My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[nostatic]

One problem is he doesn't include data for the off-center strikes:

 

> Not just with one model of iron, but with nearly every cavity back we tested. Now, realize that as we moved the impact further from the center of the face, the forgiveness factor was excellent, but I was puzzled by that "dead center" pattern.

>

> Then I looked at the chart for the new Apex blade we were developing. On heel misses, it was slightly worse than the cavity back models.

>

> On toe misses, the Apex was significantly worse (blades have very little mass out on the toe).

 

So it really depends on the individual. Are you willing to put up with 8' x 16' dispersion on a CB center-strike vs what he only describes as "slightly" and "significantly" worse for off-center? I think it depends on the actual numbers for a given player and their striking precision. If the "excellent" forgiveness (his words) is 10-15 yards and I center-strike 10% of the time, then I'm probably going GI. If the difference is more like 3-5 yards and I center-strike half the time, then I'm probably going blade. Either way I certainly can see some benefit to working with a blade on the range, but there has got to be a break-point for actual course play where the cost/benefit for blades makes sense (and vice-versa for GI).

[MtlJeff]

I've been chasing my daughter around most of the past few nights....are we all getting along here? It seems so

 

I'm actually really psyched here that the dialogue seems to be really positive

[jpdx]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @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.

 

tbh I feel like your first point holds some truth, the numbers on my vapor pros (a modern mb/blade), my vapor fly pro cb (gi?) clubs, tm 790 and 760 (players cb's?) I tested at a range demo day were all pretty similar (they chose the clubs, fully aware of what my hdcp and misses are). I compared them all - not with the stamped number on the head, rather the most similar loft's to the 7i of the 790's. I gotta say all were pretty similar on avg. I gotta think that the TM clubs were not made with my hdcp in mind.

 

sorry, I keep feeling i'm an exception to the rule as I read the back and forth between more experienced folks and frankly smarter in certain areas than I am...I guess i'm just trying to justify my own bag to myself and that I can game them to my hdcp.

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @jpdx said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @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.

>

> tbh I feel like your first point holds some truth, the numbers on my vapor pros (a modern mb/blade), my vapor fly pro cb (gi?) clubs, tm 790 and 760 (players cb's?) I tested at a range demo day were all pretty similar (they chose the clubs, fully aware of what my hdcp and misses are). I compared them all - not with the stamped number on the head, rather the most similar loft's to the 7i of the 790's. I gotta say all were pretty similar on avg. I gotta think that the TM clubs were not made with my hdcp in mind.

>

> sorry, I keep feeling i'm an exception to the rule as I read the back and forth between more experienced folks and frankly smarter in certain areas than I am...I guess i'm just trying to justify my own bag to myself and that I can game them to my hdcp.

>

>

 

You don't have to justify your bag to anyone. Honestly, even if say your handicap got worse playing with clubs you like (which is pretty hard to prove), what of it?

[nostatic]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @jpdx said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > tbh I feel like your first point holds some truth, the numbers on my vapor pros (a modern mb/blade), my vapor fly pro cb (gi?) clubs, tm 790 and 760 (players cb's?) I tested at a range demo day were all pretty similar (they chose the clubs, fully aware of what my hdcp and misses are). I compared them all - not with the stamped number on the head, rather the most similar loft's to the 7i of the 790's. I gotta say all were pretty similar on avg. I gotta think that the TM clubs were not made with my hdcp in mind.

> >

> > sorry, I keep feeling i'm an exception to the rule as I read the back and forth between more experienced folks and frankly smarter in certain areas than I am...I guess i'm just trying to justify my own bag to myself and that I can game them to my hdcp.

> >

> >

>

> You don't have to justify your bag to anyone. Honestly, even if say your handicap got worse playing with clubs you like (which is pretty hard to prove), what of it?

 

unless someone is paying you to play, seems best to play what you like. If scoring is highly important, then there may be a "better" fit, but if you don't like them, probably won't get "better" in the long run.

[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

>

 

43 front, but par 37 pretty close mellow! Do you want to see the back lol

 

My putting was horrible!!! Need that SGI putter.

 

[revanant]

Played 9 holes yesterday after work with my 716 CBs. Hit them well, but reinforced the point that my weakness in my game is 1) putting, 2) driver out of bounds.

 

I had 23 putts on 9 holes. It’s not my iron play—I need to be a better lag putter and get more accurate at all distances.

 

Case in point: had a nice GIR from 160 out that put the ball 20 feet left of the pin. In those 20 feet, my first putt left me five feet, my second putt lipped, and I had my bogey. That was a highlight of my round. With better putting, my scores will be much improved no matter what irons I play.

[Tree Levino]

> @revanant said:

> Played 9 holes yesterday after work with my 716 CBs. Hit them well, but reinforced the point that my weakness in my game is 1) putting, 2) driver out of bounds.

>

> I had 23 putts on 9 holes. It’s not my iron play—I need to be a better lag putter and get more accurate at all distances.

>

> Case in point: had a nice GIR from 160 out that put the ball 20 feet left of the pin. In those 20 feet, my first putt left me five feet, my second putt lipped, and I had my bogey. That was a highlight of my round. With better putting, my scores will be much improved no matter what irons I play.

 

How many GIR did you have in 9

[revanant]

2 for that round, both on par 3s. But I wouldn’t read much into that stat, as I’m not putting myself in a position to succeed off the tee. Too often, I’ve either lost strokes or am hitting from trouble. Generally, my iron play is putting me in a chance to scramble, despite not being in the fairway.

 

In other words, I know where I’m losing strokes. First place is putting, where I have a wealth of three putts to trim down. Second place is off the tee—whether I resolve to hit 3 wood or iron out my driver. And the third place is chipping and putting, where I’m turning scramble chances into double and triple bogey. This one is in third, because I’ve improved here.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @mahonie said:

>

> 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.

 

I'll admit, that's pretty interesting.

 

But it shouldn't go unquestioned. There are several variables:

 

First, just what does he mean by "cavity-back?" Based on how he spoke in the prior interview, my feeling is that he's probably talking about GI irons when he says CB.

 

Second, that article was from when--2010? Is it possible he's simply pointing out that GI face tech of that period was not as good as today? Has that issue been resolved within the industry? Did every company have the same problems?

 

We don't really know. But again, I'd be 100% shocked if what he's claiming extends up to PCBs which are essentially just blades with some degree of perimeter weighting.

 

The fact he said they witnessed issues with dispersion long/short tells me it's probably a face thing and that points to GI irons (and maybe only those from that era).

 

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @mahonie said:

> >

> > 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.

>

> I'll admit, that's pretty interesting.

>

> But it shouldn't go unquestioned. There are several variables:

>

> First, just what does he mean by "cavity-back?" Based on how he spoke in the prior interview, my feeling is that he's probably talking about GI irons when he says CB.

>

> Second, that article was from when--2010? Is it possible he's simply pointing out that GI face tech of that period was not as good as today? Has that issue been resolved within the industry? Did every company have the same problems?

>

> We don't really know. But again, I'd be 100% shocked if what he's claiming extends up to PCBs which are essentially just blades with some degree of perimeter weighting.

>

> The fact he said they witnessed issues with dispersion long/short tells me it's probably a face thing and that points to GI irons (and maybe only those from that era).

>

>

 

I'm not impressed, because he doesn't explain why. So, basically, he'd have us believe that:

 

1.He's been in golf 30 years, and at the time of the article the president of a company that made these types of clubs.

2. He was "going over some Iron Byron data" and noticed this pattern.

3. He didn't use it to revolutionize his marketing or some other big project, nor did he re-run the test. He used this information to *gasp* shoot a better score that weekend with his buddies, then apparently just forget about it despite the fact that a provable advantage of blades over CBs (or vice versa) would be very marketable.

4. The data is not posted with the article for reasons he doesn't share.

5. The company he is president of is trying to promote blade-style irons down below their usual wedge-only spots.

6. From an alleged clubmaker and designer of an elite level there is zero explanation as to why this is. Its just "d'uh'oh look! I dun found me some data! Whas it say? Well I'll be. CBs have huge dispersion! Who woulda thought it? Guess I'm loading up the blades from now on!!!" Instead of "Here's why...." which is conspicuously, 100% missing from the article.

 

This article is interesting, but its also bizarre. If they have an iron byron, why isn't this more developed than one session? Why hasn't anyone else found this out? 15-17 yards is a massive amount and I'm not buying this story at all.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

>

> I'm not impressed, because he doesn't explain why. So, basically, he'd have us believe that:

>

> 1.He's been in golf 30 years, and at the time of the article the president of a company that made these types of clubs.

> 2. He was "going over some Iron Byron data" and noticed this pattern.

> 3. He didn't use it to revolutionize his marketing or some other big project, nor did he re-run the test. He used this information to *gasp* shoot a better score that weekend with his buddies, then apparently just forget about it despite the fact that a provable advantage of blades over CBs (or vice versa) would be very marketable.

> 4. The data is not posted with the article for reasons he doesn't share.

> 5. The company he is president of is trying to promote blade-style irons down below their usual wedge-only spots.

> 6. From an alleged clubmaker and designer of an elite level there is zero explanation as to why this is. Its just "d'uh'oh look! I dun found me some data! Whas it say? Well I'll be. CBs have huge dispersion! Who woulda thought it? Guess I'm loading up the blades from now on!!!" Instead of "Here's why...." which is conspicuously, 100% missing from the article.

>

> This article is interesting, but its also bizarre. If they have an iron byron, why isn't this more developed than one session? Why hasn't anyone else found this out? 15-17 yards is a massive amount and I'm not buying this story at all.

 

I'm with you. There are several red flags with the guy. He just doesn't come off as very convincing when he makes broad, sweeping general claims and fails to elaborate and validate when appropriate.

 

He may have a lot of years in the industry but the way he speaks is more like a salesman. That was true of the "wedge guy" interview as well as the article.

 

 

[revanant]

Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

 

Page 1:

https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

 

Page 2:

https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

 

Page 3:

https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

 

Page 4:

https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

 

Original source:

http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

[pinestreetgolf]

> @revanant said:

> Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

>

> Page 1:

> https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

>

> Page 2:

> https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

>

> Page 3:

> https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

>

> Page 4:

> https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

>

> Original source:

> http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

 

It didn't have a similar result at all:

"some traditional forgings can deliver, if the mass is properly distributed, some of the same benefits as their hi-tech counterparts."

 

OK, so "if" the blade has mass properly distributed (they do not tell us what "properly distributed" means) then some of the benefits are there (they did not say "all", nor do they tell us which benefits exactly. Just some of the benefits). What?

 

What does that even mean? The first "if" and the second "some" destroy any value that might have. It doesn't mention the phantom "dispersion on good hits on CBs" the first article did. This one is about whether or not blades or CBs are more forgiving on off center strikes, which isn't what the first article was about.

 

If any of this was true, it should be easy to find an article that posts the data and is very direct in its conclusions. Both of these articles play pronoun games and talk in riddles.

[revanant]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @revanant said:

> > Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

> >

> > Page 1:

> > https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

> >

> > Page 2:

> > https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

> >

> > Page 3:

> > https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

> >

> > Page 4:

> > https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

> >

> > Original source:

> > http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

>

> It didn't have a similar result at all:

> "some traditional forgings can deliver, if the mass is properly distributed, some of the same benefits as their hi-tech counterparts."

>

> OK, so "if" the blade has mass properly distributed (they do not tell us what "properly distributed" means) then some of the benefits are there (they did not say "all", nor do they tell us which benefits exactly. Just some of the benefits). What?

>

> What does that even mean? The first "if" and the second "some" destroy any value that might have. It doesn't mention the phantom "dispersion on good hits on CBs" the first article did. This one is about whether or not blades or CBs are more forgiving on off center strikes, which isn't what the first article was about.

>

> If any of this was true, it should be easy to find an article that posts the data and is very direct in its conclusions. Both of these articles play pronoun games and talk in riddles.

 

It’s on page 3, where it talks about how iron design has improved for all irons. Namely, irons with a low cg that is less in the heel, as contrasted with older, high cg designs.

 

As for the dispersion, you can see it in the charts. It’s just a single test, but its another example where the irons just perform similarly, and where mishits with the mb aren’t very different from the CB, and are actually better in some instances. The CB was better on toe mishits, but the MB wasn’t bad, and that was the only spot where the CB distinguished itself.

 

In other words, when people find that MBs don’t result in a major performance difference or a massive drop off in playable shots from mishits, there’s testing to back that up—whether it’s a similar MPF rating, personal testing, the above articles, etc. It may not be true for all golfers and all swings. But it can be true for some folks—that they get better average contact with an mb, and that the misses aren’t punished so much worse to outweigh the better contact. This makes sense, because just looking at the 1988 Golf Digest test, the two clubs didn’t have a lot of separation and some tests broke in the MB’s favor.

[IamMarkMac]

> @revanant said:

> 2 for that round, both on par 3s. But I wouldn’t read much into that stat, as I’m not putting myself in a position to succeed off the tee. Too often, I’ve either lost strokes or am hitting from trouble. Generally, my iron play is putting me in a chance to scramble, despite not being in the fairway.

>

> In other words, I know where I’m losing strokes. First place is putting, where I have a wealth of three putts to trim down. Second place is off the tee—whether I resolve to hit 3 wood or iron out my driver. And the third place is chipping and putting, where I’m turning scramble chances into double and triple bogey. This one is in third, because I’ve improved here.

>

>

 

Everyone should always work on their putting, high handicap or low, that's a constant. Past that, yes, off the tee is the priority for high handicappers. Blowup holes are greatly limited if you can get yourself consistently on the fairway after the first shot and you really want to be able to remove OB (and its resulting playing 3 from the tee) from the equation.

The iron thing will work itself out. You still sound to me like someone who could use a more forgiving iron but you'll come to that conclusion yourself or you won't. You can succeed with any iron, really.

[11forgedblades]

I think it's almost impossible to have a clear understanding of this topic when you're in this cult. I wish I could take 1000 steps back and view my game/equipment from the outside...but I'm in too deep. Heel relief, shaft specs, MOI.....

[revanant]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @revanant said:

> > 2 for that round, both on par 3s. But I wouldn’t read much into that stat, as I’m not putting myself in a position to succeed off the tee. Too often, I’ve either lost strokes or am hitting from trouble. Generally, my iron play is putting me in a chance to scramble, despite not being in the fairway.

> >

> > In other words, I know where I’m losing strokes. First place is putting, where I have a wealth of three putts to trim down. Second place is off the tee—whether I resolve to hit 3 wood or iron out my driver. And the third place is chipping and putting, where I’m turning scramble chances into double and triple bogey. This one is in third, because I’ve improved here.

> >

> >

>

> Everyone should always work on their putting, high handicap or low, that's a constant. Past that, yes, off the tee is the priority for high handicappers. Blowup holes are greatly limited if you can get yourself consistently on the fairway after the first shot and you really want to be able to remove OB (and its resulting playing 3 from the tee) from the equation.

> The iron thing will work itself out. You still sound to me like someone who could use a more forgiving iron but you'll come to that conclusion yourself or you won't. You can succeed with any iron, really.

 

Appreciate the feedback. Honestly, the other parts of my game need urgent work, so I’m not going to worry about my irons for a while.

 

For context, I have 716 AP1s in the closet, but I’ve found I hit both the MP-4s and CBs more consistently. I’ve done that comparison extensively. I’ve also got a Taylormade M2 6 iron in the closet. That one is the worst of the bunch for me.

 

But, it doesn’t matter what iron I’m hitting if I’ve lost 2 strokes off the tee.

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @mahonie said:

> >

> > 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.

>

> I'll admit, that's pretty interesting.

>

> But it shouldn't go unquestioned. There are several variables:

>

> First, just what does he mean by "cavity-back?" Based on how he spoke in the prior interview, my feeling is that he's probably talking about GI irons when he says CB.

>

> Second, that article was from when--2010? Is it possible he's simply pointing out that GI face tech of that period was not as good as today? Has that issue been resolved within the industry? Did every company have the same problems?

>

> We don't really know. But again, I'd be 100% shocked if what he's claiming extends up to PCBs which are essentially just blades with some degree of perimeter weighting.

>

> The fact he said they witnessed issues with dispersion long/short tells me it's probably a face thing and that points to GI irons (and maybe only those from that era).

>

>

Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @revanant said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

> > >

> > > Page 1:

> > > https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

> > >

> > > Page 2:

> > > https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

> > >

> > > Page 3:

> > > https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

> > >

> > > Page 4:

> > > https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

> > >

> > > Original source:

> > > http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

> >

> > It didn't have a similar result at all:

> > "some traditional forgings can deliver, if the mass is properly distributed, some of the same benefits as their hi-tech counterparts."

> >

> > OK, so "if" the blade has mass properly distributed (they do not tell us what "properly distributed" means) then some of the benefits are there (they did not say "all", nor do they tell us which benefits exactly. Just some of the benefits). What?

> >

> > What does that even mean? The first "if" and the second "some" destroy any value that might have. It doesn't mention the phantom "dispersion on good hits on CBs" the first article did. This one is about whether or not blades or CBs are more forgiving on off center strikes, which isn't what the first article was about.

> >

> > If any of this was true, it should be easy to find an article that posts the data and is very direct in its conclusions. Both of these articles play pronoun games and talk in riddles.

>

> It’s on page 3, where it talks about how iron design has improved for all irons. Namely, irons with a low cg that is less in the heel, as contrasted with older, high cg designs.

>

> As for the dispersion, you can see it in the charts. It’s just a single test, but its another example where the irons just perform similarly, and where mishits with the mb aren’t very different from the CB, and are actually better in some instances. The CB was better on toe mishits, but the MB wasn’t bad, and that was the only spot where the CB distinguished itself.

>

> In other words, when people find that MBs don’t result in a major performance difference or a massive drop off in playable shots from mishits, there’s testing to back that up—whether it’s a similar MPF rating, personal testing, the above articles, etc. It may not be true for all golfers and all swings. But it can be true for some folks—that they get better average contact with an mb, and that the misses aren’t punished so much worse to outweigh the better contact. This makes sense, because just looking at the 1988 Golf Digest test, the two clubs didn’t have a lot of separation and some tests broke in the MB’s favor.

 

Right, but they had humans hitting the ball. That's just nonsense. There's no control group. Its presented as if it is objective, but its not. They don't present any of the swing data so we have no idea which swing went into which club. A guy a long time ago you found who over sixteen balls hit blades OK isn't "testing to back that up".

 

They also play word games. Blades being "better on mishits than expected" is not the same thing as "better on mishits than CBs". It sounds like it when you read the article, but they don't ever actually compare the two except to say that the game improvement iron "started the ball further left" which we now know, thanks to trackman, has nothing to do with the club and everything to do with where the face is pointing at impact (irons forgive path, not face).

 

It not a huge difference between the two. It is going to take a whole lot, for me at least, to move off the fact that mass is relevant to the transfer of energy in a collision. To quote my cousin Vinny, "Does it take longer for water to soak into a grit on your stove than any other stove in the known universe? Did you get these grits from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?".

 

In virtually any pursuit to add stability in a collision you add mass, or if you cannot add velocity and want more direct momentum (or force), you add mass. Golf clubs are not different, IMO, and some guy hitting a bunch of balls with blades and a bunch with CBs, no tracking any swing data at all, and plotting the results on graph paper with dots isn't going to move me off the opinion that physics matters. More mass at impact spot = more energy transfer to the lighter object (i.e. the ball) = more velocity.

 

That said, IMO IMO IMO.

 

EDIT:

1. I play blades for mental game reasons. <- Fine

2. I play blades because they can apply spin to the ball in a more precise manner. <- Fine

3. I play blades because CBs have more dispersion in distance, as sometimes they go farther. <- I think its stupid to be shorter on purpose, but this is almost certainly a true statement.

4. There is no forgiveness advantage to maintaining ball speed with a perimeter weighted iron when the ball is hit on the edge. <- Nonsense. More mass = more velocity transfer. Period.

 

I only disagree with those who are saying they are "the same". They're not the same. They're different. One isn't better than the other, but they are not the same.

[revanant]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > > > Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

> > > >

> > > > Page 1:

> > > > https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

> > > >

> > > > Page 2:

> > > > https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

> > > >

> > > > Page 3:

> > > > https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

> > > >

> > > > Page 4:

> > > > https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

> > > >

> > > > Original source:

> > > > http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

> > >

> > > It didn't have a similar result at all:

> > > "some traditional forgings can deliver, if the mass is properly distributed, some of the same benefits as their hi-tech counterparts."

> > >

> > > OK, so "if" the blade has mass properly distributed (they do not tell us what "properly distributed" means) then some of the benefits are there (they did not say "all", nor do they tell us which benefits exactly. Just some of the benefits). What?

> > >

> > > What does that even mean? The first "if" and the second "some" destroy any value that might have. It doesn't mention the phantom "dispersion on good hits on CBs" the first article did. This one is about whether or not blades or CBs are more forgiving on off center strikes, which isn't what the first article was about.

> > >

> > > If any of this was true, it should be easy to find an article that posts the data and is very direct in its conclusions. Both of these articles play pronoun games and talk in riddles.

> >

> > It’s on page 3, where it talks about how iron design has improved for all irons. Namely, irons with a low cg that is less in the heel, as contrasted with older, high cg designs.

> >

> > As for the dispersion, you can see it in the charts. It’s just a single test, but its another example where the irons just perform similarly, and where mishits with the mb aren’t very different from the CB, and are actually better in some instances. The CB was better on toe mishits, but the MB wasn’t bad, and that was the only spot where the CB distinguished itself.

> >

> > In other words, when people find that MBs don’t result in a major performance difference or a massive drop off in playable shots from mishits, there’s testing to back that up—whether it’s a similar MPF rating, personal testing, the above articles, etc. It may not be true for all golfers and all swings. But it can be true for some folks—that they get better average contact with an mb, and that the misses aren’t punished so much worse to outweigh the better contact. This makes sense, because just looking at the 1988 Golf Digest test, the two clubs didn’t have a lot of separation and some tests broke in the MB’s favor.

>

> Right, but they had humans hitting the ball. That's just nonsense. There's no control group. Its presented as if it is objective, but its not. They don't present any of the swing data so we have no idea which swing went into which club. A guy a long time ago you found who over sixteen balls hit blades OK isn't "testing to back that up".

>

> They also play word games. Blades being "better on mishits than expected" is not the same thing as "better on mishits than CBs". It sounds like it when you read the article, but they don't ever actually compare the two except to say that the game improvement iron "started the ball further left" which we now know, thanks to trackman, has nothing to do with the club and everything to do with where the face is pointing at impact (irons forgive path, not face).

>

> It not a huge difference between the two. It is going to take a whole lot, for me at least, to move off the fact that mass is relevant to the transfer of energy in a collision. To quote my cousin Vinny, "Does it take longer for water to soak into a grit on your stove than any other stove in the known universe? Did you get these grits from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?".

>

> In virtually any pursuit to add stability in a collision you add mass, or if you cannot add velocity and want more direct momentum (or force), you add mass. Golf clubs are not different, IMO, and some guy hitting a bunch of balls with blades and a bunch with CBs, no tracking any swing data at all, and plotting the results on graph paper with dots isn't going to move me off the opinion that physics matters. More mass at impact spot = more energy transfer to the lighter object (i.e. the ball) = more velocity.

>

> That said, IMO IMO IMO.

>

> EDIT:

> 1. I play blades for mental game reasons. <- Fine

> 2. I play blades because they can apply spin to the ball in a more precise manner. <- Fine

> 3. I play blades because CBs have more dispersion in distance, as sometimes they go farther. <- I think its stupid to be shorter on purpose, but this is almost certainly a true statement.

> 4. There is no forgiveness advantage to maintaining ball speed with a perimeter weighted iron when the ball is hit on the edge. <- Nonsense. More mass = more velocity transfer. Period.

>

> I only disagree with those who are saying they are "the same". They're not the same. They're different. One isn't better than the other, but they are not the same.

 

The Golf Digest test was done at True Temper, using “True Temper’s swing machine.” They repeat that it was a “mechanical tester” at the top of the second page. True Temper invented the Iron Byron, so I’d guess it’s what they used, but either way it wasn’t a human golfer that did the hitting. Not sure if that would change your opinion or not.

 

Personally, I think the article is helpful because it visually charts what happened when they had intentional mishits on a late 80’s blade, and if you look at the results by themselves, the mb isn’t losing a ton of distance and isn’t too offline.

 

On the dispersion tests, they did do a normal center hit on the first page. On that one, the “classic iron” is a little closer to center, while whatever cb they were hitting had a wider dispersion in both directions. It wasn’t 15-17 yards of difference, though.

 

I’m with you that the difference wasn’t huge. My point is just if you take the MB from that article and put it into play, you’re not losing a ton of forgiveness vs the CB overall, based on the dispersion results they published. I’m sure there are more modern MB irons that perform similarly on mishits—I’d imagine they’re the ones with the low CGs and decent MPF scores. A player might legitimately choose to make that trade off, and other players wary of MBs might decide the difference between the irons isn’t as stark as they believed.

 

Ultimately, nothing replaces testing irons in a personal capacity, so people will ultimately choose the irons they prefer. My only point is that people might test an MB and decide the misses aren’t so bad, and it doesn’t mean they’re ignoring or misreading the data.

[Exactice808]

> @jpdx said:

> 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?

>

*Flame suit activated* Sorry as you know I played yesterday so couldn't respond earlier.

 

Here is the thing....... SGI, GI driver CB & MB in my personal take is relevant to each individual player. I think in both THIS thread and the OTHER thread I have continuously defended this specific statement. That WE cannot judge a person by their handicap but only by their swing/ability to which we fit clubs to them.

 

I said it before about the 19 year old athletic kid that never played golf but wants to start, has a swing speed of 110mph, and the first thing someone does is hands them a stock SGI. Offset large cavity back with a stock 85gram steel shaft in regular and lets them hack away. I personally disagree with this approach and lets edify to the point that this 19 year old HAS no Handicap lets say he is a 100handicap for all I know. Yet, I would look at his tempo, is it deliberate, medium or fast. @ 110mph likely a medium or fast so i would get him in a heavier shaft first likely 120+grams. Then figure flex from how we build up but likely a simple S300. from there head design is irrelevant until we can figure his tendencies like steep vs shallow, early or late release. The stock 85gram regular shaft SGI would DO ZERO justice for him right of the bat. After he develops a decent swing... or some type of consistency... guess what.... We re fit him again to match his current evolution.

 

Lets use drivers for example. Most companies have 2 generic offerings

1) Low spin smaller head more forward CG

2) Higher MOI, max CC, rear CG to increase forgiveness.

Titliest, TS2 vs TS3, D2 vs D3

Taylormade, M1 vs M2, M3 vs M4, M5 vs M6

Cally, Epic Flash, Epic Flash Sub zero.

 

By marketing terms. the the more forgiving heads would essential be classed as Game improvement (now I am just making an opinion not fact) And the lower spinning heads are classed as player clubs.

 

since I am familiar with Titliest I will use it

The D2 series has normally been a full 460cc head wider face with a more low and back CG to increase MOI

the D3 series has normally been a 430cc with a slightly deeper face design with a more forward and low CG to reduce spin.

 

Im a terrible driver of the ball. As you can see yesterdays score card, I shot a 43 front 43 back, 86 / par 72. Why would I need to play a D3 series over the more forgiving D2 series. Im a Mid capper, I need the most forgiveness by marketing and assumptions specs NO?

 

Yet when I took the time to dial in my numbers. At this point I have no motivation to be a tour pro, so lessons are not worth the effort of cost and commitment at this point. I have fit the driver to my less then spectacular ability by trading off the Forgiveness aspect of a D2 series to address what seems to hurt me more that would be launch and spin.

 

YES YES, I could take all the lessons in the world but at this point in time in life it is not a reality. So why can I not break the mold. Find a "less forgiving" driving that I willing to give up the forgiveness factor, for the benefit to lower my flight and reduce my spin?

 

This again applies to the MB vs CB debate, if I took the time to find optimal specs of both CB and MB irons, I find similar quality results yet similar MISSED results. it them finally comes down to preference, right?

 

So to answer your questions finally, Sorry about the rambling.

 

IS your bag setup for the low to mid capper? Yes By marketing standards, set by the Manufacturers, Yes, by those that apply that handicap is relevant to forgiveness rather than players ability.

 

Look at how the marketing applies -

https://www.srixon.com/us/clubs/mens-golf-clubs/drivers/z-785-driver/MZ785DRV.html

The Srixon Z 785 Driver is 460cc with a tour preferred look and profile. It promotes the low-spin, penetrating trajectory that** better players demand off the tee.**

 

https://www.tgw.com/nike-mens-vapor-pro-irons

_NIKE Vapor Pro irons feature Modern Muscle technology which pushes weight to the toe of the club, shifting the center of gravity to the middle of the club face. The face-centered CG is right where it needs to be for optimum performance, precision, stability and ball speed._ (Nothing about distance or max distance or forgiveness)

 

So who dictates the clubs, manufacturers? Random people on the internet.... Or you will to drop $3000 on a set of clubs?

 

 

 

 

[jpdx]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @jpdx said:

> > 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?

> >

> *Flame suit activated* Sorry as you know I played yesterday so couldn't respond earlier.

>

> Here is the thing....... SGI, GI driver CB & MB in my personal take is relevant to each individual player. I think in both THIS thread and the OTHER thread I have continuously defended this specific statement. That WE cannot judge a person by their handicap but only by their swing/ability to which we fit clubs to them.

>

> I said it before about the 19 year old athletic kid that never played golf but wants to start, has a swing speed of 110mph, and the first thing someone does is hands them a stock SGI. Offset large cavity back with a stock 85gram steel shaft in regular and lets them hack away. I personally disagree with this approach and lets edify to the point that this 19 year old HAS no Handicap lets say he is a 100handicap for all I know. Yet, I would look at his tempo, is it deliberate, medium or fast. @ 110mph likely a medium or fast so i would get him in a heavier shaft first likely 120+grams. Then figure flex from how we build up but likely a simple S300. from there head design is irrelevant until we can figure his tendencies like steep vs shallow, early or late release. The stock 85gram regular shaft SGI would DO ZERO justice for him right of the bat. After he develops a decent swing... or some type of consistency... guess what.... We re fit him again to match his current evolution.

>

> Lets use drivers for example. Most companies have 2 generic offerings

> 1) Low spin smaller head more forward CG

> 2) Higher MOI, max CC, rear CG to increase forgiveness.

> Titliest, TS2 vs TS3, D2 vs D3

> Taylormade, M1 vs M2, M3 vs M4, M5 vs M6

> Cally, Epic Flash, Epic Flash Sub zero.

>

> By marketing terms. the the more forgiving heads would essential be classed as Game improvement (now I am just making an opinion not fact) And the lower spinning heads are classed as player clubs.

>

> since I am familiar with Titliest I will use it

> The D2 series has normally been a full 460cc head wider face with a more low and back CG to increase MOI

> the D3 series has normally been a 430cc with a slightly deeper face design with a more forward and low CG to reduce spin.

>

> Im a terrible driver of the ball. As you can see yesterdays score card, I shot a 43 front 43 back, 86 / par 72. Why would I need to play a D3 series over the more forgiving D2 series. Im a Mid capper, I need the most forgiveness by marketing and assumptions specs NO?

>

> Yet when I took the time to dial in my numbers. At this point I have no motivation to be a tour pro, so lessons are not worth the effort of cost and commitment at this point. I have fit the driver to my less then spectacular ability by trading off the Forgiveness aspect of a D2 series to address what seems to hurt me more that would be launch and spin.

>

> YES YES, I could take all the lessons in the world but at this point in time in life it is not a reality. So why can I not break the mold. Find a "less forgiving" driving that I willing to give up the forgiveness factor, for the benefit to lower my flight and reduce my spin?

>

> This again applies to the MB vs CB debate, if I took the time to find optimal specs of both CB and MB irons, I find similar quality results yet similar MISSED results. it them finally comes down to preference, right?

>

> So to answer your questions finally, Sorry about the rambling.

>

> IS your bag setup for the low to mid capper? Yes By marketing standards, set by the Manufacturers, Yes, by those that apply that handicap is relevant to forgiveness rather than players ability.

>

> Look at how the marketing applies -

> https://www.srixon.com/us/clubs/mens-golf-clubs/drivers/z-785-driver/MZ785DRV.html

> The Srixon Z 785 Driver is 460cc with a tour preferred look and profile. It promotes the low-spin, penetrating trajectory that** better players demand off the tee.**

>

> https://www.tgw.com/nike-mens-vapor-pro-irons

> _NIKE Vapor Pro irons feature Modern Muscle technology which pushes weight to the toe of the club, shifting the center of gravity to the middle of the club face. The face-centered CG is right where it needs to be for optimum performance, precision, stability and ball speed._ (Nothing about distance or max distance or forgiveness)

>

> So who dictates the clubs, manufacturers? Random people on the internet.... Or you will to drop $3000 on a set of clubs?

>

>

>

>

I really appreciate the thoughtful insight you provided and your reasons for the thoughts and somehow you really understood what I was looking to get answered.

 

there's a demo day tomorrow with callaway and i'm going to compare again my vapor pros against their latest offerings and see if I can get better numbers. i'll also try to get some screen shots (hopefully they've got some sort of launch monitor) and have them email it to me. it should be fun to compare against my bag, tm couple weeks ago, and what callaway is offering.

 

regarding the lessons: i'm am 100% sure I could benefit from lessons. however:

 

1. i'd rather spend my money playing

2. i'd rather spend my time playing

3. i'm scared they will want to revamp my swing. haha!

 

thanks for taking the time exactice.

 

[dubbelbogey]

> @mahonie said:

> Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

>

 

This is the real rub. The data must exist, somewhere. As one who's worked in high volume product development my entire career (across a few different industries), it'd be inconceivable to me that this data doesn't exist. I'd even venture a guess that every single major OEM has this data within their R&D departments.

 

What is even more interesting is _why_ the results of this data have never been published in any meaningful way (I'm not talking about ads, or the verbal endorsements of Player X or Golf Swing Guru Y - that's about as useful as Arnold Palmer selling motor oil.) Hiding it because of "trade secrets"? I'm not buying that argument as there is virtually nothing to hide in club design that can't be gleaned from inspection by any semi-competent engineering team tasked to do so.

 

 

[dciccoritti]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

> >

>

> This is the real rub. The data must exist, somewhere. As one who's worked in high volume product development my entire career (across a few different industries), it'd be inconceivable to me that this data doesn't exist. I'd even venture a guess that every single major OEM has this data within their R&D departments.

>

> What is even more interesting is _why_ the results of this data have never been published in any meaningful way (I'm not talking about ads, or the verbal endorsements of Player X or Golf Swing Guru Y - that's about as useful as Arnold Palmer selling motor oil.) Hiding it because of "trade secrets"? I'm not buying that argument as there is virtually nothing to hide in club design that can't be gleaned from inspection by any semi-competent engineering team tasked to do so.

>

>

 

Well I guess one camp will say there's no need because it's a given. And the other camp might say it's not in their best interest because there's really no difference. However time and time again we see evidence supporting camp 2 while camp 1 has nothing to show for their claims.

 

More evidence here???

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

> >

>

> This is the real rub. The data must exist, somewhere. As one who's worked in high volume product development my entire career (across a few different industries), it'd be inconceivable to me that this data doesn't exist. I'd even venture a guess that every single major OEM has this data within their R&D departments.

>

> What is even more interesting is _why_ the results of this data have never been published in any meaningful way (I'm not talking about ads, or the verbal endorsements of Player X or Golf Swing Guru Y - that's about as useful as Arnold Palmer selling motor oil.) Hiding it because of "trade secrets"? I'm not buying that argument as there is virtually nothing to hide in club design that can't be gleaned from inspection by any semi-competent engineering team tasked to do so.

>

>

"Manufacturers" dont sell lessons, they sell clubs. What is easier. Sell distance or sell truth (im being half sarcastic and half truth)

 

I mean lets face it.... if they put Iron Byran data, that a center struck 46* MB is going the same distance as a 46*SGI..... How are they going to sell clubs.

 

Then do the same when people realize that an MB 4 iron is 24* and an SGI 4iron is 19* Same as my 5 wood.

 

Last but not least....... Money...... so easy to sell a new club promising unicorn poop and fairy dust.... then taking a 1 hour lesson ever week for 3 months and beating balls at the range........ How easy...."more distance", "more forgiving" the New M247829 driver.... from TM........

 

All I can say is I go to Japan once a year. Play with 1982 mizuno Clubs, have to mentally convert meters to yards..... never played on the courses my father in law takes me. But I shoot the same scores in Japan that I shoot here with my tuned clubs made just for me..... Why is that? Because in Japan there is about 3 driving ranges withing wakling distance and while on vacation the inlaws are watching the kids so I get to got to the driving range about 3 times during the week prior to the Course day and get a good rhythm and feel before heading to the course. SOMETHING I never do back at home...... But dont tell the manufactures... the rather sell the Unicorn dust....

 

[dciccoritti]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > > Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

> > >

> >

> > This is the real rub. The data must exist, somewhere. As one who's worked in high volume product development my entire career (across a few different industries), it'd be inconceivable to me that this data doesn't exist. I'd even venture a guess that every single major OEM has this data within their R&D departments.

> >

> > What is even more interesting is _why_ the results of this data have never been published in any meaningful way (I'm not talking about ads, or the verbal endorsements of Player X or Golf Swing Guru Y - that's about as useful as Arnold Palmer selling motor oil.) Hiding it because of "trade secrets"? I'm not buying that argument as there is virtually nothing to hide in club design that can't be gleaned from inspection by any semi-competent engineering team tasked to do so.

> >

> >

> "Manufacturers" dont sell lessons, they sell clubs. What is easier. Sell distance or sell truth (im being half sarcastic and half truth)

>

> I mean lets face it.... if they put Iron Byran data, that a center struck 46* MB is going the same distance as a 46*SGI..... How are they going to sell clubs.

>

> Then do the same when people realize that an MB 4 iron is 24* and an SGI 4iron is 19* Same as my 5 wood.

>

> Last but not least....... Money...... so easy to sell a new club promising unicorn **** and fairy dust.... then taking a 1 hour lesson ever week for 3 months and beating balls at the range........ How easy...."more distance", "more forgiving" the New M247829 driver.... from TM........

>

> All I can say is I go to Japan once a year. Play with 1982 mizuno Clubs, have to mentally convert meters to yards..... never played on the courses my father in law takes me. But I shoot the same scores in Japan that I shoot here with my tuned clubs made just for me..... Why is that? Because in Japan there is about 3 driving ranges withing wakling distance and while on vacation the inlaws are watching the kids so I get to got to the driving range about 3 times during the week prior to the Course day and get a good rhythm and feel before heading to the course. SOMETHING I never do back at home...... But dont tell the manufactures... the rather sell the Unicorn dust....

>

 

The unicorn dust lies within....

 

 

[jpdx]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > Perhaps we should petition one of the OEMs that carry MB, PCB, GI and SGI to provide us with the data so that we can make some reasoned decisions and put a stop to these endless MB v CB debates? The data obviously exists...why won’t they share it. Perhaps GolfWRX could commission a study?

> > > >

> > >

> > > This is the real rub. The data must exist, somewhere. As one who's worked in high volume product development my entire career (across a few different industries), it'd be inconceivable to me that this data doesn't exist. I'd even venture a guess that every single major OEM has this data within their R&D departments.

> > >

> > > What is even more interesting is _why_ the results of this data have never been published in any meaningful way (I'm not talking about ads, or the verbal endorsements of Player X or Golf Swing Guru Y - that's about as useful as Arnold Palmer selling motor oil.) Hiding it because of "trade secrets"? I'm not buying that argument as there is virtually nothing to hide in club design that can't be gleaned from inspection by any semi-competent engineering team tasked to do so.

> > >

> > >

> > "Manufacturers" dont sell lessons, they sell clubs. What is easier. Sell distance or sell truth (im being half sarcastic and half truth)

> >

> > I mean lets face it.... if they put Iron Byran data, that a center struck 46* MB is going the same distance as a 46*SGI..... How are they going to sell clubs.

> >

> > Then do the same when people realize that an MB 4 iron is 24* and an SGI 4iron is 19* Same as my 5 wood.

> >

> > Last but not least....... Money...... so easy to sell a new club promising unicorn **** and fairy dust.... then taking a 1 hour lesson ever week for 3 months and beating balls at the range........ How easy...."more distance", "more forgiving" the New M247829 driver.... from TM........

> >

> > All I can say is I go to Japan once a year. Play with 1982 mizuno Clubs, have to mentally convert meters to yards..... never played on the courses my father in law takes me. But I shoot the same scores in Japan that I shoot here with my tuned clubs made just for me..... Why is that? Because in Japan there is about 3 driving ranges withing wakling distance and while on vacation the inlaws are watching the kids so I get to got to the driving range about 3 times during the week prior to the Course day and get a good rhythm and feel before heading to the course. SOMETHING I never do back at home...... But dont tell the manufactures... the rather sell the Unicorn dust....

> >

>

> The unicorn dust lies within....

>

>

 

I think you mean unicorn ****. So thats what is “injected” into those “injected” clubs? Truth comes out. Lol

[pinestreetgolf]

> @revanant said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > Here’s an old article from 1988 that had a similar result. What’s interesting to me is more the general point about the mishits—whether or not the blade outperforms the CB, the blade mishits aren’t bad. They certainly aren’t demanding perfection from the user. The shots are comparable and playable.

> > > > >

> > > > > Page 1:

> > > > > https://bit.ly/2LQplhf

> > > > >

> > > > > Page 2:

> > > > > https://bit.ly/2JMEaOY

> > > > >

> > > > > Page 3:

> > > > > https://bit.ly/2WQyBmu

> > > > >

> > > > > Page 4:

> > > > > https://bit.ly/30mTVCh

> > > > >

> > > > > Original source:

> > > > > http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-muscleback.html?m=1

> > > >

> > > > It didn't have a similar result at all:

> > > > "some traditional forgings can deliver, if the mass is properly distributed, some of the same benefits as their hi-tech counterparts."

> > > >

> > > > OK, so "if" the blade has mass properly distributed (they do not tell us what "properly distributed" means) then some of the benefits are there (they did not say "all", nor do they tell us which benefits exactly. Just some of the benefits). What?

> > > >

> > > > What does that even mean? The first "if" and the second "some" destroy any value that might have. It doesn't mention the phantom "dispersion on good hits on CBs" the first article did. This one is about whether or not blades or CBs are more forgiving on off center strikes, which isn't what the first article was about.

> > > >

> > > > If any of this was true, it should be easy to find an article that posts the data and is very direct in its conclusions. Both of these articles play pronoun games and talk in riddles.

> > >

> > > It’s on page 3, where it talks about how iron design has improved for all irons. Namely, irons with a low cg that is less in the heel, as contrasted with older, high cg designs.

> > >

> > > As for the dispersion, you can see it in the charts. It’s just a single test, but its another example where the irons just perform similarly, and where mishits with the mb aren’t very different from the CB, and are actually better in some instances. The CB was better on toe mishits, but the MB wasn’t bad, and that was the only spot where the CB distinguished itself.

> > >

> > > In other words, when people find that MBs don’t result in a major performance difference or a massive drop off in playable shots from mishits, there’s testing to back that up—whether it’s a similar MPF rating, personal testing, the above articles, etc. It may not be true for all golfers and all swings. But it can be true for some folks—that they get better average contact with an mb, and that the misses aren’t punished so much worse to outweigh the better contact. This makes sense, because just looking at the 1988 Golf Digest test, the two clubs didn’t have a lot of separation and some tests broke in the MB’s favor.

> >

> > Right, but they had humans hitting the ball. That's just nonsense. There's no control group. Its presented as if it is objective, but its not. They don't present any of the swing data so we have no idea which swing went into which club. A guy a long time ago you found who over sixteen balls hit blades OK isn't "testing to back that up".

> >

> > They also play word games. Blades being "better on mishits than expected" is not the same thing as "better on mishits than CBs". It sounds like it when you read the article, but they don't ever actually compare the two except to say that the game improvement iron "started the ball further left" which we now know, thanks to trackman, has nothing to do with the club and everything to do with where the face is pointing at impact (irons forgive path, not face).

> >

> > It not a huge difference between the two. It is going to take a whole lot, for me at least, to move off the fact that mass is relevant to the transfer of energy in a collision. To quote my cousin Vinny, "Does it take longer for water to soak into a grit on your stove than any other stove in the known universe? Did you get these grits from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?".

> >

> > In virtually any pursuit to add stability in a collision you add mass, or if you cannot add velocity and want more direct momentum (or force), you add mass. Golf clubs are not different, IMO, and some guy hitting a bunch of balls with blades and a bunch with CBs, no tracking any swing data at all, and plotting the results on graph paper with dots isn't going to move me off the opinion that physics matters. More mass at impact spot = more energy transfer to the lighter object (i.e. the ball) = more velocity.

> >

> > That said, IMO IMO IMO.

> >

> > EDIT:

> > 1. I play blades for mental game reasons. <- Fine

> > 2. I play blades because they can apply spin to the ball in a more precise manner. <- Fine

> > 3. I play blades because CBs have more dispersion in distance, as sometimes they go farther. <- I think its stupid to be shorter on purpose, but this is almost certainly a true statement.

> > 4. There is no forgiveness advantage to maintaining ball speed with a perimeter weighted iron when the ball is hit on the edge. <- Nonsense. More mass = more velocity transfer. Period.

> >

> > I only disagree with those who are saying they are "the same". They're not the same. They're different. One isn't better than the other, but they are not the same.

>

> The Golf Digest test was done at True Temper, using “True Temper’s swing machine.” They repeat that it was a “mechanical tester” at the top of the second page. True Temper invented the Iron Byron, so I’d guess it’s what they used, but either way it wasn’t a human golfer that did the hitting. Not sure if that would change your opinion or not.

>

> Personally, I think the article is helpful because it visually charts what happened when they had intentional mishits on a late 80’s blade, and if you look at the results by themselves, the mb isn’t losing a ton of distance and isn’t too offline.

>

> On the dispersion tests, they did do a normal center hit on the first page. On that one, the “classic iron” is a little closer to center, while whatever cb they were hitting had a wider dispersion in both directions. It wasn’t 15-17 yards of difference, though.

>

> I’m with you that the difference wasn’t huge. My point is just if you take the MB from that article and put it into play, you’re not losing a ton of forgiveness vs the CB overall, based on the dispersion results they published. I’m sure there are more modern MB irons that perform similarly on mishits—I’d imagine they’re the ones with the low CGs and decent MPF scores. A player might legitimately choose to make that trade off, and other players wary of MBs might decide the difference between the irons isn’t as stark as they believed.

>

> Ultimately, nothing replaces testing irons in a personal capacity, so people will ultimately choose the irons they prefer. My only point is that people might test an MB and decide the misses aren’t so bad, and it doesn’t mean they’re ignoring or misreading the data.

 

I didn't understand their use of "we" in that case. It seems odd to use "we swung" instead of "we tested" or "it swung", but no big deal. If it was a robot, its kinda odd the impact tape is anything but an exact oval, but its not a huge detail either way.

The thing that strikes me in all of these articles is that they are all empirical, when the answer should be solvable theoretically. Either more mass helps retain ball speed or it doesn't. It doesn't seem to me that needs to be tested with a robot. It seems like you could easily figure it out with chalk and a blackboard and, when you do, more mass behind the spot of impact = more velocity imparted to the other object in the collision. These articles is kinda like saying "hey, how much fuel do we need to move a rocket to the moon?" and the other scientist says "who knows, lets just keep trying different amounts until one works". Its like, no guys, we can just figure this out. We know how collisions work. We know mass is one of the variables. Why would it be different with golf clubs?

[nsxguy]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

 

> I didn't understand their use of "we" in that case. It seems odd to use "we swung" instead of "we tested" or "it swung", but no big deal. If it was a robot, its kinda odd the impact tape is anything but an exact oval, but its not a huge detail either way.

> **The thing that strikes me in all of these articles is that they are all empirical**, when the answer should be solvable theoretically. Either more mass helps retain ball speed or it doesn't. It doesn't seem to me that needs to be tested with a robot. It seems like you could easily figure it out with chalk and a blackboard and, when you do, more mass behind the spot of impact = more velocity imparted to the other object in the collision. These articles is kinda like saying "hey, how much fuel do we need to move a rocket to the moon?" and the other scientist says "who knows, lets just keep trying different amounts until one works". Its like, no guys, we can just figure this out. We know how collisions work. We know mass is one of the variables. Why would it be different with golf clubs?

 

What you seem to have missed is that when the CB guys claimed the benefits of CBs, less curvature and more forgiveness (i.e. distance) on mishits the blade guys screamed "Prove it" and "You have no evidence, it's all anecdotal"

 

And then the blade guys go a prove there's "no difference" by providing all sorts of anecdotal evidence. LOL

 

I'd say you can't make this stuff up but,,,,,,,,,,