My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[Exactice808]

> @agolf1 said:

 

> > I would love to see how small they really are though, my old Nike blades were pretty darn tiny... so affecting swing weight how small can these things get?

> I thought the Ping article was more to do with the size of the clubhead/sweetspot than the target (blade of grass or similar logic used in firearms/archery). I do believe there is some truth to a) a smaller head producing a better (as in closer to the centre) strike and b) the results with smaller headed designs are better (energy transfer on centre hits and the ability to shape the ball). I think most people agree with b) if you have the skill. But for a) I think it really takes time/dedication to improve one's swing, and not everyone has this (our skills are basically fixed in the short-run or before any round of golf).

>

> My question was simply if the smaller clubhead improves the strike and the outcome with irons, why isn't the same true with drivers? The swing/strike is all we can really control. What happens when the ball hits the ground can only be guessed at ahead of time (although probably there is less variation in the outcomes when the ball hits the green).

>

> In reality, more and more of the pros seem to be playing the 460 cc version of driver heads vs. the less forgiving lower spin versions. Undoubtedly, there is less emphasis on working the ball of the tee, so that may be it. The pros may also be playing blades for other reasons than just the off centre forgiveness.

>

Yes my mistake, I took your question a little further. Than the orginal

 

Does a Smaller club head improve your strikes. SIZE of head does not help the physical impact motion to strike. NO I dont personally believe so.

Does it help mentally? possibly. For some people it does help them focus. I have no data but just hear say.

 

OK now for the PING experiment, is it the CLUB head that by hitting the center gives tighter dispersion? So if we magically shrunk a Cavity back to a smaller size. would the resulting strikes have a tighter dispersion similar to the MB? I dont think so as the centered mass from an MB is what creates more precision and consistency. The CB with a thinner overall face due to weight dispersed outwards would not provide the same precision as an MB. And seems to be edified by the Ping experiment

 

Now Aim smaller, miss smaller. implies across the board in my opinion is what I am trying to imply. Aim smaller on contact should result in smaller misses. and aim smaller at targets should reduce dispersion (in theory)

 

As for the driver, my personal opinion is people search for distance..... over precision. While precision and distance are some what equal factors in irons in general. While higher level players that do not struggle with distance want precision with irons while STILL wanting distance in their driver. So the sliding scale moves a lot for the Irons, yet everyone wants the most distance and accuracy for their driver

 

 

 

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @agolf1 said:

> > @Nessism said:

 

>

> Anyways, it seems like 5-10 years ago there was a stronger preference on tour for the slightly less forgiving driver heads. I.e. D3 vs D2. Truthfully, the size/forgiveness differences here aren't huge and either of these are tons easier to hit than any ~300-350 cc club from 15 years ago. Maybe the manufacturers have just gotten the spin differences to be very close now so the guys are favoring the slightly bigger head. But I agree that very few of the pros these days seem to give a [ ] about working the ball off the tee, and in general they are playing the more forgiving head that's available (the TS3 does seem more popular than the TS2 though).

>

> Maybe the pros realize that practice (with any club) is what makes the swing better, and that they do actually miss on the course (unintentionally) and think it's better to have more help when this happens.

 

Oddly it was a campaign that didnt last long, RBZ in my mind was the trend setter between the 913 D2/D3 at that point Callaway was right on the cusp of their release.

TM SLDR & Titliest D4 where the low spin push, but lasted for half a season and then disappeared into oblivion.

 

Then it was The Epic dropped with the M1/M2.

From there it moved RIGHT back to a Much more forgiving setup. Most amateurs are playing a low spin head more than pros because amateurs usually suffer more from too much spin with driver than Pro's due to swing flaws.

 

Real quick there was a discussion about the TS3 as I argued that I still love my 915D3 due to the "ARC" (active recoil channel) But the release from Titleist stated that the removed the ARC because they were able to move the CG to get the benefit of low spin yet forgiveness so the ARC was eliminated. This was ODD as the TS2 was supposed to be their flag ship forgiving driver. The TS3 is still 460cc with slightly lower spin and adjustable bias control. the TS2 is just rear weighted for higher forgiveness and launch. As I dont think the TS4 is in a lot of pro's bags at this point

 

 

[cliffhanger]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @IamMarkMac 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.

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > Where does the 1% come from? is that an accurate statistic?

>

> It's not a statistic of any sort. I just used it as an example to show that even though there are numerically many, it does not mean they cease to be an exception. You'd have to prove a ratio in order to be able to say that there are "so many of them that they are no longer the exception".

 

You would have to prove the ratio is so small that my statement is in fact incorrect.

[mahonie]

The reason behind the use of the 460cc driver is all to do with swing speed and distance. The effective hitting area is so large it enables all players to swing a lot faster to maximise distance. Try hitting your 3-wood with your driver swing and see how many balls finish in play.

 

Drivers would have got even bigger than 460cc (and much longer in distance) if the R&A/USGA had not limited the size and put restrictions on the COR.

[Nard_S]

Ping making a forged and compact blade!.....................hell has frozen over., lol.

 

What happened? Engineer pulled out a baby blade and said, "man I played pretty good with this thing?".

 

Ben Hogan is vindicated. He was not high on GI, he marketed his clubs extolling virtues of traditional design when the Eye 2 & Zing were selling like hot cakes. His Edge GCD where really really good CB's but that's not where his heart was truly at. The company is gone, the name carries on, but Hogan is my hero in club design, always will be too.

 

I had a glide wedge, liked it a lot, the "spinner shaft" was garbage though, actually failed in 3 months. I would give these a spin, thank you Ping, you have set things a bit more correct. Haha.

[IamMarkMac]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @IamMarkMac 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.

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > Where does the 1% come from? is that an accurate statistic?

> >

> > It's not a statistic of any sort. I just used it as an example to show that even though there are numerically many, it does not mean they cease to be an exception. You'd have to prove a ratio in order to be able to say that there are "so many of them that they are no longer the exception".

>

> You would have to prove the ratio is so small that my statement is in fact incorrect.

Well, your contention is what was an exception is no longer an exception. It would be on you to prove what is generally accepted is no longer true. But yes, absent a poll of some sort your statement is possibly true.

Also, you say because there are “so many”, it’s no longer an exception. I illustrated that “so many” is a meaningless measure. So even if your statement is possibly true, “so many” is not proof.

What could also be true is that there is a such a large concentration of non-GI playing mid-high caps here on GolfWRX that those golfers here may believe they’re no longer an exception. Danger of echo chambers.

 

[dciccoritti]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> Aim small miss small may have validity. I don't know enough about how people learn to know for sure.

>

> > And your example of cooking is not applicable. Don't ever bring up cuisine with someone of Italian heritage. Especially if their Dad was a Chef. Gordon Ramsey would know Risotto if it hit him the face. And you don't even know how to spell it :-)

>

> I used auto-correct on Risotto! You got me there, for sure.

>

> > Not posting the same guy. Different golfers on each video regarding spin. Spin is higher or equal with SGI's. Loft and dynamic loft reigns supreme. Of course I'm open to being proven wrong. Anyone???

>

> Sir Issac Newton: Hold my beer...

>

>

 

Right so you can't prove me wrong.

 

Oh look more evidence showing SGI with more spin than a blade at the same loft. Can anyone explain this because @pinestreetgolf can't. How about you @nsxguy ? Can you prove me wrong because you brought it up? Of course not because it's not true :-)

 

Oh look same distance in carry too.

 

[dciccoritti]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @nsxguy 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

> > >

> > > Isn't that what politicians do ? Give half a story ?

> > >

> > > 

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > This response is so you...and so is the pic. I mean a bit heavy on the lipstick but to each their own :-)

>

> Not the first time you've given "half a story". Truth hurts, don't it ? LOL

 

Not a half story and not my story. It's PING's story because you know, engineers and testing. Mid or high handicaps are not immune to this concept And the fact that you think this concept would only apply to a particular skill set is beyond ridiculous. It applies to all. And just so we're clear, centre contact with a club head means NOTHING. It takes an ignorant mind to ignore all the other variables in a swing that needs to compliment a centre strike to produce a very good strike.

 

Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

 

More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering. Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations? Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

 

But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

 

[Tree Levino]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @nsxguy 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

> > > >

> > > > Isn't that what politicians do ? Give half a story ?

> > > >

> > > > 

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > This response is so you...and so is the pic. I mean a bit heavy on the lipstick but to each their own :-)

> >

> > Not the first time you've given "half a story". Truth hurts, don't it ? LOL

>

> Not a half story and not my story. It's PING's story because you know, engineers and testing. Mid or high handicaps are not immune to this concept And the fact that you think this concept would only apply to a particular skill set is beyond ridiculous. It applies to all. And just so we're clear, centre contact with a club head means NOTHING. It takes an ignorant mind to ignore all the other variables in a swing that needs to compliment a centre strike to produce a very good strike.

>

> Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

>

> More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering. Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations? Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

>

> But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

>

 

If fairness, the above test is with a guy who can produce PGA caliber ball speeds. He got to 184mph in the Cobra F9 vid. That is not a test that would apply to most on here. Do that same test with the 30 hc using blades and I guarantee you the results will be different. As for the smaller club head being hit better by some - I buy it but it doesn't need to be blade small. I think I get as much help from a Ping i series as I do a G. The G is too big and I'm more prone to hitting all over the face. If anyone watches Crossfield vlogs you'll know that he replaced his 5 iron with an Ap1. He is hitting it like absolute s**t. Toe balls, fat ball etc etc. Not any more forgiving.

[Nessism]

> @dciccoritti said:

 

> Oh look more evidence showing SGI with more spin than a blade at the same loft. Can anyone explain this because @pinestreetgolf can't. How about you @nsxguy ? Can you prove me wrong because you brought it up? Of course not because it's not true :-)

>

> Oh look same distance in carry too.

>

>

 

This is the first test I've seen where the SGI iron had more spin. Regardless, the part of that test that caught my attention is when the toe strikes were compared; the Ping had 10 yards more carry distance than the blade. So in summary: SGI iron hits the ball higher, spin was good, and more forgiving to toe hits. Sold! That's why I have them in my bag.

[bladehunter]

Anybody read Mr Solheims comments in the main page blueprint article ? Seems that the greatest golf engineering outfit has confirmed that a small clubhead with centered mass and cog is more accurate all around when hit center. Thus squashing the myth that anyone can benefit from a GI iron. If you hit the middle there’s merit to the idea of a solid , center mass iron. And ping has made the best engineered one to date I’d say.

 

What I find hilarious is that many of us have screamed this for a couple years , citing the only evidence we had , anecdotal, but as it turns out. Very much true. There’s a couple posters on this site who have cited this ( not really me ) in great detail ; and have been branded as heretics and even suspended for it. Just thought the irony was too much to let go.

 

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

[pinestreetgolf]

> Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

 

Ping has always made blades. Because they sell enough of them to make a profit.

 

>

> More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering.

 

There's four times as many infomercial hybirds today as ten years ago. That doesn't mean they are good. It means people buy them.

 

> Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations?

 

Yeah, they are only the best-selling type of iron and played by over 97% of professional tours. But forget that, you've got it all figure out.

 

>Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

 

No. People like you are ignoring posts about physics in favor of a video where some bizarre man hits 20 six irons as if that proves something statistically. - Velocity in a collision is constant between blade and CB. Mass is variable. Velocity x Mass is Momentum. The momentum on a blade is less, and therefore less velocity is maintained. If less velocity is maintained, the energy of the collision must go one of three other places (since energy is never destroyed) - vibration (spin), sound or heat. Unless you are going to argue that blades get hotter at impact or sound a ton louder, they spin more. They have to. You have only acknowledged these basic tenants of physics by posting youtube videos of humans swinging golf clubs and extrapolating from that that equations physicists have reliedon for hundreds of years don't apply to golf.

 

Why is the physics wrong? Just answer that. Don't post another video, or go on some nuts diatribe about quality and Ping or whatever, just answer where the energy is going if its not going into more vibration given less mass.

 

> But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

 

I assume you are extremely grown up because your emoticon game is trash.

 

[dciccoritti]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @nsxguy 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

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that what politicians do ? Give half a story ?

> > > > >

> > > > > 

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This response is so you...and so is the pic. I mean a bit heavy on the lipstick but to each their own :-)

> > >

> > > Not the first time you've given "half a story". Truth hurts, don't it ? LOL

> >

> > Not a half story and not my story. It's PING's story because you know, engineers and testing. Mid or high handicaps are not immune to this concept And the fact that you think this concept would only apply to a particular skill set is beyond ridiculous. It applies to all. And just so we're clear, centre contact with a club head means NOTHING. It takes an ignorant mind to ignore all the other variables in a swing that needs to compliment a centre strike to produce a very good strike.

> >

> > Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

> >

> > More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering. Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations? Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

> >

> > But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

> >

>

> If fairness, the above test is with a guy who can produce PGA caliber ball speeds. He got to 184mph in the Cobra F9 vid. That is not a test that would apply to most on here. Do that same test with the 30 hc using blades and I guarantee you the results will be different. As for the smaller club head being hit better by some - I buy it but it doesn't need to be blade small. I think I get as much help from a Ping i series as I do a G. The G is too big and I'm more prone to hitting all over the face. If anyone watches Crossfield vlogs you'll know that he replaced his 5 iron with an Ap1. He is hitting it like absolute s**t. Toe balls, fat ball etc etc. Not any more forgiving.

 

Ok but I posted 3 videos by different golfers showing the same thing. Why would it be different with a 30 handicap? Genuine question.

 

 

How about Rob Potter. He's a 13 so the other half of his rounds could be anywhere from 15 to 18 over. (not sure)

He averaged about 4200 spin with a 716 CB and 4400 spin with the 716 MB. He also averaged 3700 with an AP1. Loft per loft the AP1 6 iron is a full club stronger. Again at approximately 1000 RPM per 4 degrees he's right there no? Actually spinning more but I'm sure the shafts are different. Sorry but I just don't see it. I'd be genuinely interested to see something that shows otherwise.

 

You can check out the vids on YT if you're interested.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that what politicians do ? Give half a story ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > This response is so you...and so is the pic. I mean a bit heavy on the lipstick but to each their own :-)

> > > >

> > > > Not the first time you've given "half a story". Truth hurts, don't it ? LOL

> > >

> > > Not a half story and not my story. It's PING's story because you know, engineers and testing. Mid or high handicaps are not immune to this concept And the fact that you think this concept would only apply to a particular skill set is beyond ridiculous. It applies to all. And just so we're clear, centre contact with a club head means NOTHING. It takes an ignorant mind to ignore all the other variables in a swing that needs to compliment a centre strike to produce a very good strike.

> > >

> > > Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

> > >

> > > More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering. Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations? Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

> > >

> > > But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

> > >

> >

> > If fairness, the above test is with a guy who can produce PGA caliber ball speeds. He got to 184mph in the Cobra F9 vid. That is not a test that would apply to most on here. Do that same test with the 30 hc using blades and I guarantee you the results will be different. As for the smaller club head being hit better by some - I buy it but it doesn't need to be blade small. I think I get as much help from a Ping i series as I do a G. The G is too big and I'm more prone to hitting all over the face. If anyone watches Crossfield vlogs you'll know that he replaced his 5 iron with an Ap1. He is hitting it like absolute s**t. Toe balls, fat ball etc etc. Not any more forgiving.

>

> Ok but I posted 3 videos by different golfers showing the same thing. Why would it be different with a 30 handicap? Genuine question.

>

>

> How about Rob Potter. He's a 13 so the other half of his rounds could be anywhere from 15 to 18 over. (not sure)

> He averaged about 4200 spin with a 716 CB and 4400 spin with the 716 MB. He also averaged 3700 with an AP1. Loft per loft the AP1 6 iron is a full club stronger. Again at approximately 1000 RPM per 4 degrees he's right there no? Actually spinning more but I'm sure the shafts are different. Sorry but I just don't see it. I'd be genuinely interested to see something that shows otherwise.

>

> You can check out the vids on YT if you're interested.

>

 

You should find a guy with one arm whose never played CBs before to do a video hitting them. It would be proof positive that CBs are awful.

 

There tens of millions of golfers in the world. You are taking them one by one. Its ridiculous.

[MelloYello]

> @dciccoritti said:

>

> Right so you can't prove me wrong.

>

> Oh look more evidence showing SGI with more spin than a blade at the same loft. Can anyone explain this because @pinestreetgolf can't. How about you @nsxguy ? Can you prove me wrong because you brought it up? Of course not because it's not true :-)

>

> Oh look same distance in carry too.

>

>

 

That was a good video. Thanks for posting it dude.

 

The _only_ thing I didn't like was when he talked about the droop effect and claimed that CBs increase it. Sure, it's easy to believe shaft droop might increase with a longer blade length and more weight out at the toe, but there's 0% chance that it's happening via bending in the head which is what he implied. That's just not going to happen with an object as rigid as a steel club-head. Whatever increased droop is seen surely has to be coming from the shaft. That seems like common sense.

 

In general though, their message just confirmed our current theories on what engineers are doing. The lower CG increases launch angle and spin. To compensate, the lofts are strengthened and as a result the launch and spin are brought back to normal but with increased ball speed (which the thin face also helps).

 

This is why I said many pages ago that OEMs are correct to call these "distance" irons. I think that's a better name for the mechanism as opposed to "game-improvement."

 

I still think that an 'oversize' GI club is probably better for a _novice_ because of all the features: bigger face = larger hitting surface, wider sole = less digging, more offset = less slice, GI tech = better ball-speed, etc. For the novice, those are all helpful features.

 

Then again, I don't see any reason to put someone who's going full-bore towards improving their swing/game into a club designed for all the flaws of a hacker. It's okay to reach a little to fit yourself into something that will eventually work. That's why I'm such a big advocate of PCBs in general.

 

I also think that a PCB is probably better for someone at my level who _can_ hit blades but benefits from having less negative feedback on poor strikes (psychological) and a slightly higher MOI for a straighter, more stable ball-flight on a slightly imperfect shot.

 

The way I perceive it, I feel like I hit my CBs more consistently round-to-round which leads to more confidence. So maybe PCBs are mostly about psychology, who knows? What is certain is that blades _feel_ way worse on toe-strikes versus a PCB. Everyone agrees on that.

 

As I argued with @dpb5031 , I just don't think that level of feedback is necessary (on the course) for anyone who isn't an elite player. That doesn't mean pro necessarily, but really, really good.

[dciccoritti]

> @Nessism said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

>

> > Oh look more evidence showing SGI with more spin than a blade at the same loft. Can anyone explain this because @pinestreetgolf can't. How about you @nsxguy ? Can you prove me wrong because you brought it up? Of course not because it's not true :-)

> >

> > Oh look same distance in carry too.

> >

> >

>

> This is the first test I've seen where the SGI iron had more spin. Regardless, the part of that test that caught my attention is when the toe strikes were compared; the Ping had 10 yards more carry distance than the blade. So in summary: SGI iron hits the ball higher, spin was good, and more forgiving to toe hits. Sold! That's why I have them in my bag.

 

That's because you didn't bother to look at the other 2 or 3 videos I posted that show the same thing. You also missed the videos showing 20 yard drop off with the P790 on a toe hit.

 

And I guess you didn't see how well the toe hits did with the blade iron and how one would easily score better with blade mishits vs the CB mishits.

 

But you trust your equipment and it brings you confidence and that's all that matters.

 

[lenman73]

Ping must be going all in on the aim small...

They are advertising the crap out of the new 410 irons with a smaller head. Kinda goes against the bigger is better line of thinking.

[dciccoritti]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

>

> Ping has always made blades. Because they sell enough of them to make a profit.

>

> >

> > More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering.

>

> There's four times as many infomercial hybirds today as ten years ago. That doesn't mean they are good. It means people buy them.

>

> > Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations?

>

> Yeah, they are only the best-selling type of iron and played by over 97% of professional tours. But forget that, you've got it all figure out.

>

> >Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

>

> No. People like you are ignoring posts about physics in favor of a video where some bizarre man hits 20 six irons as if that proves something statistically. - Velocity in a collision is constant between blade and CB. Mass is variable. Velocity x Mass is Momentum. The momentum on a blade is less, and therefore less velocity is maintained. If less velocity is maintained, the energy of the collision must go one of three other places (since energy is never destroyed) - vibration (spin), sound or heat. Unless you are going to argue that blades get hotter at impact or sound a ton louder, they spin more. They have to. You have only acknowledged these basic tenants of physics by posting youtube videos of humans swinging golf clubs and extrapolating from that that equations physicists have reliedon for hundreds of years don't apply to golf.

>

> Why is the physics wrong? Just answer that. Don't post another video, or go on some nuts diatribe about quality and Ping or whatever, just answer where the energy is going if its not going into more vibration given less mass.

>

> > But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

>

> I assume you are extremely grown up because your emoticon game is trash.

>

 

Your arguments and YOUR PHYSICS is wrong. It crashes and burns with realty and the overwhelming real evidence. Didn't know PING always made blades. Perhaps you can post some pics. I'll wait.

 

[dciccoritti]

> @bladehunter said:

>There’s a couple posters on this site who have cited this ( not really me ) in great detail ; and have been branded as heretics and even suspended for it.

 

Exactly!! Shout out to @DeNinny , PING, Muira and others. Gonna get me a set of those new Blueprints and hunt flags over bunkers and water :-) #notafraid

 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @bladehunter said:

> Anybody read Mr Solheims comments in the main page blueprint article ? Seems that the greatest golf engineering outfit has confirmed that a small clubhead with centered mass and cog is more accurate all around when hit center. Thus squashing the myth that anyone can benefit from a GI iron. If you hit the middle there’s merit to the idea of a solid , center mass iron. And ping has made the best engineered one to date I’d say.

>

> What I find hilarious is that many of us have screamed this for a couple years , citing the only evidence we had , anecdotal, but as it turns out. Very much true. There’s a couple posters on this site who have cited this ( not really me ) in great detail ; and have been branded as heretics and even suspended for it. Just thought the irony was too much to let go.

>

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

 

Yeah, I thought that was interesting, especially coming from PING:

_“After extensive in-house research with varying head sizes, the findings revealed the theory of “aim small, miss small” was validated by many of the highly skilled players in the test, who produced tighter stat areas when hitting the more compact head.”_

 

Isn't that pretty much the concept behind the Baby Blades as well?

 

[Nard_S]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

Velocity in a collision is constant between blade and CB. Mass is variable. Velocity x Mass is Momentum. The momentum on a blade is less, and therefore less velocity is maintained. If less velocity is maintained, the energy of the collision must go one of three other places (since energy is never destroyed) - vibration (spin), sound or heat. Unless you are going to argue that blades get hotter at impact or sound a ton louder, they spin more. They have to. You have only acknowledged these basic tenants of physics by posting youtube videos of humans swinging golf clubs and extrapolating from that that equations physicists have reliedon for hundreds of years don't apply to golf.

>

> Why is the physics wrong? Just answer that.

>

 

Physics is force applied in a directional vector plane. Put mass behind the ball, it will go further then mass set off in the toe or perimeter. MOI is about stability of head and bolstering a neutral position. Blade design does not posses this as much but directs mass (and thus force ) at point of impact and when nutted they actually go further with less dispersion. GI uses the mass for MOI to "correct" errant path/face issues. So there is an obvious trade off in both cases, but one is lampooned to point it out. I've come across very few GI club that were heavier than the bulk of blades I own. The two that I do own, do not excel in distance or dispersion, they do launch slightly higher but so what. The distance king of all my clubs I ever owned are sledgehammer heavy 681's. What cannot be under stated is that a large GI type club offer up comfort in the same way a 460cc driver does, so a player may hit them longer because they just swing with more freedom. Also, the bigger "hit zone" allows OEM's to soften/lighten the shaft which increases kick but it also increases variances there (more take off). Beyond that, traditional offer a lot more If you can cluster your strikes, if you cannot well, go with more MOI or just deal with it, but let's stop pretending that GI is all gain and traditional is all pain, because that's not the case nor the physics.

 

[MelloYello]

> @Nard_S said:

> MOI is about stability of head and bolstering a neutral position. Blade design does not posses this as much but directs mass (and thus force ) at point of impact and when nutted they actually go further with less dispersion.

 

Are we sure that solid-body mechanics says this?

 

Let's ignore GI irons due to the fact they have thinner faces. Let's just compare a MB and a PCB since the only real difference is the perimeter weighting and the increased MOI.

 

You're hypothesizing that on a perfect strike a MB will hit the ball slightly further.

 

I could be wrong but I don't recall ever caring about the distribution of mass inside an object when solving (simple) problems involving the collision of _rigid_ objects.

 

The assumption in those problems was of course that of point particles, but if we're striking two golf clubs (with the same net mass) perfectly in line with the CG such that there is no rotation imparted on either club, I don't see how the MOI properties matter.

 

Because the object is rigid the energy of either club-head should be identical (1/2*mass*v^2). We know that MOI doesn't effect the energy of a club-head traveling through space.

 

So when we look at a "perfect" strike all that energy should be transferred the same in both cases because the objects are rigid.

 

I have a strong hunch that the "trade-off" mechanism you're describing is incorrect.

 

 

[Stuart_G]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > MOI is about stability of head and bolstering a neutral position. Blade design does not posses this as much but directs mass (and thus force ) at point of impact and when nutted they actually go further with less dispersion.

>

> Are we sure that solid-body mechanics says this?

 

You're right - it really doesn't. You'd need a certain amount of elastic (or plastic) deformation of the head before the mass distribution made a noticeable difference in the energy transfer (outside of the how the distribution effects the MOI and any resulting rotational changes to the head due to impact forces).

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > MOI is about stability of head and bolstering a neutral position. Blade design does not posses this as much but directs mass (and thus force ) at point of impact and when nutted they actually go further with less dispersion.

>

> Are we sure that solid-body mechanics says this?

>

> Let's ignore GI irons due to the fact they have thinner faces. Let's just compare a MB and a PCB since the only real difference is the perimeter weighting and the increased MOI.

>

> You're hypothesizing that on a perfect strike a MB will hit the ball slightly further.

>

> I could be wrong but I don't recall ever caring about the distribution of mass inside an object when solving (simple) problems involving the collision of _rigid_ objects.

>

> The assumption in those problems was of course that of point particles, but if we're striking two golf clubs (with the same net mass) perfectly in line with the CG such that there is no rotation imparted on either club, I don't see how the MOI properties matter.

>

> Because the object is rigid the energy of either club-head should be identical (1/2*mass*v^2). We know that MOI doesn't effect the energy of a club-head traveling through space.

>

> So when we look at a "perfect" strike all that energy should be transferred the same in both cases because the objects are rigid.

>

> I have a strong hunch that the "trade-off" mechanism you're describing is incorrect.

>

>

I’ve stated this before...mishits high on the face of my Mac MT Pro Cs (PCB) go nowhere. At the point above the muscle pad in the cavity, the steel is very thin, by eye about 3mm at most. At the same point on my MP4s, the steel is 6mm thick and you can tell on mishits because the ball flies much further.

 

Also, even with PCBs there is an amount of flex (albeit very small) in the face even on sweetspot strikes...moving the weight to the perimeter creates the stability but also introduces that trampoline effect. Well before speed slots, Wilson Staff developed the concept in the 1970s iirc with their Reflex irons but they didn’t take off (pardon the pun).

 

[Stuart_G]

> @mahonie said:

> I’ve stated this before...mishits high on the face of my Mac MT Pro Cs (PCB) go nowhere. At the point above the muscle pad in the cavity, the steel is very thin, by eye about 3mm at most. At the same point on my MP4s, the steel is 6mm thick and you can tell on mishits because the ball flies much further.

 

That's because of the change in MOI. The lower the MOI, the more energy goes into rotating the face about it's horizontal axis instead of going into the ball (for off center hits only).

 

> Also, even with PCBs there is an amount of flex (albeit very small) in the face even on sweetspot strikes...moving the weight to the perimeter creates the stability but also introduces that trampoline effect.

 

That type of effect (when it does exist) comes directly from the reduced face thickness and structural stiffness (which controls the ability of the face to deflect at impact), not the change in mass distribution.

 

 

 

[mahonie]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > I’ve stated this before...mishits high on the face of my Mac MT Pro Cs (PCB) go nowhere. At the point above the muscle pad in the cavity, the steel is very thin, by eye about 3mm at most. At the same point on my MP4s, the steel is 6mm thick and you can tell on mishits because the ball flies much further.

>

> That's because of the change in MOI. Energy goes into rotating the face about it's horizontal axis instead of going into the ball.

>

> > Also, even with PCBs there is an amount of flex (albeit very small) in the face even on sweetspot strikes...moving the weight to the perimeter creates the stability but also introduces that trampoline effect.

>

> That type of effect (when it does exist) comes directly from the reduced face thickness and structural stiffness (which controls the ability of the face to deflect at impact), not the change in mass distribution.

>

>

>

You’ve put it in better words than I was able to ;)

 

[bladehunter]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Anybody read Mr Solheims comments in the main page blueprint article ? Seems that the greatest golf engineering outfit has confirmed that a small clubhead with centered mass and cog is more accurate all around when hit center. Thus squashing the myth that anyone can benefit from a GI iron. If you hit the middle there’s merit to the idea of a solid , center mass iron. And ping has made the best engineered one to date I’d say.

> >

> > What I find hilarious is that many of us have screamed this for a couple years , citing the only evidence we had , anecdotal, but as it turns out. Very much true. There’s a couple posters on this site who have cited this ( not really me ) in great detail ; and have been branded as heretics and even suspended for it. Just thought the irony was too much to let go.

> >

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

>

> Yeah, I thought that was interesting, especially coming from PING:

> _“After extensive in-house research with varying head sizes, the findings revealed the theory of “aim small, miss small” was validated by many of the highly skilled players in the test, who produced tighter stat areas when hitting the more compact head.”_

>

> Isn't that pretty much the concept behind the Baby Blades as well?

>

 

Yep. It is. Absolutely the idea. And the small iron training aides that are sold. It’s a fact that the smaller the head the less you can miss. The big heads are a self fulfilling prophecy

[MelloYello]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > I’ve stated this before...mishits high on the face of my Mac MT Pro Cs (PCB) go nowhere. At the point above the muscle pad in the cavity, the steel is very thin, by eye about 3mm at most. At the same point on my MP4s, the steel is 6mm thick and you can tell on mishits because the ball flies much further.

>

> That's because of the change in MOI. The lower the MOI, the more energy goes into rotating the face about it's horizontal axis instead of going into the ball (for off center hits only).

>

> > Also, even with PCBs there is an amount of flex (albeit very small) in the face even on sweetspot strikes...moving the weight to the perimeter creates the stability but also introduces that trampoline effect.

>

> That type of effect (when it does exist) comes directly from the reduced face thickness and structural stiffness (which controls the ability of the face to deflect at impact), not the change in mass distribution.

>

 

Thanks, @Stuart_G .

 

I agree 100%.

 

I know you're a wiz with the shaft stuff. Have you any particular knowledge quantifying the dynamic effects of perimeter weighting, like, actually putting numbers on a club's tendency to deflect open/closed during those few milliseconds when the ball is in contact?

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @mahonie said:

> I’ve stated this before...mishits high on the face of my Mac MT Pro Cs (PCB) go nowhere. At the point above the muscle pad in the cavity, the steel is very thin, by eye about 3mm at most. At the same point on my MP4s, the steel is 6mm thick and you can tell on mishits because the ball flies much further.

>

> Also, even with PCBs there is an amount of flex (albeit very small) in the face even on sweetspot strikes...moving the weight to the perimeter creates the stability but also introduces that trampoline effect. Well before speed slots, Wilson Staff developed the concept in the 1970s iirc with their Reflex irons but they didn’t take off (pardon the pun).

>

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but did you not previously state that a perfectly struck MB would go further than a perfectly-struck PCB?

 

That's what I was asking about. I can't fathom there being a negative effect from increased MOI on perfect strikes. I don't think physics supports that.

[nsxguy]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @nsxguy 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

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that what politicians do ? Give half a story ?

> > > > >

> > > > > 

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This response is so you...and so is the pic. I mean a bit heavy on the lipstick but to each their own :-)

> > >

> > > Not the first time you've given "half a story". Truth hurts, don't it ? LOL

> >

> > Not a half story and not my story. It's PING's story because you know, engineers and testing. Mid or high handicaps are not immune to this concept And the fact that you think this concept would only apply to a particular skill set is beyond ridiculous. It applies to all. And just so we're clear, centre contact with a club head means NOTHING. It takes an ignorant mind to ignore all the other variables in a swing that needs to compliment a centre strike to produce a very good strike.

> >

> > Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......

> >

> > More blade offerings today than ever before by virtually every OEM out there in a day and age where technology was suppose to make them obsolete and provide 'the best of both worlds' through state of the art design and engineering. Hmmmm....after close to 40 years have we finally realized that CB's ultimately didn't live up to expectations? Or did we finally realize that while they offered something, they also lost something else that is equally or perhaps even more important. Are we finally coming around to the realization that everything is a trade off? And are we beginning to realize that different people prefer different trade offs? Or simply prefer different characteristics in design that better suit their game?

> >

> > But I do get where you're coming from. It didn't work for you so it doesn't work for anyone else. I too use to think everyone was exactly like me until I, you know.....grew up ;-)

> >

>

> If fairness, the above test is with a guy who can produce PGA caliber ball speeds. He got to 184mph in the Cobra F9 vid. That is not a test that would apply to most on here. Do that same test with the 30 hc using blades and I guarantee you the results will be different. As for the smaller club head being hit better by some - I buy it but it doesn't need to be blade small. I think I get as much help from a Ping i series as I do a G. The G is too big and I'm more prone to hitting all over the face. If anyone watches Crossfield vlogs you'll know that he replaced his 5 iron with an Ap1. He is hitting it like absolute s**t. Toe balls, fat ball etc etc. Not any more forgiving.

 

He, and others, are not concerned with "fairness".....

 

In support of HIS pov he gives half the story. “After extensive in-house research with varying head sizes, the findings revealed the theory of “aim small, miss small” was validated".

 

He intentionally leaves out (and no, I don't have any proof of that LMAO) "by many of the highly skilled players in the test, who produced tighter stat areas when hitting the more compact head.”, a point already conceded by some CB guys and a bit outside the main(?) point of the thread topic (clubs designed for handicap (but really another CB vs. blades thread). But maybe I shouldn't "assume" ? Maybe he did leave it out inadvertently ? Nobody that I can remember ever suggested that lower handicappers couldn't play, or would be better off not playing, blades.

 

He, and others, also demand "scientific" proof of CB's attributes, namely more forgiving of mishits both directionally and distance-wise and when he wants to "prove" his point he gives 3 or 4 videos of anecdotal evidence.

 

As for his "_Hey did you hear? PING just made a blade. Ever wonder why the only company that stood by the notion of forgiveness more than any other company would make a blade? Hmmm......_"

 

No, I don't wonder at all why any "for profit" company would bring out a product. Their bean counters told management that, even though the market was relatively small, there was money to be made catering to this segment of the market.

 

THAT is why they made the Blueprint irons. Pretty smart I'd say - if it works.