a shot that I know will react with the intent I put.

>

> 2) As I stated you dont need to do a FULL set change, most demo clubs are 6irons. At this point you agree you are mentally comfortable hitting a blade, so if you walked into your local golf store or a second hand store there should be a golf bag/shelf of demo 6irons ranging in shafts and heads......I would say look for the a players GI head with varying shafts. If you like the PX. See if you can find a PX 5.0 first and try that.

>

> Shafts are particular in a couple senses - (This next is my personal opinion, I am not an instructor, just how I have collected info over the years, so take it with a grain of salt, and just additional info to help make your next decision)

> 2a) Tempo, The Faster or more explosive your tempo is the harder the flex, So do you have a crazy explosive swing, medium swing or deliberate swing. examples

> Jason Day is pretty explosive or Michelle Wie - That would be a X flex, What this also means is how they load the shaft at the down swing this is how the shaft will react and time with your swing at impact.

> Luke Donald or has a more medium tempo - so a mid flex or stiff flex

> Lydia Ko has a more deliberate tempo - to a more regular flex

>

> What is your swing tempo and or profile. At least start there to match the flex. again 6.0 is pretty hefty for a 75mph 6iron swing

>

>

> 2b) Next is weight, I believe now play the lightest weight you can can control the best, What do I mean, Lets face it lighter does mean faster. Also lighter will not deteriorate your swing over the course of 18 holes. I know this for a fact when I played X100 @ 130grams it beat me up by the 16th hole. So I switched the 1150gh (114grams), and currently settled on 120gram PX 6.0.

>

> Just my random test if you have the time and opportunity. Heck you got the simulator why not right?

> 1) ITS been stated MUCH and I cannot agree more, Fix the kinks in your swing.....You got kinks no doubt.... But during this time you want to experiment with equipment have at it. Why? Well by the time you have fixed a lot of the kinks in the swing you should then have a lot of info in your head of what works best and what equipment to narrow that you prefer.

> 2) OK outside of the actual swing but equipment to try?

> 2a) Try find a PX 5.0 demo 6 iron. Its a 120 grams so same weight as your PX 6.0 but 2 flexes softer. JUST see what that does, in your numbers....

> 2b) Find an NSpro 950 stiff or regular - this should be about 95-98grams.... So a big drop in weight

> 3c) DG R300 - 130gram shaft,

>

> The above shafts should be easy to source and likely in a cheap demo club, I know I have a used shop that has about 100 6iron demos lying around for 30 bucks a piece and I can "Borrow" them for 7 days for free. I know Roger Dunn usually has the 90 day return, drop the $30 bucks for one, Try it for a couple of weeks, return rinse and repeat.

>

> Good Luck, this is just all my humble opinions. so take it for what its worth..... about.....$.000002.......

>

Thanks. For what it’s worth, I’ve done some/a lot of this. DG R300 slows my swing speed down and takes distance from me, but feels fine.

 

I did some testing yesterday with my newly acquired 716 CBs, which are shafted with Steelfiber i95. It’s not a 1-to-1 test, because the iron heads are obviously different. But I’ll put a few results up soon. Long story short, they’re pretty similar to my MP-4s.

 

The only place I found a noticeable difference was on a toe-miss—there were two shots that really retained shape/direction/distance that would normally be a bad strike with my blades. Spin, carry, ball speed, shape, and feelnwere comperable, though feel and aesthetics are a little better with my MP-4s. I didn’t see much help on most misses—the only thing that stood out was a toe miss, and it wasn’t every toe-miss. I’d put it at like 25% chance to save my toe miss—otherwise, it’s the same.

 

My mindset is a bit closer to Nard—it’s definitely nice to have a salvaged shot from a miss, but I really shouldn’t have that miss in the first place.

 

I think I’ll probably flip my AP1s into the CB 716s, though. They’re an excellent set. It’s not a wise use of money, but I guess I’ll just spend more on golf this year. : )

[nostatic]

wait, you guys don't hit push draws on the putting surface? Heretics...

 

For me it is all about compromises and being in touch with my reality (which may not be someone else's). I'm still working on rebuilding my swing and if it was 30 years ago I'd be hitting a bucket of balls a day to rebuild my muscle memory. But I can't do that, both from time and physical issues. I'm only going to get to a certain level of grooviness (I'm no Austin Powers). Like most everything in life, I find the key to enjoyment is finding balance and making peace with where you are in the journey - which is difficult when you've been a "jump in with both feet" kinda guy most your life. I certainly have goals - to play my local course even par (it is a par 33 9-hole) and be single digit handicap. Sure, I'd love to get to scratch but realistically, with my accumulated injuries and miles on the body, along with other time constraints, it ain't gonna happen. Just like I'm never going to get back to a triple digit swing speed. So I'll take help where I can get it (e.g. the Hot Metal Pros), while balancing my psychological biases and ego. That last bit is a pita - the male ego can cause a lot of heartburn...

[Tree Levino]

> @revanant said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > >

> > > So, would it be fair to characterize the Project X 6.0 as playable/fine?

> > >

> > > It looks to me like the metrics are close enough, especially given the human factor. I do have shots that launch closer to 18, or that spin a little bit closer to 6000 rpm, but I don’t always take pictures—figures these were close enough.

> > >

> > > Ultimately, I’m fine if spin doesn’t exactly hit 6k or if launch is a degree lower than ideal. To my mind, a few hundred rpm is a marginal difference, compared to the cost of a shaft change. I could also swap balls and see if numbers shift a little.

> > >

> > > In other words, I’m not wedded to the Project X 6.0. I’ll play any shaft at any flex and weight. It’s more that a shaft change is pricey, and it doesn’t seem like a pressing need at the moment. I think this was the perspective of my fitter as well—there may be more optimal shafts out there, but the cost of a shaft change is high and the difference between the shafts in my hands weren’t huge. I did get slightly higher launch and peak height in the low 70 ft vs high 60s with the KBS Tour 90s and Steelfiber 80 and 95. But changing the shafts on my MP-4s will be more than I paid for my irons themselves. If I’m spending a few hundred dollars, I think I’m better off putting it into lessons, rather than putting it into an iron reshaft. If I’m buying gear, the money is going to a 3 wood with baffler rails. : )

> > >

> > > On the horizontal dispersion point, I think I used the wrong word. I’m not worried about the spread of my shots. I’m just worried about a wide horizontal miss. I’m not entirely sure what the dispersion criteria measures—it might be total distance between shots. First shot is about 20 feet right of target, 2nd shot is on the line, and third shot is 15 feet left. So my kids isn’t actually more than 6 or 7 yards, max, even if the gap between my shots is wide (at least, that how I view it)—and these are small samples, so I don’t read much into them.

> > >

> > > Happy to hear your thoughts, though. : )

> > How extensive effort have you put to putting in some "shaft time"?

> > I ask as the other poster seems to agree as well as the setup may not be the most optimal, yet while it gets your around the course due to your current ability the loss shots are not quite pinpoint yet.

> >

> > 1) Your fluctuation of spin is more of a concern rather than being able to hit 6000rpms at one point or another. You want to establish some type of consistency. At this point when you range 2000-3000 rpms of spin from a specific shot (that can be a difference of 2 clubs different). Looking at your actual flight you will notice some that I higher and other that are lower, How do you consciously play a hole when you are not sure how the ball will react? meaning when trying to play to a middle flag and you aim middle some shots are low bullets that will skip off the green, others will land nice and soft.... yikes I want to hit a shot that I know will react with the intent I put.

> >

> > 2) As I stated you dont need to do a FULL set change, most demo clubs are 6irons. At this point you agree you are mentally comfortable hitting a blade, so if you walked into your local golf store or a second hand store there should be a golf bag/shelf of demo 6irons ranging in shafts and heads......I would say look for the a players GI head with varying shafts. If you like the PX. See if you can find a PX 5.0 first and try that.

> >

> > Shafts are particular in a couple senses - (This next is my personal opinion, I am not an instructor, just how I have collected info over the years, so take it with a grain of salt, and just additional info to help make your next decision)

> > 2a) Tempo, The Faster or more explosive your tempo is the harder the flex, So do you have a crazy explosive swing, medium swing or deliberate swing. examples

> > Jason Day is pretty explosive or Michelle Wie - That would be a X flex, What this also means is how they load the shaft at the down swing this is how the shaft will react and time with your swing at impact.

> > Luke Donald or has a more medium tempo - so a mid flex or stiff flex

> > Lydia Ko has a more deliberate tempo - to a more regular flex

> >

> > What is your swing tempo and or profile. At least start there to match the flex. again 6.0 is pretty hefty for a 75mph 6iron swing

> >

> >

> > 2b) Next is weight, I believe now play the lightest weight you can can control the best, What do I mean, Lets face it lighter does mean faster. Also lighter will not deteriorate your swing over the course of 18 holes. I know this for a fact when I played X100 @ 130grams it beat me up by the 16th hole. So I switched the 1150gh (114grams), and currently settled on 120gram PX 6.0.

> >

> > Just my random test if you have the time and opportunity. Heck you got the simulator why not right?

> > 1) ITS been stated MUCH and I cannot agree more, Fix the kinks in your swing.....You got kinks no doubt.... But during this time you want to experiment with equipment have at it. Why? Well by the time you have fixed a lot of the kinks in the swing you should then have a lot of info in your head of what works best and what equipment to narrow that you prefer.

> > 2) OK outside of the actual swing but equipment to try?

> > 2a) Try find a PX 5.0 demo 6 iron. Its a 120 grams so same weight as your PX 6.0 but 2 flexes softer. JUST see what that does, in your numbers....

> > 2b) Find an NSpro 950 stiff or regular - this should be about 95-98grams.... So a big drop in weight

> > 3c) DG R300 - 130gram shaft,

> >

> > The above shafts should be easy to source and likely in a cheap demo club, I know I have a used shop that has about 100 6iron demos lying around for 30 bucks a piece and I can "Borrow" them for 7 days for free. I know Roger Dunn usually has the 90 day return, drop the $30 bucks for one, Try it for a couple of weeks, return rinse and repeat.

> >

> > Good Luck, this is just all my humble opinions. so take it for what its worth..... about.....$.000002.......

> >

> Thanks. For what it’s worth, I’ve done some/a lot of this. DG R300 slows my swing speed down and takes distance from me, but feels fine.

>

> I did some testing yesterday with my newly acquired 716 CBs, which are shafted with Steelfiber i95. It’s not a 1-to-1 test, because the iron heads are obviously different. But I’ll put a few results up soon. Long story short, they’re pretty similar to my MP-4s.

>

> The only place I found a noticeable difference was on a toe-miss—there were two shots that really retained shape/direction/distance that would normally be a bad strike with my blades. Spin, carry, ball speed, shape, and feelnwere comperable, though feel and aesthetics are a little better with my MP-4s. I didn’t see much help on most misses—the only thing that stood out was a toe miss, and it wasn’t every toe-miss. I’d put it at like 25% chance to save my toe miss—otherwise, it’s the same.

>

> My mindset is a bit closer to Nard—it’s definitely nice to have a salvaged shot from a miss, but I really shouldn’t have that miss in the first place.

>

> I think I’ll probably flip my AP1s into the CB 716s, though. They’re an excellent set. It’s not a wise use of money, but I guess I’ll just spend more on golf this year. : )

 

Toe miss with CB/AP2 is really good as long as it's the right height on the face. A touch heavy and toey forget about it. Lateral mishits are fantastic with the CB. These things are unreal. You're seeing the CB benefits haha.

[Exactice808]

> @nsxguy said:

>

> While I can't speak for the "anti blades brigade", I don't believe they care what you, or anyone else, plays. Why ? Because most(?) of them have said exactly that.

>

> What they do (appear to mostly) care about is how the "anti CB brigade" keeps defending their choice of blades with "There's so little difference it doesn't MAKE any difference" or even "There IS no difference",,,,,,,,,,, when CB guys, who have tried both, know there IS a difference, at least to them. And their anecdotal evidence is at least as valid as the anti-CB guys.

>

> And I asked once before and got "crickets" but why do you suppose that virtually NO Tour Pro, or amateur for that matter, does NOT use a blade (NON-heel toe weighted) putter or anything but one of the most forgiving drivers.

>

 

Hello NSX ! If I may...... I must have missed the discussion about the putter... But maybe some prospective.

 

1) Irons are point Target tools. Meaning our intent is to hit a 4.25" circle. I think EVERYONE in my mind is trying to hole out from the fairway right? I mean we are aiming at the flag right? Irons with their spin decent and lofts have the intent to go to a certain distance.

 

2) Drivers are point "area" tools, we are trying to hit the ball as far as possible period. I dont recall me ever trying to hit a specified targeted distance of 250yards or 200 yards. So forgiving drivers are intended to get as MUCH possible distance right? Same with Cavity backs. first if I recall lots of marketing hype its called"Distance" irons. Second CB are known for the perimeter weight to aid in retained ball speed on less then optimal shots. Nothing about pin point accuracy.

 

3) SLDR Drivers were a bust for the main stream, the low and forward CG while reducing a bunch of spin and then the loft up was TOO much demand for most players. It aimed at the greatest faults of most higher handicappers, over spinning driver and lack of launch. BUT the huge reduction of spin was at the loss of MOI or forgiveness. WHICH EVERYONE TW included needs the most amount of help to get the ball down the fairway as efficiently as as far as possible.

 

4) Working the ball..... Shots into greens require again the "POINT target Accuracy" more often than a driver requires to be worked. Most course are limited to a max of 14 drivers (4 being par 3 without regards to those that have to hit driver on those par3s) Where as how many iron shots required being worked due to pin placement and point target accuracy? While I gave up on the working the ball metric as honestly I could never do it with any type of accuracy or consistency, I can get a ball to draw or fade generally...But how much to a specified pin. So yeah.... this one I agree. is a little much I want the ball to just go straight toward my intended target line.

 

5) Putting. Yikes.. this one all feels I dont recall or have ever seen a cavity putter.....nor have I heard or seen any metric, marketing for a forgiving or workable putter? So I cannot comment on this.

 

 

TL : DR ..

 

1) Drivers are point area tools for max distance to hit a general 50 yard fairway that is 150ft

2) Irons are generally point target tools to hit a specified flag with a cup of 4.25" in diameter.

 

So yes I want max forgiveness with my driver for the most amount of distance

So yes I want max accuracy not distance for my irons.

 

 

 

 

[jpdx]

never thought of it that way. I like it.

 

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> >

> > While I can't speak for the "anti blades brigade", I don't believe they care what you, or anyone else, plays. Why ? Because most(?) of them have said exactly that.

> >

> > What they do (appear to mostly) care about is how the "anti CB brigade" keeps defending their choice of blades with "There's so little difference it doesn't MAKE any difference" or even "There IS no difference",,,,,,,,,,, when CB guys, who have tried both, know there IS a difference, at least to them. And their anecdotal evidence is at least as valid as the anti-CB guys.

> >

> > And I asked once before and got "crickets" but why do you suppose that virtually NO Tour Pro, or amateur for that matter, does NOT use a blade (NON-heel toe weighted) putter or anything but one of the most forgiving drivers.

> >

>

> Hello NSX ! If I may...... I must have missed the discussion about the putter... But maybe some prospective.

>

> 1) Irons are point Target tools. Meaning our intent is to hit a 4.25" circle. I think EVERYONE in my mind is trying to hole out from the fairway right? I mean we are aiming at the flag right? Irons with their spin decent and lofts have the intent to go to a certain distance.

>

> 2) Drivers are point "area" tools, we are trying to hit the ball as far as possible period. I dont recall me ever trying to hit a specified targeted distance of 250yards or 200 yards. So forgiving drivers are intended to get as MUCH possible distance right? Same with Cavity backs. first if I recall lots of marketing hype its called"Distance" irons. Second CB are known for the perimeter weight to aid in retained ball speed on less then optimal shots. Nothing about pin point accuracy.

>

> 3) SLDR Drivers were a bust for the main stream, the low and forward CG while reducing a bunch of spin and then the loft up was TOO much demand for most players. It aimed at the greatest faults of most higher handicappers, over spinning driver and lack of launch. BUT the huge reduction of spin was at the loss of MOI or forgiveness. WHICH EVERYONE TW included needs the most amount of help to get the ball down the fairway as efficiently as as far as possible.

>

> 4) Working the ball..... Shots into greens require again the "POINT target Accuracy" more often than a driver requires to be worked. Most course are limited to a max of 14 drivers (4 being par 3 without regards to those that have to hit driver on those par3s) Where as how many iron shots required being worked due to pin placement and point target accuracy? While I gave up on the working the ball metric as honestly I could never do it with any type of accuracy or consistency, I can get a ball to draw or fade generally...But how much to a specified pin. So yeah.... this one I agree. is a little much I want the ball to just go straight toward my intended target line.

>

> 5) Putting. Yikes.. this one all feels I dont recall or have ever seen a cavity putter.....nor have I heard or seen any metric, marketing for a forgiving or workable putter? So I cannot comment on this.

>

>

> TL : DR ..

>

**> 1) Drivers are point area tools for max distance to hit a general 50 yard fairway that is 150ft

> 2) Irons are generally point target tools to hit a specified flag with a cup of 4.25" in diameter.

>

> So yes I want max forgiveness with my driver for the most amount of distance

> So yes I want max accuracy not distance for my irons. **

>

>

>

>

ps. this reply bolding system has me stymied...

 

[Exactice808]

> Thanks. For what it’s worth, I’ve done some/a lot of this. DG R300 slows my swing speed down and takes distance from me, but feels fine.

>

> I did some testing yesterday with my newly acquired 716 CBs, which are shafted with Steelfiber i95. It’s not a 1-to-1 test, because the iron heads are obviously different. But I’ll put a few results up soon. Long story short, they’re pretty similar to my MP-4s.

>

> The only place I found a noticeable difference was on a toe-miss—there were two shots that really retained shape/direction/distance that would normally be a bad strike with my blades. Spin, carry, ball speed, shape, and feelnwere comperable, though feel and aesthetics are a little better with my MP-4s. I didn’t see much help on most misses—the only thing that stood out was a toe miss, and it wasn’t every toe-miss. I’d put it at like 25% chance to save my toe miss—otherwise, it’s the same.

>

> My mindset is a bit closer to Nard—it’s definitely nice to have a salvaged shot from a miss, but I really shouldn’t have that miss in the first place.

>

> I think I’ll probably flip my AP1s into the CB 716s, though. They’re an excellent set. It’s not a wise use of money, but I guess I’ll just spend more on golf this year. : )

 

DG R300 slows your swing down well yes its 10 grams heavier... Think driver shaft if 10grams dont seem like much, a 70gram Driver shaft vs a 60gram shaft is significant.

So it COULD lose distance. BUT I am concerned about your concern. your dispersion numbers.

 

Lets kick out distance for a moment period. At this point you will learn distance, BUT what I see the biggest hole in my opinion. Is your strike is VARYING a lot. again looking at your data you posted your distance, dispersion and spin varies greatly for a 145 yard shot. I want to see what your 10 shots of DGR300 looks like in the shot window. Meaning is the dispersion tighter is the spin tighter is the launch tighter? regardless if you are hitting only 130 yards, I would love to see a 10 yard dispersion, about 6500rpms of spin and the heights in a more consistent shape

This picture right here

 

I think above is your best of the 3 pictures. 15 yard shot dispersion, BUT look at your Heights specifically. Your distance was 7 yards variance, your spin was 1000rpms variance

We are trying to find something that matches your TEMPO and swing profile so you can put a repeatable swing. I am not sure if you are understanding what I am asking you if you are willing to do. I dont care about your distance or feel of distance on strike at this point. I want to replicate a repeatable swing by matching a profile for you specifically.

 

>

this one was your wildest but again I am more concerned about the varying launch curve just look at it , there were 2 super short and flat look almost like skulls.

 

 

The DG R300 obviously slowed you down, BUT did it in any way help your numbers by means of consistency.

The steel fibers are next..... i95, 95gram is a huge change, what flex?

 

I think I have asked you twice now what type of tempo you are, im going to ask again, what type of tempo are you?

Next is again I really dont care about distance, I want to see first if we can tighten up your dispersion as again thats what you said in your first post. If that is not what you want you but you just want to discuss the your CB and hit the PX 6.0 shafts.... then we can just move on.

 

 

[MelloYello]

Jesus Christ.

 

I'm not even kidding when I say that I 51% think this is one gigantic troll job.

 

And listen...I applaud it. I'm genuinely impressed. Hat's off.