My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

>

> > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

>

> So here we go back to the discussion if GI's get a High handcapper closer to the hole.

>

> Lets use a dime size strike as a quantifier as I am assuming thats the goal. If Iron Byron put 10 swings varying though in a dime size strike on an MB and a CB

> Would the precision be better with the MB over the CB. would the dispersion be tighter with all things being equal?

>

> So CB opens the sweet spot. creating forgiveness. But with the design of a focused weight MB, if a repeatable swing is applied is the Accuracy tighter? Because of the focused weight at the center? Were again the CB weight is generous rather than focused?

>

> As I dont recall any club that there is a club that has both? "Having your caking and eating it too" gotta give up one thing for something thing?

>

>

>

 

Control isn't something you give up by placing weight on the perimeter. The addition of weight around the periphery of a club merely adds stability on off-center strikes by increasing the MOI thus giving the club a means of resisting it's natural tendency to rotate under such conditions.

 

But if a hypothetical strike is perfectly in line with the CG, then you shouldn't have any rotation being induced. Do you agree?

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> > I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

>

> Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the weighting of the head is the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not bending, is it?

>

> Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

>

> Seems a lame way to make ones case.

>

> If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?

 

Actually I think I remember a discussion way back when TM introduced the Speed pockets on the RBbladez. The thought was the spring face and the mold injected, I have zero data, but just remember the speculated statements.

1) The Face does in fact flex right? (Face cup, Pocket cavity, Speed Slot)

2) Do MBs Face flex in any way shape or form as compared to the mentioned above?

 

The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> >

> > > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

> >

> > So here we go back to the discussion if GI's get a High handcapper closer to the hole.

> >

> > Lets use a dime size strike as a quantifier as I am assuming thats the goal. If Iron Byron put 10 swings varying though in a dime size strike on an MB and a CB

> > Would the precision be better with the MB over the CB. would the dispersion be tighter with all things being equal?

> >

> > So CB opens the sweet spot. creating forgiveness. But with the design of a focused weight MB, if a repeatable swing is applied is the Accuracy tighter? Because of the focused weight at the center? Were again the CB weight is generous rather than focused?

> >

> > As I dont recall any club that there is a club that has both? "Having your caking and eating it too" gotta give up one thing for something thing?

> >

> >

> >

>

> Control isn't something you give up by placing weight on the perimeter. It adds stability on off-center strikes but giving the club a means of resisting it's tendency to rotate.

>

> But if the strike is perfectly in line with the CG, then you shouldn'**t have any rotation being induced. **Do you agree?

Absolutely agreed, Shoot sorry we may be playing post leap frog. So I will try not to bounce back.

 

YES I agree, as to the MOI statement (if I understood back in the putter discussion) Right it reduced rotation. But speed or transmission of speed dictates spin launch and distance right?

 

So with a thin faced cavity system that flexes more than an MB system. the MB while being struck center would have more consistent ballspeed (NOT more, just more consistent) Where the Cavity system will have likely more ball speed, but at a little more variance?

 

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > > I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

> >

> > Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the weighting of the head is the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not bending, is it?

> >

> > Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

> >

> > Seems a lame way to make ones case.

> >

> > If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?

>

> Actually I think I remember a discussion way back when TM introduced the Speed pockets on the RBbladez. The thought was the spring face and the mold injected, I have zero data, but just remember the speculated statements.

> 1) The Face does in fact flex right? (Face cup, Pocket cavity, Speed Slot)

> 2) Do MBs Face flex in any way shape or form as compared to the mentioned above?

>

> The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

 

That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

 

We both agree that the face will flex.

 

Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances?

 

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> > The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> > Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

>

> That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

>

> We both agree that the face will flex.

>

> **Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances? **

>

this was the discussion a while back, again unfortunately I do not have any data, so it was purely a discussed point. But to the logical point itself.

Cavity back - "Thinner faced" has flex? Yes?

MB - Focused weight little to no flex? Yes?

 

Would it be safe to assume that any flex in the face could cause variances rather than no flex at all? (again speculative, at this point, but seemingly logical?)

 

*edit*

I think that is the question.

 

if 10 identical shots applied to a MB vs CB would the MB be more "precises" yes or no?

[nostatic]

.> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> >

> > > > I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

> > >

> > > Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the weighting of the head is the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not bending, is it?

> > >

> > > Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

> > >

> > > Seems a lame way to make ones case.

> > >

> > > If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?

> >

> > Actually I think I remember a discussion way back when TM introduced the Speed pockets on the RBbladez. The thought was the spring face and the mold injected, I have zero data, but just remember the speculated statements.

> > 1) The Face does in fact flex right? (Face cup, Pocket cavity, Speed Slot)

> > 2) Do MBs Face flex in any way shape or form as compared to the mentioned above?

> >

> > The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> > Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

>

> That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

>

> We both agree that the face will flex.

>

> Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances?

>

 

If all factors were identical, it should give the same flight. But a small variation in location, swing plane angle, speed, etc could (should?) have more variability on a thin face club where there is more flex. I can see how the results he references could come about, as a "center strike" actually isn't 100% identical between swings. So bigger sweet spot, helping off-center strikes, but some increased variability with the center strikes. Probably measurable, possible not relevant for real-world play.

 

fwiw I think "iron byron" tests provide data but I'm loathe to say that is the whole story. Since at the end of the day a human has to swing the club, you cannot eliminate internal biases and other psychological effects. Case in point - I picked up a 919 Tour PW and was hitting it back-to-back with my HMP PW. Same shaft, same length, same grip, etc so as many variables as I could control. I was more inconsistent with the 919T, even though I really wanted to love it. Whether that is down to more forgiveness with the HMP or my unconscious psychological barriers (likely a combination), at the end of the day "why?" doesn't really matter so much, I just want a club that gives me the best results. That said, I'll revisit that experiment in another month or so after continued work on my swing

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > > The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> > > Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

> >

> > That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

> >

> > We both agree that the face will flex.

> >

> > **Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances? **

> >

> this was the discussion a while back, again unfortunately I do not have any data, so it was purely a discussed point. But to the logical point itself.

> Cavity back - "Thinner faced" has flex? Yes?

> MB - Focused weight little to no flex? Yes?

>

> Would it be safe to assume that any flex in the face could cause variances rather than no flex at all? (again speculative, at this point, but seemingly logical?)

 

Yeah, I think we're just at a loss for any real data, LOL.

 

 

As far as I know, something that is a one-piece forging is by nature a single hunk of metal. So any blade or player's CB that is a single piece of metal has a face that is "constant thickness." That's a term you hear thrown around.

 

When you get into clubs that have "variable thickness" faces welded on (multi-piece construction) you get into another world. I believe that in general, these types of faces are thinner around the edge to creating more spring-like effect. That's at least the case with drivers.

 

It may be too difficult to make iron faces like that? I really don't know. I just can't say. It could be that they are merely thinner all-around.

 

You hear people claim about those clubs having more variation (i.e. "hot spots") but I've done the GI or SGI thing so I really can't comment.

[Exactice808]

> @nostatic said:

> .> @MelloYello said:

> > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > >

> > > > > I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

> > > >

> > > > Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the weighting of the head is the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not bending, is it?

> > > >

> > > > Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

> > > >

> > > > Seems a lame way to make ones case.

> > > >

> > > > If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?

> > >

> > > Actually I think I remember a discussion way back when TM introduced the Speed pockets on the RBbladez. The thought was the spring face and the mold injected, I have zero data, but just remember the speculated statements.

> > > 1) The Face does in fact flex right? (Face cup, Pocket cavity, Speed Slot)

> > > 2) Do MBs Face flex in any way shape or form as compared to the mentioned above?

> > >

> > > The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> > > Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

> >

> > That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

> >

> > We both agree that the face will flex.

> >

> > Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances?

> >

>

> If all factors were identical, it should give the same flight. But a small variation in location, swing plane angle, speed, etc could (should?) have more variability on a thin face club where there is more flex. I can see how the results he references could come about, as a "center strike" actually isn't 100% identical between swings. So bigger sweet spot, helping off-center strikes, but some increased variability with the center strikes. Probably measurable, possible not relevant for real-world play.

>

> fwiw I think "iron byron" tests provide data but I'm loathe to say that is the whole story. Since at the end of the day a human has to swing the club, you cannot eliminate internal biases and other psychological effects. Case in point - I picked up a 919 Tour PW and was hitting it back-to-back with my HMP PW. Same shaft, same length, same grip, etc so as many variables as I could control. I was more inconsistent with the 919T, even though I really wanted to love it. Whether that is down to more forgiveness with the HMP or my unconscious psychological barriers (likely a combination), at the end of the day "why?" doesn't really matter so much, I just want a club that gives me the best results. That said, I'll revisit that experiment in another month or so after continued work on my swing

 

In all humor, can we assume TW is the next closes damn thing to Iron Byron LOL!!!!!!!!

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> Yeah, I think we're just at a loss for any real data, LOL.

>

>

> As far as I know, something that is a one-piece forging is by nature a single hunk of metal. So any blade or player's CB that is a single piece of metal has a face that is "constant thickness." That's a term you hear thrown around.

>

> When you get into clubs that have "variable thickness" faces welded on (multi-piece construction) you get into another world.

>

> You hear people claim about those clubs having more variation (i.e. "hot spots") but I've done the GI or SGI thing so I really can't comment.

LOL!! Agreed.... *tin foil hat time* Thats intentionally kept from manufacturers...... they dont want to sell a less accurate club right LOL!!!!!!

 

So I bought into the "Cast vs forged" Hot spot thing LONG ago. Until I did the "data" thing... realizing that 99% it was all the golfer. That being said supposedly the Burner 2.0, irons DID have a flaw in their "casting" process where the supposed "hot spots" theory came from.... but at this point in the game.... We have come a long way in R&D and production. I highly doubt that there is anything NEAR a "Hot spot" unless there is a serious error in the actual production.

 

Yes with that you bring up 2 excellent points. lets use your CB's It is a CB but a players CB.... meaning its damn near close in design to an MB, BUT has the perimeter weight.

now a GI club, with pocket cavities, mold, slots, variable thickness... this gets into a HUGE other comparison.

 

So to be fair...... I hold the Players CB close or identical to the MB. Where a GI.... is what I hold a Cavity Back standard too.

 

If I had to use generic numbers

MB -10 accuracy

players CB - 9 accuracy

Game Improvements - 7 accuracy

SGI - 5 accuracy

 

(generically speaking) again would the quantifier be that flex or inconsistency of balls speed due to flex?

 

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > > Wait what?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > > > >

> > > > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> > > >

> > > > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> > > >

> > > > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

> > >

> > > Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

> > >

> > > They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

> >

> > 'The Wedge Guy' with over 25 years of experience building and marketing who's 'seen' testing said that Tiger 'who pretty much always hits it out of the middle' wouldn't have been as precise with 'thin faced cavity backs'.

> >

> > So the real question is who am I laughing at, him or you? Hmmm....that's a tough one :-)

> >

> >

>

> Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

 

I don't get his point either. The Wedge Guy said himself he would never dream of playing Tiger's irons. Maybe dciccoritti imagines himself to be on the same plane as probably the greatest iron player of the modern generation. Now that would make me laugh.

[MelloYello]

> @nostatic said:

> .> @MelloYello said:

> > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > >

> > > > > I think it is the second part of what he was saying - that perimeter-weighted thin-face clubs have more dispersion on center hits. So for a consistent striker, that type of club gives worse results compared to a blade (ignoring workability).

> > > >

> > > > Beyond some incredibly-minute variation in the flexing of the "thin face," I really don't see how one would get increased dispersion when the weighting of the head is the same shot-in, shot-out. A GI club is not bending, is it?

> > > >

> > > > Furthermore, what practical value does this have if we're comparing extremes? I really don't think a player using MBs is going to swap those out for the most springy GI clubs or vice versa. It seems like a weird example....like the one about how player's need to invest more in wedges because of the guys who's got an 80g graphite R-flex in his irons and buys off-the-rack DGS300-equipped wedges.

> > > >

> > > > Seems a lame way to make ones case.

> > > >

> > > > If we're comparing blades to PCBs I wouldn't expect to see a variation in dispersion even on perfect strikes with a robot, would you?

> > >

> > > Actually I think I remember a discussion way back when TM introduced the Speed pockets on the RBbladez. The thought was the spring face and the mold injected, I have zero data, but just remember the speculated statements.

> > > 1) The Face does in fact flex right? (Face cup, Pocket cavity, Speed Slot)

> > > 2) Do MBs Face flex in any way shape or form as compared to the mentioned above?

> > >

> > > The MB on a similar strike would have similar results because the lack of face flex? More so because the weight is focused at the center right?

> > > Where technically we cannot control how much flex is applied on a shot, As there is a thin faced cavity or a slot with molding in it. Again the give and take is the speed produced but at the slight variance of consistency?

> >

> > That's not really the question. Here's the question. Let's say we strike one of those "pocket" of "channel" clubs twice and both strikes are perfectly identical.

> >

> > We both agree that the face will flex.

> >

> > Is there any reason to believe that the face flexes _differently_ when struck identically on two separate instances?

> >

>

> If all factors were identical, it should give the same flight. But a small variation in location, swing plane angle, speed, etc could (should?) have more variability on a thin face club where there is more flex. I can see how the results he references could come about, as a "center strike" actually isn't 100% identical between swings. So bigger sweet spot, helping off-center strikes, but some increased variability with the center strikes. Probably measurable, possible not relevant for real-world play.

>

> fwiw I think "iron byron" tests provide data but I'm loathe to say that is the whole story. Since at the end of the day a human has to swing the club, you cannot eliminate internal biases and other psychological effects. Case in point - I picked up a 919 Tour PW and was hitting it back-to-back with my HMP PW. Same shaft, same length, same grip, etc so as many variables as I could control. I was more inconsistent with the 919T, even though I really wanted to love it. Whether that is down to more forgiveness with the HMP or my unconscious psychological barriers (likely a combination), at the end of the day "why?" doesn't really matter so much, I just want a club that gives me the best results. That said, I'll revisit that experiment in another month or so after continued work on my swing

 

I don't disagree at all.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> I don't get his point either. The Wedge Guy said himself he would never dream of playing Tiger's irons. Maybe dciccoritti imagines himself to be on the same plane as probably the greatest iron player of the modern generation. Now that would make me laugh.

 

Hold on for one second LOL!...... Now let me throw out something crazy.... but think logically for one second....

 

TW is a single Human out of 8 billion people.... is it inconceivable to think that in the golfing sea that there is NOT another human that has just as good striking ability or even BETTER iron striking ability than Tiger woods?

 

TW has a game ALL together that has netted him his status. But that does NOT mean is the single best iron striker in the world. It would be logical to think that there may be a person with better hand eye coordination and actually CAN strike the iron better than TW. or is that to inconceivable ?

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > I don't get his point either. The Wedge Guy said himself he would never dream of playing Tiger's irons. Maybe dciccoritti imagines himself to be on the same plane as probably the greatest iron player of the modern generation. Now that would make me laugh.

>

> Hold on for one second LOL!...... Now let me throw out something crazy.... but think logically for one second....

>

> TW is a single Human out of 8 billion people.... is it inconceivable to think that in the golfing sea that there is NOT another human that has just as good striking ability or even BETTER iron striking ability than Tiger woods?

>

> TW has a game ALL together that has netted him his status. But that does NOT mean is the single best iron striker in the world. It would be logical to think that there may be a person with better hand eye coordination and actually CAN strike the iron better than TW. or is that to inconceivable ?

>

 

That's why I said "on the same plane" (I'll include PGA level ballstrikers on that plane). But yeah, if someone tells me with a straight face that he hits his irons like Tiger, then by all means, help yourself to blades.

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > Yeah, I think we're just at a loss for any real data, LOL.

> >

> >

> > As far as I know, something that is a one-piece forging is by nature a single hunk of metal. So any blade or player's CB that is a single piece of metal has a face that is "constant thickness." That's a term you hear thrown around.

> >

> > When you get into clubs that have "variable thickness" faces welded on (multi-piece construction) you get into another world.

> >

> > You hear people claim about those clubs having more variation (i.e. "hot spots") but I've done the GI or SGI thing so I really can't comment.

> LOL!! Agreed.... *tin foil hat time* Thats intentionally kept from manufacturers...... they dont want to sell a less accurate club right LOL!!!!!!

>

> So I bought into the "Cast vs forged" Hot spot thing LONG ago. Until I did the "data" thing... realizing that 99% it was all the golfer. That being said supposedly the Burner 2.0, irons DID have a flaw in their "casting" process where the supposed "hot spots" theory came from.... but at this point in the game.... We have come a long way in R&D and production. I highly doubt that there is anything NEAR a "Hot spot" unless there is a serious error in the actual production.

>

> Yes with that you bring up 2 excellent points. lets use your CB's It is a CB but a players CB.... meaning its **** near close in design to an MB, BUT has the perimeter weight.

> now a GI club, with pocket cavities, mold, slots, variable thickness... this gets into a HUGE other comparison.

>

> So to be fair...... I hold the Players CB close or identical to the MB. Where a GI.... is what I hold a Cavity Back standard too.

>

> If I had to use generic numbers

> MB -10 accuracy

> players CB - 9 accuracy

> Game Improvements - 7 accuracy

> SGI - 5 accuracy

>

> (generically speaking) again would the quantifier be that flex or inconsistency of balls speed due to flex?

>

>

>

 

Yeah, and that's kind of why I hate these discussions. Nobody who's in the market for a PCB or blade is going to be thinking, _'well, gosh...maybe I should get the Burners?'_

 

When you break it down, things are basically the same across each class. "Player's" clubs like blades and small blade-like CBs are all intended to more or less maximize workability. I think that in that respect, we can kind of get back to the original question of whether handicap can inform club selection. I'm a little more traditional there. I don't think there are many (if any) 20-handicaps who hit their irons like a low single-digit. That kind of variation is just statistically improbable. I would say that...well, aside from putting...one's handicap with a given club like a driver, hybrid, iron or wedge is probably within +/- 5 shots of their total handicap.

 

We also have to remember that one's handicap represent what they'll do in their better rounds. If someone is a 10-handicap that's pretty good but they're still going to post rounds in the 80s and even 90s on occasion. So while that person might theoretically be "in range of blades" they are still going to struggle mightily during a great number of rounds during which their confidence is going to take a real hit.

 

I will be the first to admit that putting is totally different. I One can most definitely be a 10-handicap who putts like a 30. Putting is just that unique a thing. It has virtually nothing to do with swing mechanics as they pertain to the larger swings.

 

But I'll level with you, it's the variation in feel day-in, day-out with a blade that did it for me. I haven't had a single day with my 716 CBs that was so bad I remembered it. Even if I do have some 'off' days, I still pretty much "feel" the same with my CBs each and every time. I'm never concerned that my iron-play is going to fall off.

 

It's hit a couple of real nasty shots, sure, but having a club that masks unnecessarily harsh vibration is great. Only blades provide that kind of distinctive jab. The sour ball-fight is bad enough, I don't want the experience of the club in my hands to be making it even worse.

 

And sure, I always went up to the next shot thinking I'd hit it great, but when you're not hitting it great it's just like kicking a man when he's down. There's no need for it. To me, they were a distraction. When I was on the money I was okay but when I was off I was really kicking myself. I never liked that aspect of blades. They definitely made me hyper-sensitive to how I was hitting it that day which again, for me was a distraction.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> Yeah, and that's kind of why I hate these discussions. Nobody who's in the market for a PCB or blade is going to be thinking, _'well, gosh...maybe I should get the Burners?'_

>

> When you break it down, things are basically the same across each class. "Player's" clubs like blades and small blade-like CBs are all intended to more or less maximize workability. I think that in that respect, we can kind of get back to the original question of whether handicap can inform club selection. I'm a little more traditional there. I don't think there are many (if any) 20-handicaps who hit their irons like a low single-digit. That kind of variation is just statistically improbable. I would say that...well, aside from putting...one's handicap with a given club like a driver, hybrid, iron or wedge is probably within +/- 5 shots of their total handicap.

>

> I will be the first to admit that putting is totally different. I One can most definitely be a 10-handicap who putts like a 30. Putting is just that unique a thing. It has virtually nothing to do with swing mechanics as they pertain to the larger swings.

 

WHO the H E C K are you and what did you do with my regular MelloYello LOL.

100% agree with the last 3 or 4 post.... what is going on. I never agree with Mello, wheres the fight...LOL

 

In all serious.... I have been on the forums long enough, STARTED my own Blades thread long ago and participated IN most of them as well..... This thing is a mess and WILL likely ALWAYS be a mess...... I 100% agree what statistically the likelyhood of a 20 handicapper hitting irons like a single is a joke.... MORE so I know SINGLE digits that hits irons like crap period, but their WHOLE game is solid.

 

That is why I have said each individual ultimately makes their choice, BUT I hope they make their choice on an "informed" choice as you stated.... unfortunately.... NO one is really as dumb as nuts as me to go so far down the data line.... Im an idiot and an anomaly.

 

As for putting...... You either got it or you dont in my opinion.....Way to touchy feeling for me... my playing partners calls me "Roberto Durante"......(hands of stone) Cant put to save my life.....LOL!

 

[jpdx]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> >

> > > Yeah, I think we're just at a loss for any real data, LOL.

> > >

> > >

> > > As far as I know, something that is a one-piece forging is by nature a single hunk of metal. So any blade or player's CB that is a single piece of metal has a face that is "constant thickness." That's a term you hear thrown around.

> > >

> > > When you get into clubs that have "variable thickness" faces welded on (multi-piece construction) you get into another world.

> > >

> > > You hear people claim about those clubs having more variation (i.e. "hot spots") but I've done the GI or SGI thing so I really can't comment.

> > LOL!! Agreed.... *tin foil hat time* Thats intentionally kept from manufacturers...... they dont want to sell a less accurate club right LOL!!!!!!

> >

> > So I bought into the "Cast vs forged" Hot spot thing LONG ago. Until I did the "data" thing... realizing that 99% it was all the golfer. That being said supposedly the Burner 2.0, irons DID have a flaw in their "casting" process where the supposed "hot spots" theory came from.... but at this point in the game.... We have come a long way in R&D and production. I highly doubt that there is anything NEAR a "Hot spot" unless there is a serious error in the actual production.

> >

> > Yes with that you bring up 2 excellent points. lets use your CB's It is a CB but a players CB.... meaning its **** near close in design to an MB, BUT has the perimeter weight.

> > now a GI club, with pocket cavities, mold, slots, variable thickness... this gets into a HUGE other comparison.

> >

> > So to be fair...... I hold the Players CB close or identical to the MB. Where a GI.... is what I hold a Cavity Back standard too.

> >

> > If I had to use generic numbers

> > MB -10 accuracy

> > players CB - 9 accuracy

> > Game Improvements - 7 accuracy

> > SGI - 5 accuracy

> >

> > (generically speaking) again would the quantifier be that flex or inconsistency of balls speed due to flex?

> >

> >

> >

>

> Yeah, and that's kind of why I hate these discussions. Nobody who's in the market for a PCB or blade is going to be thinking, _'well, gosh...maybe I should get the Burners?'_

>

> When you break it down, things are basically the same across each class. "Player's" clubs like blades and small blade-like CBs are all intended to more or less maximize workability. I think that in that respect, we can kind of get back to the original question of whether handicap can inform club selection. I'm a little more traditional there. I don't think there are many (if any) 20-handicaps who hit their irons like a low single-digit. That kind of variation is just statistically improbable. I would say that...well, aside from putting...one's handicap with a given club like a driver, hybrid, iron or wedge is probably within +/- 5 shots of their total handicap.

>

> I will be the first to admit that putting is totally different. I One can most definitely be a 10-handicap who putts like a 30. Putting is just that unique a thing. It has virtually nothing to do with swing mechanics as they pertain to the larger swings.

 

I can hit my irons like a low single...even hit like a scratch. I just can't replicate it as often. lol!

 

there are drivers marketed to different hdcp's? maybe i'm playing my full bag out of my league...i'm into equipment but i'm no guru and don't know ALL the equipment out there... What examples of a driver would be the equivalent of a gi driver? blade or even players cb driver? better yet, what sort of numbers would a mid/high handicap produce with said drivers?

 

 

 

[dciccoritti]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

>

> > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

>

> So here we go back to the discussion if GI's get a High handcapper closer to the hole.

>

> Lets use a dime size strike as a quantifier as I am assuming thats the goal. If Iron Byron put 10 swings varying though in a dime size strike on an MB and a CB

> Would the precision be better with the MB over the CB. would the dispersion be tighter with all things being equal?

>

> So CB opens the sweet spot. creating forgiveness. But with the design of a focused weight MB, if a repeatable swing is applied is the Accuracy tighter? Because of the focused weight at the center? Were again the CB weight is generous rather than focused?

>

> As I dont recall any club that there is a club that has both? "Having your caking and eating it too" gotta give up one thing for something thing?

>

>

>

 

That's always been my point. There is always a tradeoff. And the wedge guy says that through his testing he also noticed that dispersion in less with blades vs thin faced CB's.

 

If you claim that you might gain a shot, you need to claim you might lose one. Take your pick and most importantly make sure your 100% confident with your choice of equipment and style of play.

 

Swing speed with regards to lower lofted clubs is not forgiveness but optimization and with that there is also a trade off. Up to every individual to balance it how they see fit.

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > > > Wait what?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> > > > >

> > > > > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> > > > >

> > > > > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

> > > >

> > > > Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

> > > >

> > > > They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

> > >

> > > 'The Wedge Guy' with over 25 years of experience building and marketing who's 'seen' testing said that Tiger 'who pretty much always hits it out of the middle' wouldn't have been as precise with 'thin faced cavity backs'.

> > >

> > > So the real question is who am I laughing at, him or you? Hmmm....that's a tough one :-)

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

>

> I don't get his point either. The Wedge Guy said himself he would never dream of playing Tiger's irons. Maybe dciccoritti imagines himself to be on the same plane as probably the greatest iron player of the modern generation. Now that would make me laugh.

 

The wedge guy said that CB's by nature of design incur greater dispersion. And as you and the very few others point out, tighter dispersion equals lower scores. This was said by a club designer that has seen many tests through the years. That is the point. Tell me you agree or disagree with him...not me.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @jpdx said:

>

> I can hit my irons like a low single...even hit like a scratch. I just can't replicate it as often. lol!

>

> there are drivers marketed to different hdcp's? maybe i'm playing my full bag out of my league...i'm into equipment but i'm no guru and don't know ALL the equipment out there... What examples of a driver would be the equivalent of a gi driver? blade or even players cb driver? better yet, **what sort of numbers would a mid/high handicap produce with said drivers?**

>

Actually I posted this with NSX about a driver vs iron.

 

Drivers- are Point area tools - Aiming at a fairway to get as far down it as possible

Irons - are point target tools - Aiming at a Flag with a hole 4.25" in diameter with a set distance in mind

 

SLDR drivers was a double edge sword. The LOW spin LOFT up campaign address the 2 biggest faults for a High handicapper.

 

1) Lofts, Most High handicappers cant hit a 8-10* lofted driver... they need the launch either they lack the AoA, or they lack the swing speed to get the ball airborne. THUS the loft UP campaign was born 12* SLDR drivers. (Also think about the 13.5* Mini drivers too, it was loft)

 

2) Low spin, forward and forward CG heads. Reduced spin, for most high handicappers that had the 3000-4000rpms back spin drives because of AoA issue and spin loft issues. This brought the spin down to the 2000-3000 range...

 

Pair these 2 facets and you get instant distance, More carry due to loft, and less spin.... BUT this was at a HUGE reduction of forgiveness... So while players SO massive increases in distance....the "threw" out the bad shots in their mind.

 

so here is another thing..... I was down to a 7 currently mid cap.... HORRIBLE driver of the ball and still horrible driver of the ball. I play the 915-D3 because its less spin and I got it in a 8.5* easier to source. NOT because I am a better player but because the benefits of the lower spinning head and lower loft head benefits my weakness of launching too high and spinning too much. I could play the D2 model in a 9.5* more spin but it would accentuate my flaws more. So I choose a more demanding head as it helps with my flaws/miss..

 

@dciccoritti ^^^^ BINGO, I am trading off a little more forgiveness, for less spin and lower loft! I cant HAVE it all unfortunately!!!!

 

 

[Exactice808]

SIDE BET!!! Anyone!!

 

Im running out to play a round with my clubs in my sig..... Anyone care to guess what the heck ll shoot today? Anyone care for the heck of it, I can post the score card when I get back??? Anyone LOL!

[IamMarkMac]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> >

> > > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

> >

> > So here we go back to the discussion if GI's get a High handcapper closer to the hole.

> >

> > Lets use a dime size strike as a quantifier as I am assuming thats the goal. If Iron Byron put 10 swings varying though in a dime size strike on an MB and a CB

> > Would the precision be better with the MB over the CB. would the dispersion be tighter with all things being equal?

> >

> > So CB opens the sweet spot. creating forgiveness. But with the design of a focused weight MB, if a repeatable swing is applied is the Accuracy tighter? Because of the focused weight at the center? Were again the CB weight is generous rather than focused?

> >

> > As I dont recall any club that there is a club that has both? "Having your caking and eating it too" gotta give up one thing for something thing?

> >

> >

> >

>

> That's always been my point. There is always a tradeoff. And the wedge guy says that through his testing he also noticed that dispersion in less with blades vs thin faced CB's.

>

> If you claim that you might gain a shot, you need to claim you might lose one. Take your pick and most importantly make sure your 100% confident with your choice of equipment and style of play.

>

> Swing speed with regards to lower lofted clubs is not forgiveness but optimization and with that there is also a trade off. Up to every individual to balance it how they see fit.

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > > > > Wait what?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Starts at 16:45 to about 17:15 :-)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If I can paraphrase, he essentially said that using blades allows Tiger Woods more control over his ball-flight than he'd get if he were to use a thin-faced, GI club. Is that news to anybody? Why would literally the best ball-striker of our generation be using blades--because they look pretty!?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that blades are the optimal tools for someone who's good enough to control their irons at a high level.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, what exactly is high-level? Is it Tour-only? Is it restricted to those who can make a living playing golf? Or to folks who hit a certain number of GIR? Or may folks below a certain handicap?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There's obviously a point for each of us where we're "good enough" but figuring out how to tell where that is...well, that's a mystery.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But anyhow, the whole point of a blade is really to maximize workability. I think what the guy is trying to equate that to is that they allow a player a wider "potential dispersion" through his own shot-making. That's a bit confusing but I suppose I get the analogy. I would just say, _blades allow for more workability which can be at the expense of dispersion if the player isn't good enough to control them properly._

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > After all, where a ball ends up after striking the face of an iron at a certain location is all just mechanics. CBs can potentially make shots go slightly straighter as physics tells us that the face angle will change less when they are mis-struck. To what degree that helps is tough to say, but we all generally agree with the principle argument.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Anyhow, I didn't find anything particularly enlightening in what I heard there. He later went on to say that a guy who is properly fit to an 80g graphite R-flex shaft in his GI PW is unlikely to be fit into a tour-style wedge with a 130g steel S-flex shaft.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Is _that_ news?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Think you missed the part where he said "I don't think he could do that with the thin faced cavity back iron with the 'data and testing I've seen'. I think there is a measure of dispersion pattern increase built into thin faced golf clubs" :-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That's exactly what I was responding to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He's saying blades are more workable and provide a player of TW's caliber a measure of control he couldn't have with something "less than" a blade.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How is that news? Am I missing something? Blades are the most workable club out there. They exist to maximize one's control over all elements of shot-making: trajectory, spin, etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Gotta laugh at the "blades are for precision" crowd!

> > > > >

> > > > > They're only "precise" if you are truly an expert player who strikes the center and has control of the clubface. Most of us are not...lol.

> > > >

> > > > 'The Wedge Guy' with over 25 years of experience building and marketing who's 'seen' testing said that Tiger 'who pretty much always hits it out of the middle' wouldn't have been as precise with 'thin faced cavity backs'.

> > > >

> > > > So the real question is who am I laughing at, him or you? Hmmm....that's a tough one :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Ummmhh...maybe I'm dense, but ya lost me. What's your point?

> >

> > I don't get his point either. The Wedge Guy said himself he would never dream of playing Tiger's irons. Maybe dciccoritti imagines himself to be on the same plane as probably the greatest iron player of the modern generation. Now that would make me laugh.

>

> The wedge guy said that CB's by nature of design incur greater dispersion. And as you and the very few others point out, tighter dispersion equals lower scores. This was said by a club designer that has seen many tests through the years. That is the point. Tell me you agree or disagree with him...not me.

>

>

 

I agree with the qualification that you're taking it out of context. He was talking about tighter dispersion for Tiger Woods. Not for everyone else.

[MelloYello]

> @dciccoritti said:

> The wedge guy said that CB's by nature of design incur greater dispersion. And as you and the very few others point out, tighter dispersion equals lower scores. This was said by a club designer that has seen many tests through the years. That is the point. Tell me you agree or disagree with him...not me.

>

 

I don't think anyone here is quite clear on what he was trying to say there. If he were sitting in front of me I'd ask for clarification on the statement. There's no reason to force someone to agree/disagree on something so ambiguous.

 

Nobody would disagree with the part where he said _'TW wouldn't be able to do what he does with a thin-faced CB'_. He's obviously talking about a GI iron and no, I don't think TW skills are best expressed through a GI iron. The player in question obviously chooses blades for their precise workability.

 

With regard to the off-hand remark he made about dispersion, we can't really pinpoint what he's saying. Is he claiming that a Mizuno MP CB is going to produce more variation on perfect strikes when compared to something like a Titleist MB? That's nonsense AFAIK. I wouldn't assume they launched identically but there's no reason to assume the MB is more consistent in it's performance. If that's what he's arguing for, I would need some actual evidence.

 

I think it's far more likely he spoke unclearly than anything else.

 

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> SIDE BET!!! Anyone!!

>

> Im running out to play a round with my clubs in my sig..... Anyone care to guess what the heck ll shoot today? Anyone care for the heck of it, I can post the score card when I get back??? Anyone LOL!

 

Without evening asking which ones are 3s, 4s and 5s I'll hazard a hole-by-hole guess:

 

Hole 1: 4

Hole 2: 5

Hole 3: 4

Hole 4: 6

Hole 5: 3

Hole 6: 5

Hole 7: 5

Hole 8: 5

Hole 9: 4

 

Total: 41

 

[dpb5031]

@MelloYello , well said

[dpb5031]

I'll add that precision really only really matters if you're good enough to be precise...lol!

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > SIDE BET!!! Anyone!!

> >

> > Im running out to play a round with my clubs in my sig..... Anyone care to guess what the heck ll shoot today? Anyone care for the heck of it, I can post the score card when I get back??? Anyone LOL!

>

> Without evening asking which ones are 3s, 4s and 5s I'll hazard a hole-by-hole guess:

>

> Hole 1: 4

> Hole 2: 5

> Hole 3: 4

> Hole 4: 6

> Hole 5: 3

> Hole 6: 5

> Hole 7: 5

> Hole 8: 5

> Hole 9: 4

>

> Total: 41

>

 

Now you just being a gentlemen. Jeez. To cap on this. If anyone is willing and guesses my score I’ll will mail them a small Hawai’i golf gift if they are willing to give me a mailing address At this point all fun.

[Exactice808]

S

Score card!!! Again got so serious, let’s have a little fun.

[jpdx]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @jpdx said:

> >

> > I can hit my irons like a low single...even hit like a scratch. I just can't replicate it as often. lol!

> >

> > there are drivers marketed to different hdcp's? maybe i'm playing my full bag out of my league...i'm into equipment but i'm no guru and don't know ALL the equipment out there... What examples of a driver would be the equivalent of a gi driver? blade or even players cb driver? better yet, **what sort of numbers would a mid/high handicap produce with said drivers?**

> >

> Actually I posted this with NSX about a driver vs iron.

>

> Drivers- are Point area tools - Aiming at a fairway to get as far down it as possible

> Irons - are point target tools - Aiming at a Flag with a hole 4.25" in diameter with a set distance in mind

>

> SLDR drivers was a double edge sword. The LOW spin LOFT up campaign address the 2 biggest faults for a High handicapper.

>

> **1) Lofts, Most High handicappers cant hit a 8-10* lofted driver... they need the launch either they lack the AoA, or they lack the swing speed to get the ball airborne. THUS the loft UP campaign was born 12* SLDR drivers. (Also think about the 13.5* Mini drivers too, it was loft)**

>

> **2) Low spin, forward and forward CG heads. Reduced spin, for most high handicappers that had the 3000-4000rpms back spin drives because of AoA issue and spin loft issues. This brought the spin down to the 2000-3000 range... **

>

> Pair these 2 facets and you get instant distance, More carry due to loft, and less spin.... BUT this was at a HUGE reduction of forgiveness... So while players SO massive increases in distance....the "threw" out the bad shots in their mind.

>

> so here is another thing..... I was down to a 7 currently mid cap.... HORRIBLE driver of the ball and still horrible driver of the ball. I play the 915-D3 because its less spin and I got it in a 8.5* easier to source. NOT because I am a better player but because the benefits of the lower spinning head and lower loft head benefits my weakness of launching too high and spinning too much. I could play the D2 model in a 9.5* more spin but it would accentuate my flaws more. So I choose a more demanding head as it helps with my flaws/miss..

>

> @dciccoritti ^^^^ BINGO, I am trading off a little more forgiveness, for less spin and lower loft! I cant HAVE it all unfortunately!!!!

>

>

I know you covered it but i'm a little confused as i'm still not sure what a sgi/gi driver is, and what a players driver would be. more to the point: is my bag (gamer) set up for a low or mid/high hdcp?

 

Srixon z785 9.5 hzrdus black 75g 6.5

Nike Vapor Fly 3 wood 15* Diamana Blueboard

Nike Vapor Fly 3 hybrid 20* Diamana Blueboard

Nike Vapor Fly Pro 4 DG Pro s300 -2*

Nike Vapor Pro 4-PW DG s300 -2*

Nike Engage 54* SS and 58* DS

Nike Method Matter m4-12

 

is the 915-d3 a players driver?

 

[nsxguy]

> @jpdx said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @jpdx said:

> > >

> > > I can hit my irons like a low single...even hit like a scratch. I just can't replicate it as often. lol!

> > >

> > > there are drivers marketed to different hdcp's? maybe i'm playing my full bag out of my league...i'm into equipment but i'm no guru and don't know ALL the equipment out there... What examples of a driver would be the equivalent of a gi driver? blade or even players cb driver? better yet, **what sort of numbers would a mid/high handicap produce with said drivers?**

> > >

> > Actually I posted this with NSX about a driver vs iron.

> >

> > Drivers- are Point area tools - Aiming at a fairway to get as far down it as possible

> > Irons - are point target tools - Aiming at a Flag with a hole 4.25" in diameter with a set distance in mind

> >

> > SLDR drivers was a double edge sword. The LOW spin LOFT up campaign address the 2 biggest faults for a High handicapper.

> >

> > **1) Lofts, Most High handicappers cant hit a 8-10* lofted driver... they need the launch either they lack the AoA, or they lack the swing speed to get the ball airborne. THUS the loft UP campaign was born 12* SLDR drivers. (Also think about the 13.5* Mini drivers too, it was loft)**

> >

> > **2) Low spin, forward and forward CG heads. Reduced spin, for most high handicappers that had the 3000-4000rpms back spin drives because of AoA issue and spin loft issues. This brought the spin down to the 2000-3000 range... **

> >

> > Pair these 2 facets and you get instant distance, More carry due to loft, and less spin.... BUT this was at a HUGE reduction of forgiveness... So while players SO massive increases in distance....the "threw" out the bad shots in their mind.

> >

> > so here is another thing..... I was down to a 7 currently mid cap.... HORRIBLE driver of the ball and still horrible driver of the ball. I play the 915-D3 because its less spin and I got it in a 8.5* easier to source. NOT because I am a better player but because the benefits of the lower spinning head and lower loft head benefits my weakness of launching too high and spinning too much. I could play the D2 model in a 9.5* more spin but it would accentuate my flaws more. So I choose a more demanding head as it helps with my flaws/miss..

> >

> > @dciccoritti ^^^^ BINGO, I am trading off a little more forgiveness, for less spin and lower loft! I cant HAVE it all unfortunately!!!!

> >

> >

> I know you covered it but i'm a little confused as i'm still not sure what a sgi/gi driver is, and what a players driver would be. more to the point: is my bag (gamer) set up for a low or mid/high hdcp?

>

> Srixon z785 9.5 hzrdus black 75g 6.5

> Nike Vapor Fly 3 wood 15* Diamana Blueboard

> Nike Vapor Fly 3 hybrid 20* Diamana Blueboard

> Nike Vapor Fly Pro 4 DG Pro s300 -2*

> Nike Vapor Pro 4-PW DG s300 -2*

> Nike Engage 54* SS and 58* DS

> Nike Method Matter m4-12

>

> is the 915-d3 a players driver?

>

 

Haven't you read the thread ? There is NO club designed for ANY handicapper anymore. LMAO

 

There is no such thing as a "Player's Driver". There are ONLY SGI and GI drivers now (or GI and PGI if you prefer LOL). Just like there are (virtually) no more "player's putters" anymore.

 

Today's drivers are SO good at forgiveness AND reducing spin that you choose your optimal combination of the two that you can CONTROL and you're done.

 

And now that the stigma of forgiving drivers and forgiving putters is over once the tipping point via-a-vis blades is reached there will be no more of them either, although I confess that if these threads here on WRX are any indication, that'll obviously be much harder to accomplish. LOL

 

But so long as the manufacturers can make profit$ with blades they'll keep making them.

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > The wedge guy said that CB's by nature of design incur greater dispersion. And as you and the very few others point out, tighter dispersion equals lower scores. This was said by a club designer that has seen many tests through the years. That is the point. Tell me you agree or disagree with him...not me.

> >

>

> I don't think anyone here is quite clear on what he was trying to say there. If he were sitting in front of me I'd ask for clarification on the statement. There's no reason to force someone to agree/disagree on something so ambiguous.

>

> Nobody would disagree with the part where he said _'TW wouldn't be able to do what he does with a thin-faced CB'_. He's obviously talking about a GI iron and no, I don't think TW skills are best expressed through a GI iron. The player in question obviously chooses blades for their precise workability.

>

> With regard to the off-hand remark he made about dispersion, we can't really pinpoint what he's saying. Is he claiming that a Mizuno MP CB is going to produce more variation on perfect strikes when compared to something like a Titleist MB? That's nonsense AFAIK. I wouldn't assume they launched identically but there's no reason to assume the MB is more consistent in it's performance. If that's what he's arguing for, I would need some actual evidence.

>

> I think it's far more likely he spoke unclearly than anything else.

>

 

The original Iron Byron article:

 

https://clubsg.skygolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/5-3722-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

 

Make of it what you will.

[dciccoritti]

> @mahonie said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > The wedge guy said that CB's by nature of design incur greater dispersion. And as you and the very few others point out, tighter dispersion equals lower scores. This was said by a club designer that has seen many tests through the years. That is the point. Tell me you agree or disagree with him...not me.

> > >

> >

> > I don't think anyone here is quite clear on what he was trying to say there. If he were sitting in front of me I'd ask for clarification on the statement. There's no reason to force someone to agree/disagree on something so ambiguous.

> >

> > Nobody would disagree with the part where he said _'TW wouldn't be able to do what he does with a thin-faced CB'_. He's obviously talking about a GI iron and no, I don't think TW skills are best expressed through a GI iron. The player in question obviously chooses blades for their precise workability.

> >

> > With regard to the off-hand remark he made about dispersion, we can't really pinpoint what he's saying. Is he claiming that a Mizuno MP CB is going to produce more variation on perfect strikes when compared to something like a Titleist MB? That's nonsense AFAIK. I wouldn't assume they launched identically but there's no reason to assume the MB is more consistent in it's performance. If that's what he's arguing for, I would need some actual evidence.

> >

> > I think it's far more likely he spoke unclearly than anything else.

> >

>

> The original Iron Byron article:

>

> https://clubsg.skygolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/5-3722-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

>

> Make of it what you will.

 

Yup :-)