My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[Exactice808]

> @nostatic said:

> So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

>

> I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

 

You know the funniest part in your post...... I think most of if NOT all of us agree LOL ........ So to be honest... we just debating for no good reason but just to debate LOL! Im just debating with @nsxguy so I can sneak in an NSX question because that is hella cool that he has them! Other than that, I know where he is coming from and agree with his sentiments in all honesty LOL! I just got @pinestreetgolf attention so he needed to make a PSA LOL!!!!

 

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @nostatic said:

> So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

>

> I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

 

Aw man yeah. My favorite is when I'm at the store and a high (maybe mid) cap is testing blades not particularly well and the sales guy lays the magic line, "Well those are really just for great ballstrikers..." You can see the tester literally wrestling with his ego, telling himself he can hit them.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

Edited.

 

Play what you like!

[dciccoritti]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> >

> > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

>

> Aw man yeah. My favorite is when I'm at the store and a high (maybe mid) cap is testing blades not particularly well and the sales guy lays the magic line, "Well those are really just for great ballstrikers..." You can see the tester literally wrestling with his ego, telling himself he can hit them.

>

 

Ok that's just creepy....or made up....or.....maybe you? LOL :-)

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> > >

> > > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

> >

> > Aw man yeah. My favorite is when I'm at the store and a high (maybe mid) cap is testing blades not particularly well and the sales guy lays the magic line, "Well those are really just for great ballstrikers..." You can see the tester literally wrestling with his ego, telling himself he can hit them.

> >

>

> Ok that's just creepy....or made up....or.....maybe you? LOL :-)

>

So now you don’t believe any golfer not suited for blades has ever let his ego get the better of him and made him buy pricey, harder to use blades?

Honestly, you clearly just posted that remark because you feel you needed to respond somehow to the point that blade users all think they’re an exception and my story. So sad :(

 

 

[MelloYello]

I dropped out over the weekend due to travel but just wanted to give my thoughts on the topic of OEMs all having robot testing data and why that’s not publicized.

 

Like all of you, I assume each company has data from robot testing to go with each club they’ve made going back decades. While it _could_ be the case that the OEMs want to hide the fact that there’s no real difference between club designs, I personally doubt that's the case. I think there are more practical reasons why OEMs would not race to start talking numbers.

 

First, it’s just too confusing for the average consumer. It’s better to market a product with descriptive terms that are easy to digest. Titleist's ProV1 ball commercials talk about “feel” and “distance” rather than design properties. They are lively, exciting and filled with images of well-dressed golfers on expensive courses. Commercials for drivers are very similar and all mention things like power, speed, forgiveness and aerodynamics. It’s just not a good idea to use more complicated jargon like CG, MOI, COR, etc. That's not what drives people to go make an impulse purchase.

 

Second, every club represents some compromise between feel, forgiveness, playability, and looks as well as a number of other parameters. But the average consumer doesn’t want to weigh a bunch of variables and hear about the trade-offs. He/she just wants _“the most forgiving”_ or _“the most powerful”_ or _“the easiest to get up in the air.”_ Ever here on WRX amongst more educated people the most common questions seek the extremes. We routinely get people asking _“what’s the most low-spin head/shaft?”_

 

Third, if you did equate forgiveness with a single parameter like say, MOI, then at any given point a particular company would be able to claim they had _“the most forgiving”_ club. When there are dozens of OEMs, it’s not in any of their interests to do that.

 

 

 

And shifting topics slightly, I disagree that publishing the data would limit sales. Sales aren’t driving by data, they’re driven by _lust_. Data would get in the way and so OEMs know just how much engineering to incorporate into the sales aspect. Just look at drivers which are flying off the shelves when it’s widely accepted by the “experts” here that year-in, year-out design changes in drivers are virtually meaningless. There are lots of guys who haven’t gained a yard in a decade because they were properly fit to their old Titleist 910 or whatever. And yet there are hundreds of guys here playing the latest and greatest in driver tech.

 

I don’t know how many guys are going out upgrading yearly to the new GI or SGI irons because of marketing. If anything, the folks who are guilty of making yearly upgrades are the people here who mostly play used clubs they get on Ebay. And let’s be honest, most of those purchases involve pro-style clubs like forged irons, special shafts, high-end woods and expensive putters.

 

I highly doubt that the OEMs are bringing in a ton of money based on the sale of new irons, be they GI or Player's sets. I don’t think a lot of new sets get sold anyhow in comparison with woods, putters and wedges (not to mention balls and clothing which are huge money-makers).

 

So I don't think the "secrecy" is related to anything sinister. I think it's just the simple fact that there isn't demand for it. Heck, look at this thread. It's the same 10 guys talking! And how many of us have been involved with prior blades threads?

 

My guess is that most of us end up in these threads because it's what we prefer to discuss.

 

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> Man..... It sucks those Cavity backs would have totally saved me SO many shots those cavity backs would have straighten out and got me the distance I was looking for.....

> My game would SO be different for those cavity backs....

>

>

>

>

> Man because my swing speed is not 110+ mph, I suffer from playing blades, I mean NSX doesnt even aim at the pin he says trying to get it in the 4.25" hole from the fairway is impossible so aiming at it is a silly argument.... Funny.... 2 scores cards in a matter of 3 days..... oddly the only difference? 30 putts vs 40 putts.... But naw its all because of the Blades if I was only playing Cavity backs both days... I would have scored even par......even though I am a mid capper.....

>

> Oddly though Thursaday, 9 GIR 40 putts 1 penalty, 86

> Today, 7 Gir, 30 putts and 3 penalties, 81......

>

> So what?how would those Cavity Backs help me?......

>

 

There are always going to be a multitude of factors that influence score. Keep in mind that the MB debate is limited to just _iron play_ (not score as a whole). So when thinking about blades a golfer has to isolate just their iron play and decide whether they would benefit from or be hurt by using blades.

 

It's fathomable that moving to CB irons could (in theory) help one's GIR% but it clearly isn't going to directly affect one's driving, short game or putting abilities which obviously play a huge role in a golfer's total score.

 

So while it's certainly appreciated, I'm not sure that posting scores is all that helpful other than to show yourself that you need to practice other things (which we all do!).

 

 

[cliffhanger]

> @nostatic said:

> So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

>

> I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

 

i would edit your comments slightly...

 

GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

 

I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

[jpdx]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> >

> > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

>

> i would edit your comments slightly...

>

> **GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.**

>

> I think **the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception.** Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

 

first bold: 100% agree hdcp doesn't matter when choosing mb or cb - as long as you can make **more** consistent contact

 

second: I don't think that there are that many exceptions that they are no longer the exception - rather they are outliers on a statistical bell curve. I still believe most mid/high cap _should_ play cb. but there are those outliers that will do better with mb due to a number of factors that cause a higher cap (including but not limited to driving accuracy, short game proficiency, sole turf interaction etc...)

 

tbh the biggest improvements I've had in striking was not due to the head used, but rather a proper fitting shaft.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> I dropped out over the weekend due to travel but just wanted to give my thoughts on the topic of OEMs all having robot testing data and why that’s not publicized.

>

> Like all of you, I assume each company has data from robot testing to go with each club they’ve made going back decades. While it _could_ be the case that the OEMs want to hide the fact that there’s no real difference between club designs, I personally doubt that's the case. I think there are more practical reasons why OEMs would not race to start talking numbers.

>

> First, it’s just too confusing for the average consumer. It’s better to market a product with descriptive terms that are easy to digest. Titleist's ProV1 ball commercials talk about “feel” and “distance” rather than design properties. They are lively, exciting and filled with images of well-dressed golfers on expensive courses. Commercials for drivers are very similar and all mention things like power, speed, forgiveness and aerodynamics. It’s just not a good idea to use more complicated jargon like CG, MOI, COR, etc. That's not what drives people to go make an impulse purchase.

>

> Second, every club represents some compromise between feel, forgiveness, playability, and looks as well as a number of other parameters. But the average consumer doesn’t want to weigh a bunch of variables and hear about the trade-offs. He/she just wants _“the most forgiving”_ or _“the most powerful”_ or _“the easiest to get up in the air.”_ Ever here on WRX amongst more educated people the most common questions seek the extremes. We routinely get people asking _“what’s the most low-spin head/shaft?”_

>

> Third, if you did equate forgiveness with a single parameter like say, MOI, then at any given point a particular company would be able to claim they had _“the most forgiving”_ club. When there are dozens of OEMs, it’s not in any of their interests to do that.

>

>

>

> And shifting topics slightly, I disagree that publishing the data would limit sales. Sales aren’t driving by data, they’re driven by _lust_. Data would get in the way and so OEMs know just how much engineering to incorporate into the sales aspect. Just look at drivers which are flying off the shelves when it’s widely accepted by the “experts” here that year-in, year-out design changes in drivers are virtually meaningless. There are lots of guys who haven’t gained a yard in a decade because they were properly fit to their old Titleist 910 or whatever. And yet there are hundreds of guys here playing the latest and greatest in driver tech.

>

> I don’t know how many guys are going out upgrading yearly to the new GI or SGI irons because of marketing. If anything, the folks who are guilty of making yearly upgrades are the people here who mostly play used clubs they get on Ebay. And let’s be honest, most of those purchases involve pro-style clubs like forged irons, special shafts, high-end woods and expensive putters.

>

> I highly doubt that the OEMs are bringing in a ton of money based on the sale of new irons, be they GI or Player's sets. I don’t think a lot of new sets get sold anyhow in comparison with woods, putters and wedges (not to mention balls and clothing which are huge money-makers).

>

> So I don't think the "secrecy" is related to anything sinister. I think it's just the simple fact that there isn't demand for it. Heck, look at this thread. It's the same 10 guys talking! And how many of us have been involved with prior blades threads?

>

> My guess is that most of us end up in these threads because it's what we prefer to discuss.

>

It seems like you had safe travel! Welcome back! Good to have you back!

To discuss, You are likely correct data is confusing overwhelming and more of a marketing detriment than marketing hype. But I think OEM's Got the data.

 

The reason's I think OEM's got the data? couple reasons

1) R&D curiosity. I bet they had to test blades to give CB's a development marker. Meaning they are trying their BEST to provide the closes to MB performance while providing the CB's benefits. THEY are getting close I mean Players CB's are as close to an MB there is, considering the basic inherent benefit no?

2) Payroll. I cant imagine a guy like TW all these year, Phil and even now DeChambeu. Not looking or even requesting data. I mean imagine Nike during its development days they wanted TW to win, but I cant imagine they were not trying to squeeze what ever forgiveness they could out of the MB's they designed right?

 

So I think its there... I doubt its readily available for MANY of your points! I agree!..... Like you edify, GolfWRX and pro make up such a small part of their manufacturing cost so for them to "possibly" affect their sales may not be a risk vs reward. I like the term you used "lust" It sure is... I mean looking at these gear threads.... GOODness people can buy clubs..... I think some people spend more on clubs per week than I do groceries! LOL!

 

Anyways I doubt it as well that there is some background conspiracy. You are likely more right that its just not in demand. BUT I cant imagine R&D guys just sitting around during the 1 week break per tournament and not messing around with the robot? You gotta admit the things we would be doing if we had a robot golf hitting machine right LOL!!!!!!

 

[nostatic]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> >

> > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

>

> i would edit your comments slightly...

>

> GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

>

> I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

 

I agree that handicap isn't the only data point that should be used as it doesn't tell the whole story. But I would posit that the majority (>51%) mid/high handicap players struggle to make consistent contact (e.g. within a blade SS). If that is the case, then exceptions certainly exist but they are the minority. By definition. Maybe it is as high as 49% - but given what I see on the course I doubt it. Then again I play a run-down muni course so my data pool may be skewed.

 

I guest lectured, then taught an MBA course on leadership and executive development. The professor who wanted me to take over the course would always query his students as to where they thought their performance was relative to others in the class. Invariably almost everyone ranked themselves "above average", and usually half the class put themselves in the top 20%. Kinda like Lake Wobegon. I think golfers do the same thing, and overestimate their ball-striking ability. Which is fine for them, but is a phenomenon that is relevant to this discussion.

 

If someone loves blades, the should play them. The game should be fun, and fun can mean different things to different people. As for me, take a blade to the range? All for it. While I can normally tell where I'm hitting the ball on the face of my HMP, I certainly get more physical punishment when hitting a 919T off the SS. But if I want to score? The HMPs end up being a club that works with my swing and my misses. I didn't like the HM because I don't need offset - my misses are due to inconsistent weight/vertical shift as I try to break old habits. But I don't consider myself an exception - or at least a total exception. I think a lot of higher handicap players tend to miss right, hence the offset in GI/SGI clubs. That isn't my miss, so in that regard I probably am somewhat of an exception and why I like the club I'm playing.

 

Totally YMMV...and part of this is semantics as well.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

>

> There are always going to be a multitude of factors that influence score. **_Keep in mind that the MB debate is limited to just _iron play_ (not score as a whole). So when thinking about blades a golfer has to isolate just their iron play and decide whether they would benefit from or be hurt by using blades._**

>

> It's fathomable that moving to CB irons could (in theory) help one's GIR% but it clearly isn't going to directly affect one's driving, short game or putting abilities which obviously play a huge role in a golfer's total score.

>

> So while it's certainly appreciated, I'm not sure that posting scores is all that helpful other than to show yourself that you need to practice other things (which we all do!).

>

Mello!!!!!! Thank You!!!! And Sorry you know me post the scores are just a little sarcastic right? With that I am an average player, but have moments of brilliance (Brilliance to me is 79 LOL) that is why I can post my score without shame or worry. I know one day I can shoot 90 But also shoot 80 the next. I have a feeling a 7X is in the next couple of rounds.... BUT I fear a mid 90 is lurking somewhere too LOL!!!!!

 

With that you have EXACTLY edified my point! Thank you for being the first to recognize my underlying point and SOMEWHAT the answer to all these "specific" types of Threads "Clubs vs Handicaps"

 

Iron play is (Basically) 25% of the game right, Driving is 25%, Short game is 25% and putting is 25% (Generically you know what I mean right)

 

So to say that Irons is based on Handicap alone is a misnomer right? It is part of the WHOLE and PART of the score, but is not indicative of ability and SCORING alone. YOU surely NEED good irons, you surely need a good swing to apply to all clubs.... But would it not be in the best interest to evaluate a player FIRST regardless of Handicap so we can HELP them the most efficient way possible?

 

Now here is a wild take.... just to put some back ground...... for the fun of it I can swap out my irons these next 2 rounds with the Players GI, AP2 ( not Players CBs) Just to see the GIR stats? last 2 rounds was 9/7 so average 8, do you think I could improve the GIR of 8 or likely will it be the same?.....

 

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> >

> > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

>

> i would edit your comments slightly...

>

> GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

>

> I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

 

Exceptions remain exceptions. I tend to believe that we think there are a lot of them due in no small part to the role of the internet. At the end of the day, even if you were one in a million in the US, there would still be more than 300 of you. So if the exception were for 1% of the population, that's 3,000,000 people. That's "many people" of course, but still a one in a hundred case. Not a meaningful enough percentage to say they buck an overall trend.

[IamMarkMac]

> @nostatic said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> > >

> > > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

> >

> > i would edit your comments slightly...

> >

> > GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

> >

> > I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

>

> I agree that handicap isn't the only data point that should be used as it doesn't tell the whole story. But I would posit that the majority (>51%) mid/high handicap players struggle to make consistent contact (e.g. within a blade SS). If that is the case, then exceptions certainly exist but they are the minority. By definition. Maybe it is as high as 49% - but given what I see on the course I doubt it. Then again I play a run-down muni course so my data pool may be skewed.

>

> I guest lectured, then taught an MBA course on leadership and executive development. The professor who wanted me to take over the course would always query his students as to where they thought their performance was relative to others in the class. Invariably almost everyone ranked themselves "above average", and usually half the class put themselves in the top 20%. Kinda like Lake Wobegon. I think golfers do the same thing, and overestimate their ball-striking ability. Which is fine for them, but is a phenomenon that is relevant to this discussion.

>

> If someone loves blades, the should play them. The game should be fun, and fun can mean different things to different people. As for me, take a blade to the range? All for it. While I can normally tell where I'm hitting the ball on the face of my HMP, I certainly get more physical punishment when hitting a 919T off the SS. But if I want to score? The HMPs end up being a club that works with my swing and my misses. I didn't like the HM because I don't need offset - my misses are due to inconsistent weight/vertical shift as I try to break old habits. But I don't consider myself an exception - or at least a total exception. I think a lot of higher handicap players tend to miss right, hence the offset in GI/SGI clubs. That isn't my miss, so in that regard I probably am somewhat of an exception and why I like the club I'm playing.

>

> Totally YMMV...and part of this is semantics as well.

 

It never occurred to me to apply Dunning-Kruger to golfers but now that I think about it, I believe you're on to something.

[Exactice808]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> Exceptions remain exceptions. I tend to believe that we think there are a lot of them due in no small part to the role of the internet. At the end of the day, even if you were one in a million in the US, there would still be more than 300 of you. So if the exception were for 1% of the population, that's 3,000,000 people. That's "many people" of course, but still a one in a hundred case. Not a meaningful enough percentage to say they buck an overall trend.

 

OK now here is just m-o-n-key wrench debate comment. We are on Golf WRX and discussing this.. I have a much greater respect for the Golfers HERE then those let say at a Charity Tournament I participate. 144 golfers... how many are "Exceptions" maybe one

 

BUT here on the forums where we "DRAW" more conscious players, while misguided their attempt to get better or educated is likely at the higher level than the 3million population per say.

 

So when we have a conversation specifically on the forums rather than at the course with randoms. I hold credence to the people here and a little more benefit of the doubt no?

 

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> ...for the fun of it I can swap out my irons these next 2 rounds with the Players GI, AP2 ( not Players CBs) Just to see the GIR stats? last 2 rounds was 9/7 so average 8, do you think I could improve the GIR of 8 or likely will it be the same?.....

 

It doesn't work like that. Golfers like you and me are not good enough to swap clubs between rounds and expect the same results. If you're used to something else (even an unforgiving blade), it would take time to adjust to the AP2.

 

I play Titleist CB which are supposedly less forgiving than the AP2 but I guarantee you I'd starting missing greens for a certain amount of time if I were to switch to AP2s. It would take time to adjust.

 

Just yesterday I put a new 3w in the bag to demo. I hit it off the tee a bunch where I'd normally just hit driver and despite the fact it was only a 3w I was missing fairways left and right. I would've been way more accurate just hitting driver. I attribute most of that to my being unfamiliar with the (new) club.

 

I'm sure I would adjust given time but players at our level simply can't expect the results to be there instantaneously. You have to look at larger data sets with players who've gotten acclimated.

 

Finding the perfect club is an iterative process wherein a golfer selects something based on a theory and then makes further changes based on experience.

 

There's no rule that says a 30-handicap can't be fit to a blade or that a scratch golfer couldn't be fit to a SGI iron, but any club fitter who _started_ with those clubs for those golfers would be insane.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @nostatic said:

> > > > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> > > >

> > > > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

> > >

> > > i would edit your comments slightly...

> > >

> > > GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

> > >

> > > I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

> >

> > I agree that handicap isn't the only data point that should be used as it doesn't tell the whole story. But I would posit that the majority (>51%) mid/high handicap players struggle to make consistent contact (e.g. within a blade SS). If that is the case, then exceptions certainly exist but they are the minority. By definition. Maybe it is as high as 49% - but given what I see on the course I doubt it. Then again I play a run-down muni course so my data pool may be skewed.

> >

> > I guest lectured, then taught an MBA course on leadership and executive development. The professor who wanted me to take over the course would always query his students as to where they thought their performance was relative to others in the class. Invariably almost everyone ranked themselves "above average", and usually half the class put themselves in the top 20%. Kinda like Lake Wobegon. I think golfers do the same thing, and overestimate their ball-striking ability. Which is fine for them, but is a phenomenon that is relevant to this discussion.

> >

> > If someone loves blades, the should play them. The game should be fun, and fun can mean different things to different people. As for me, take a blade to the range? All for it. While I can normally tell where I'm hitting the ball on the face of my HMP, I certainly get more physical punishment when hitting a 919T off the SS. But if I want to score? The HMPs end up being a club that works with my swing and my misses. I didn't like the HM because I don't need offset - my misses are due to inconsistent weight/vertical shift as I try to break old habits. But I don't consider myself an exception - or at least a total exception. I think a lot of higher handicap players tend to miss right, hence the offset in GI/SGI clubs. That isn't my miss, so in that regard I probably am somewhat of an exception and why I like the club I'm playing.

> >

> > Totally YMMV...and part of this is semantics as well.

>

> It never occurred to me to apply Dunning-Kruger to golfers but now that I think about it, I believe you're on to something.

 

Here's a thought...do you think that better players are more realistic about their misses?

 

It's just a personal hunch, but my instincts tell me that they are and that it's probably part of _why_ they're better.

 

I'm an 8-handicap and I hit it all over the face. Don't get me wrong. I'm competitive and definitely feel like I could go toe to toe with other similarly-skilled golfers and come out on top--so it's not like I suck--but I'm not hitting perfect shots by any stretch.

 

To be honest, I can't even remember the last time I hit a stellar iron shot. It's been awhile.

[IamMarkMac]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @nostatic said:

> > > > > So to distill it down, GI irons are probably the best choice for many (most) mid-high handicappers, but there may be exceptions - depends on the individual.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think the problem is everyone thinks they are the exception :wink:

> > > >

> > > > i would edit your comments slightly...

> > > >

> > > > GI irons are probably the best choice for anyone who can struggle making good contact regardless of their handicap. For those of you that can make more consistent and good contact (regardless of handicap), play anything you like because it most likely will not matter as much.

> > > >

> > > > I think the problem here for some is to accept that not only do exceptions exist, there are so many of them that they are no longer the exception. Things change, people change, and the game of golf has changed.

> > >

> > > I agree that handicap isn't the only data point that should be used as it doesn't tell the whole story. But I would posit that the majority (>51%) mid/high handicap players struggle to make consistent contact (e.g. within a blade SS). If that is the case, then exceptions certainly exist but they are the minority. By definition. Maybe it is as high as 49% - but given what I see on the course I doubt it. Then again I play a run-down muni course so my data pool may be skewed.

> > >

> > > I guest lectured, then taught an MBA course on leadership and executive development. The professor who wanted me to take over the course would always query his students as to where they thought their performance was relative to others in the class. Invariably almost everyone ranked themselves "above average", and usually half the class put themselves in the top 20%. Kinda like Lake Wobegon. I think golfers do the same thing, and overestimate their ball-striking ability. Which is fine for them, but is a phenomenon that is relevant to this discussion.

> > >

> > > If someone loves blades, the should play them. The game should be fun, and fun can mean different things to different people. As for me, take a blade to the range? All for it. While I can normally tell where I'm hitting the ball on the face of my HMP, I certainly get more physical punishment when hitting a 919T off the SS. But if I want to score? The HMPs end up being a club that works with my swing and my misses. I didn't like the HM because I don't need offset - my misses are due to inconsistent weight/vertical shift as I try to break old habits. But I don't consider myself an exception - or at least a total exception. I think a lot of higher handicap players tend to miss right, hence the offset in GI/SGI clubs. That isn't my miss, so in that regard I probably am somewhat of an exception and why I like the club I'm playing.

> > >

> > > Totally YMMV...and part of this is semantics as well.

> >

> > It never occurred to me to apply Dunning-Kruger to golfers but now that I think about it, I believe you're on to something.

>

> Here's a thought...do you think that better players are more realistic about their misses?

>

> It's just a personal hunch, but my instincts tell me that they are and that it's probably part of _why_ they're better.

>

> I'm an 8-handicap and I hit it all over the face. Don't get me wrong. I'm competitive and definitely feel like I could go toe to toe with other similarly-skilled golfers and come out on top--so it's not like I suck--but I'm not hitting perfect shots by any stretch.

>

> To be honest, I can't even remember the last time I hit a stellar iron shot. It's been awhile.

 

Actually, that is Dunning-Kruger. It found that, in self-assessment, competent students are likely to underestimate their actual ability while incompetent students overestimate theirs. So yes, your theory is sound.

[IamMarkMac]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > Exceptions remain exceptions. I tend to believe that we think there are a lot of them due in no small part to the role of the internet. At the end of the day, even if you were one in a million in the US, there would still be more than 300 of you. So if the exception were for 1% of the population, that's 3,000,000 people. That's "many people" of course, but still a one in a hundred case. Not a meaningful enough percentage to say they buck an overall trend.

>

> OK now here is just m-o-n-key wrench debate comment. We are on Golf WRX and discussing this.. I have a much greater respect for the Golfers HERE then those let say at a Charity Tournament I participate. 144 golfers... how many are "Exceptions" maybe one

>

> BUT here on the forums where we "DRAW" more conscious players, while misguided their attempt to get better or educated is likely at the higher level than the 3million population per say.

>

> So when we have a conversation specifically on the forums rather than at the course with randoms. I hold credence to the people here and a little more benefit of the doubt no?

>

 

I get what you're saying but that wasn't the point. Cliffhanger said there are so many exceptions that they aren't exceptions any more. I was pointing out that a large absolute number doesn't mean that you're no longer an exception. So even if you found 250,000 golfers that played blades better than GI clubs, that's still just 1% of the total 25M golfing population of the US. There would be a lot of people, sure, but they would be very much the exception.

Now if there were proof that 1 in 4 or 1 in 2 golfers play better with blades, then the argument could be made that they're no longer the exception. In any case, the mere existence of "a lot of people" is not conclusive that they are no longer an exception.

If anything, your GolfWRX example proves my point. There are a lot of exceptions here when it comes to golf knowledge and it seems like we're the general rule on this site but in a typical world scenario you might find one GolfWRX type in a tournament, if that.

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > ...for the fun of it I can swap out my irons these next 2 rounds with the Players GI, AP2 ( not Players CBs) Just to see the GIR stats? last 2 rounds was 9/7 so average 8, do you think I could improve the GIR of 8 or likely will it be the same?.....

>

> It doesn't work like that. Golfers like you and me are not good enough to swap clubs between rounds and expect the same results. If you're used to something else (even an unforgiving blade), it would take time to adjust to the AP2.

>

> I play Titleist CB which are supposedly less forgiving than the AP2 but I guarantee you I'd starting missing greens for a certain amount of time if I were to switch to AP2s. It would take time to adjust.

>

> Just yesterday I put a new 3w in the bag to demo. I hit it off the tee a bunch where I'd normally just hit driver and despite the fact it was only a 3w I was missing fairways left and right. I would've been way more accurate just hitting driver. I attribute most of that to my being unfamiliar with the (new) club.

>

> I'm sure I would adjust given time but players at our level simply can't expect the results to be there instantaneously. You have to look at larger data sets with players who've gotten acclimated.

>

> Finding the perfect club is an iterative process wherein a golfer selects something based on a theory and then makes further changes based on experience.

>

> There's no rule that says a 30-handicap can't be fit to a blade or that a scratch golfer couldn't be fit to a SGI iron, but any club fitter who _started_ with those clubs for those golfers would be insane.

>

>

I can agree with that..... while I am pretty confident that both sets were purpose built. I will agree lets say I wont be just as good as my MB's per say right of the bat... But I would edify if I went to the range for a couple days this week then played on Thursday I would be more than enough confident to play equally well with the AP2's.... The results though would just be questionable. It was just a thoughtful suggestion. Ultimately though you have answered my point.... that Handicap is not the only indicator of club selection. THAT really being my point.. Player ability is what I feel is the qualifier. Once you narrow it down then you quantify what club... I am NOT saying a high handicapper should or should not play blades..... But if we got rid of the X100 from the Blades threw in a Graphite 55gram shafts in senior and put the blades on them... if it works why not. OR take those X100 and put it on some SGI's and let them go hit away. We wont know until we evaluate the ability no? Or more carefully stating "Swing Profile" right?

 

[mahonie]

 

Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

[Exactice808]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> I get what you're saying but that wasn't the point. Cliffhanger said there are so many exceptions that they aren't exceptions any more. I was pointing out that a large absolute number doesn't mean that you're no longer an exception. So even if you found 250,000 golfers that played blades better than GI clubs, that's still just 1% of the total 25M golfing population of the US. There would be a lot of people, sure, but they would be very much the exception.

> N**_ow if there were proof that 1 in 4 or 1 in 2 golfers play better with blades, then the argument could be made that they're no longer the exception._** In any case, the mere existence of "a lot of people" is not conclusive that they are no longer an exception.

> If anything, your GolfWRX example proves my point. There are a lot of exceptions here when it comes to golf knowledge and it seems like we're the general rule on this site but in a typical world scenario you might find one GolfWRX type in a tournament, if that.

 

NO NO I gotcha as well! I knew what you meant and I think little bit of a hyperbole of Cliffhanger..... But I knew what he meant as to his point....

 

Now one more silly M-o-n-key Wrench point....

 

This is where half of these crazy threads come from. Experimentation, and (LUST) as @MelloYello stated...... There is a designation of playing blades and more so fear of playing them, YET people want to try them but are fearful due to the condemnation of doing so..... I guarantee half these thread "SCARE" people to try as they see how heated it can get.

 

BUT honestly people WONT know until they try right? While I have ZERO data.... I have zero facts.... here is a weird statement.... What happen way back when, when all they had was blades and EVERYONE, of all abilities and handicaps were stuck playing them... life went on right? handicaps basically remained the same right?

 

Anyways... my useless actual point as again I know where you are coming from..... Instead of the discouragement (NOT saying you are anyone is intending to be discouraging) But instead of creating this persona of blades.... S-crew it.... let em try and see for themselves..... let them experience and go through the hardships.

"Thomas Edison" -

"I have not failed, I've have just found 10,000 ways that wont work".

 

 

[nostatic]

> @mahonie said:

>

> Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

 

I find it humorous that people are mostly complaining about price when TWs are $250/club, Muiras are $280/club, PXGs are $400/club, etc. It does help with the argument that Mizunos are a relative bargain...

[dciccoritti]

> @mahonie said:

>

> Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

 

BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

[nostatic]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @mahonie said:

> >

> > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

>

> BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

 

you left out the rest of the sentence:

 

> “aim small, miss small” was validated by many of the _highly skilled players_ in the test

 

Of course everyone here is highly skilled so we're good to go :D

[Exactice808]

> @nostatic said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > >

> > > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

> >

> > BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

>

> you left out the rest of the sentence:

>

> > “aim small, miss small” was validated by many of the _highly skilled players_ in the test

>

> Of course everyone here is highly skilled so we're good to go :D

 

But are not MOST trying to become Highly skilled? I doubt that anyone is ACTUALLY trying to stay intentionally a high handicap?

 

Is the intent, to show that if you are looking for precision it is there and there is test to validate that precision is possible? Also.... I did say that we all are aiming at a 4.25" cup from the fairway if we are in a distance that is capable right? I mean if I am 150 out I have an 8 iron ultimately while unlikely I am still trying to "hole out?" aim small

 

 

I swear there was the conversation. (Podcast talk) That a Blade is MORE precise over a CB. If we robot tested or highly skilled tested it.

 

So does the fact remain, that the inherent forgiveness is a given in the CB. but Also the Inherent precision is in the MB?

[pinestreetgolf]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @mahonie said:

> >

> > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

>

> BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

 

"It makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that the more you concentrate mass, the more that mass will transfer energy when you get close to it right?"

 

This is only true if all clubheads have the exact same amount of mass, which isn't the case. If you start with a head that is, say, 300 grams and put 290 of it behind the middle it'll impart more velocity than one that is spread out and also 300 total. But a clubhead that is double the weight could easily put both the 290 behind the sweet spot and spread it out to the edge.

 

Put a G25 and an iBlade head on a kitchen scale. They don't have the same number on the screen. The "concentration of mass" only matters if you have the same total mass.

 

I couldn't tell if your post was sarcastic or not, but I answered it as if it was serious.

 

This isn't hard. When a clubhead strikes a golf ball, the speed of the head goes one of four places. Heat, sound, spin or velocity. How much goes into each depends on impact condition, velocity of both projectiles (in this case one is stationary) and mass of both projectiles. Mass and velocity are proportional to one another. The higher the mass at impact the more velocity is transferred. The less mass at impact the more velocity of the clubhead becomes something other than velocity in the ball (heat, sound, or speed). With blades, it becomes spin. With CBs, it becomes velocity. In the hands of a good player, spin is useful as they can control it and make the ball move the way they want. In the hands of a bad player, adding spin makes the slice worse and adding velocity makes bad swings go generally an acceptable distance.

 

Blades translate lack of mass into spin. The ball doesn't know if you are trying to spin it or not. If you are, and you're good, its easier to control flight. If you are not, and you're bad, your hook and slice get worse.

CBs translate more mass into velocity on off-center hits, but that means there is less energy to spin the ball. This results in them being less workable.

 

Whether or not an individual player's feel translates into these phenomenon will rest with the player. There are no set rules. But, generally, high caps don't want spin because its bad spin and low caps want spin because its usually good spin.

[jpdx]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > >

> > > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

> >

> > BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

>

> "It makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that the more you concentrate mass, the more that mass will transfer energy when you get close to it right?"

>

> This is only true if all clubheads have the exact same amount of mass, which isn't the case. If you start with a head that is, say, 300 grams and put 290 of it behind the middle it'll impart more velocity than one that is spread out and also 300 total. But a clubhead that is double the weight could easily put both the 290 behind the sweet spot and spread it out to the edge.

>

> Put a G25 and an iBlade head on a kitchen scale. They don't have the same number on the screen. The "concentration of mass" only matters if you have the same total mass.

>

> I couldn't tell if your post was sarcastic or not, but I answered it as if it was serious.

>

> This isn't hard. When a clubhead strikes a golf ball, the speed of the head goes one of four places. Heat, sound, spin or velocity. How much goes into each depends on impact condition, velocity of both projectiles (in this case one is stationary) and mass of both projectiles. Mass and velocity are proportional to one another. The higher the mass at impact the more velocity is transferred. The less mass at impact the more velocity of the clubhead becomes something other than velocity in the ball (heat, sound, or speed). With blades, it becomes spin. With CBs, it becomes velocity. In the hands of a good player, spin is useful as they can control it and make the ball move the way they want. In the hands of a bad player, adding spin makes the slice worse and adding velocity makes bad swings go generally an acceptable distance.

>

> Blades translate lack of mass into spin. The ball doesn't know if you are trying to spin it or not. If you are, and you're good, its easier to control flight. If you are not, and you're bad, your hook and slice get worse.

> CBs translate more mass into velocity on off-center hits, but that means there is less energy to spin the ball. This results in them being less workable.

>

> **Whether or not an individual player's feel translates into these phenomenon will rest with the player. There are no set rules. But, generally, high caps don't want spin because its bad spin and low caps want spin because its usually good spin.**

 

That, I can agree with. Generally high/er caps spin with more "sidespin" than "backspin" - that was me years ago when I first started. now, I don't get as much "sidespin" and am looking for more "backspin". my case, mid/high cap. I more often than not hit a pretty straight ball with a nice baby draw. my miss would be a hook or I push it out right. my alignment could use some work - as far as irons go.

 

more distance would be nice, but I prefer not to lose workability as I don't hit enough fairways and at my normal courses, trees tend to sprout quickly and are in my way to hit the green.

 

 

[mahonie]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @mahonie said:

> > >

> > > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

> >

> > BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

>

> "It makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that the more you concentrate mass, the more that mass will transfer energy when you get close to it right?"

>

> This is only true if all clubheads have the exact same amount of mass, which isn't the case. If you start with a head that is, say, 300 grams and put 290 of it behind the middle it'll impart more velocity than one that is spread out and also 300 total. But a clubhead that is double the weight could easily put both the 290 behind the sweet spot and spread it out to the edge.

>

> Put a G25 and an iBlade head on a kitchen scale. They don't have the same number on the screen. The "concentration of mass" only matters if you have the same total mass.

>

> I couldn't tell if your post was sarcastic or not, but I answered it as if it was serious.

>

> This isn't hard. When a clubhead strikes a golf ball, the speed of the head goes one of four places. Heat, sound, spin or velocity. How much goes into each depends on impact condition, velocity of both projectiles (in this case one is stationary) and mass of both projectiles. Mass and velocity are proportional to one another. The higher the mass at impact the more velocity is transferred. The less mass at impact the more velocity of the clubhead becomes something other than velocity in the ball (heat, sound, or speed). With blades, it becomes spin. With CBs, it becomes velocity. In the hands of a good player, spin is useful as they can control it and make the ball move the way they want. In the hands of a bad player, adding spin makes the slice worse and adding velocity makes bad swings go generally an acceptable distance.

>

> Blades translate lack of mass into spin. The ball doesn't know if you are trying to spin it or not. If you are, and you're good, its easier to control flight. If you are not, and you're bad, your hook and slice get worse.

> CBs translate more mass into velocity on off-center hits, but that means there is less energy to spin the ball. This results in them being less workable.

>

> Whether or not an individual player's feel translates into these phenomenon will rest with the player. There are no set rules. But, generally, high caps don't want spin because its bad spin and low caps want spin because its usually good spin.

 

Would it surprise you that the iBlade is 5g heavier than the G25 (6-iron)? S55 is 11g heavier. Think about it, the footprint of a CB is bigger. If it had the same mass as the smaller blade it would be really unwieldy to swing. To be honest you picked a bad example, the mass between clubheads hardly varies, the odd gram or two here and there. It’s the way the mass is distributed that gives the inherent characteristics in each iron type.

 

Blades create spin by having the CG close to the face, CBs move the CG back away from the face which helps with launch but is detrimental to spin...to counter the higher launch, lofts are strengthened and loft is the biggest spin factor for any club.

 

On another point that you raised, I would argue that if you can control face to path, any club is workable. Personally, I find clubs with high offset difficult to fade but I can get them going right to left far too easily ;-)

[nostatic]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > >

> > > > Interesting write up on Ping’s first forged blade:

> > > > http://www.golfwrx.com/558054/ping-blueprint-irons-are-officially-coming-to-retail/

> > >

> > > BOOM!!! Designed and tested by PING engineers with DATA. Did you read that @pinestreetgolf ? Aim small, miss small...VALIDATED!

> >

> > you left out the rest of the sentence:

> >

> > > “aim small, miss small” was validated by many of the _highly skilled players_ in the test

> >

> > Of course everyone here is highly skilled so we're good to go :D

>

> But are not MOST trying to become Highly skilled? I doubt that anyone is ACTUALLY trying to stay intentionally a high handicap?

>

> Is the intent, to show that if you are looking for precision it is there and there is test to validate that precision is possible? Also.... I did say that we all are aiming at a 4.25" cup from the fair way if we are in a distance that is capable right? I mean if I am 150 out I have an 8 iron ultimately while unlikely I am still trying to "hole out?" aim small

 

That's a strawman argument. Yes, most players are trying to improve, but only a small number have the time, perseverance, psychological and physical ability to attain "high skill."

 

As for aiming, it depends on the hole and the conditions. Plenty of situations where I'm not aiming for the cup. I consider that in the broader category of course management - which I *can* become highly skilled at because there isn't a psycho-motor aspect (other than having to execute what I hope to accomplish).