My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

>

> No, definitely not more deliberate. I start off with 3/4 swings with arms real connected, but after a few I'm ripping it full tilt

 

In any practice situation in which a player isn't forced to deliberately do something more "proper" there's no drill going on at all. That's precisely the argument against merely beating balls with a blade. The blade won't teach anyone anything besides how to temporarily time up their swing a bit better (maybe).

 

But that's why you don't start out "ripping it." As you clearly state, you start off in what sounds like a deliberate fashion ingraining a certain feel.

 

In your case you admit you focus on connection with 3/4 swings. That's precisely what I mean by a player being deliberate.

 

Swinging deliberately in this case doesn't mean reducing your power. The entire goal of my 2-tee drill is to be able to swing at full speed and not hit the tees, right? It just takes a few swings to get there first which is what the drill is about.

 

But I bet you anything that on your first couple of swings with that blade when you're deliberately trying to focus on connection you are swinging in good rhythm and not trying to overpower it.

 

That sounds like a deliberate practice to me. Again, I don't think we're talking about 2 different things here.

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

>

> I think that is where we are apples and oranges. Think about it, 2 tees what the punishment is? There is a physical obstruction which you are trying to avoid. Isnt it natural to slow down or be more careful?

>

> Now using a bladed iron or an Iron thats smaller or an Iron with tape on it. There is no reason to slow down there is no obstruction of punishment, You either hit center or you dont. But again your tee argument you place obstructions that cause a different mental and possible physical reaction no?

>

> I ask you to try and mentally see if there is a difference? 2 tees vs putting tape on your iron.. why would you slow down with the tape what is the punishment out side of the obvious a less then optimal strike?

 

The goal of the 2-tee drill (or any such "gate" drill) is to work up to full-speed.

 

The entire point is to be able to replicate a certain motion at full speed. You're training something physical.

 

But unfortunately with the blade one of two (bad) things have to happen. In one case you have to practice with a club you don't normally use which can only be bad. In the other case with someone who uses blades all the time they never get a respite from the "drill."

 

I can remove my tees/gate when I go play. The guy who's practicing with blades can go to something more forgiving when he plays a real round. The guys who's forcing himself to hit blades out on the course, well, he's locked in.

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> >

> > No, definitely not more deliberate. I start off with 3/4 swings with arms real connected, but after a few I'm ripping it full tilt

>

> In any situation where a player wasn't forced to deliberately do something more "proper" I would argue that the player who's "ripping it" with a blade is merely working on timing which in the end doesn't really make you better. That's just beating balls. As a good player you know that. Beating balls with a blade is still beating balls.

>

> But that's why you don't start out "ripping it." As you clearly state, you start off in what sounds like a deliberate fashion ingraining a certain feel.

>

> In your case where you seem to be working on connection, I would say you are deliberately doing that.

>

> Swinging deliberately in this case doesn't mean not giving it your full power. The entire goal of me 2-tee drill is to be able to swing at full speed and not hit the tees, right?

>

> But I bet you anything that on your first couple of swings with that blade when you're deliberately trying to focus on connection you are swinging in good rhythm and not trying to overpower it.

>

> That sounds like a deliberate practice to me. Again, I don't think we're talking about 2 different things here.

 

I almost always start my warm-up or practice session trying to feel "connection" first. Doesn't matter what club I'm using. It's not "more deliberate" when I'm practicing with a blade.

 

Now, at any given time a may need work on my take-away, pivot, transition, etc., but again...the club used doesnt change that.

 

If you have decent athleticism, proprioception, hand-eye coordination, feel, balance, etc., you usually get better at challenging dynamic actions with repetition. It's the overall dynamic motion and the ability to repeat it. Not different than many athletic endeavors like shooting a ball, skiing, You make subtle, and often subconscious adjustments based on feedback to refine your skill.

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

>

> I almost always start my warm-up or practice session trying to feel "connection" first.

 

Making partial swings trying to "feel" something sounds like the definition of deliberate, haha.

 

Sounds like you're just _equally deliberate_ with blades!

 

[Nard_S]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> 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.

>

>

 

If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

[pinestreetgolf]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > 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.

> >

> >

>

> If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

 

toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

[LowAndLeft32]

What I have found is that it doesn't much matter which club I play. For example, from say 170 yards out, if my path and face angle are not right and I don't hit the center of the face, Im going to miss the green with both a blade and a SGI iron. If I make a bad swing and therefore bad contact, the SGI iron doesn't save me. Therefore, I'm going to be chipping up in order to save par. The net results accumulated over multiple shots and rounds is that my scores are the same. i.e. I still suck with any type club.

 

The other thing that I have notice when practicing with blades is that I feel when I miss the center of the face, which is the idea. But, that feeling doesn't make me change my swing for the better, which sucks. Thus more blade practice does not lead to center face contact on the course. The only way I have found to make better contact and produce the intended shot is to have a better swing on a better swing path and a proper face angle that leads to center face contact and thus the ball goes in the direction and yardage intended.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > 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.

> >

> >

>

> If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

 

I get your analogy which is a good one. I'm just trying to decide whether I agree. It feels right but I'm trying to understand it.

 

If spreading out the mass (i.e. a frying pan) won't drive the nail as far then surely that's evidence of less energy being conveyed into the nail. Yet the kinetic energy of both the hammer and the pan are the same as they come into the nail (assuming the masses and velocities are equal).

 

You're saying the pan will do a worse job of driving the nail as compared to the hammer with it's more concentrated mass.

 

So how do we explain how the nail "knows" what hit it? What's causing less energy transfer if the object (pan or hammer) is struck "flush" such that it isn't twisting & rotate after impact?

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> >

> > I think that is where we are apples and oranges. Think about it, 2 tees what the punishment is? There is a physical obstruction which you are trying to avoid. Isnt it natural to slow down or be more careful?

> >

> > Now using a bladed iron or an Iron thats smaller or an Iron with tape on it. There is no reason to slow down there is no obstruction of punishment, You either hit center or you dont. But again your tee argument you place obstructions that cause a different mental and possible physical reaction no?

> >

> > I ask you to try and mentally see if there is a difference? 2 tees vs putting tape on your iron.. why would you slow down with the tape what is the punishment out side of the obvious a less then optimal strike?

>

> The goal of the 2-tee drill (or any such "gate" drill) is to work up to full-speed.

>

> The entire point is to be able to replicate a certain motion at full speed. You're training something physical.

>

> But unfortunately with the blade one of two (bad) things have to happen. In one case you have to practice with a club you don't normally use which can only be bad. In the other case with someone who uses blades all the time they never get a respite from the "drill."

>

> I can remove my tees/gate when I go play. The guy who's practicing with blades can go to something more forgiving when he plays a real round. The guys who's forcing himself to hit blades out on the course, well, he's locked in.

 

So I am in no way arguing your point of your tee their is likely as you stated in your other post a finalized objective, You just seem to "respond" better by means of using 2 tees. Others respond better by means of using a blade.... It neither right nor wrong how someone trains to reach the intended purpose no?

 

Someone wants to run the marathon, what is the difference from running on a treadmill building up to 26 miles or just doing road work building up to 26 miles.

While we can debate the time, the impact on the joints, the forces. the end goal is to be able to reach the 26th mile.

 

Same with the point, some find using a blade to train to focus better and get the club at impact at the sweet spot, You are Doing NO less by gate drills right and like you said eventually speeding up to full speed. Most likely a blade user for training, couple of shots are getting warmed up and by the end they are taking full cuts.

 

What I am seeing "our" disconnect is that you may NOT agree with the way people do things (This is not a dig, just my interpretation) So you dont see the value. But in all fairness, I can say the same, why do the gate drill, why not just put tape on the iron use your gamers, right and just focus on sweet spot contact? I think people are just sharing their experiences. RIGHT or Wrong they are just sharing how they reached the level they are currently at. As we can see you reached single digit one way, I reached single digit another and another reached single digit a different way, BUT we all reached single digit in our career so neither is right nor wrong...

[dpb5031]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> >

> > I almost always start my warm-up or practice session trying to feel "connection" first.

>

> Making partial swings trying to "feel" something sounds like the definition of deliberate, haha.

>

> Sounds like you're just _equally deliberate_ with blades!

 

Im not sure I understand your point? Seems again like you're ignoring the overall context of our discussion?

[IamMarkMac]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> >

> > > 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.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

>

> I get your analogy which is a good one. I'm just trying to decide whether I agree. It feels right but I'm trying to understand it.

>

> If spreading out the mass (i.e. a frying pan) won't drive the nail as far then surely that's evidence of less energy being conveyed into the nail. Yet the kinetic energy of both the hammer and the pan are the same as they come into the nail (assuming the masses and velocities are equal).

>

> You're saying the pan will do a worse job of driving the nail as compared to the hammer with it's more concentrated mass.

>

> So how do we explain how the nail "knows" what hit it? What's causing less energy transfer if the object (pan or hammer) is struck "flush" such that it isn't twisting & rotate after impact?

 

The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

>

> So I am in no way arguing your point of your tee their is likely as you stated in your other post an finalized object, You just seem to "respond" better by means of using a 2 tees. Others respond better by means of using a blade.... It neither right nor wrong how someone trains to reach the intended purpose no?

>

> Someone wants to run the marathon, what is the difference from running on a treadmill building up to 26 miles or just doing road work building up to 26 miles.

> While we can debate the time, the impact on the joints, the forces. the end goal is to be able to reach the 26th mile.

>

 

You're missing the point here. Both the gate drill and the blade drill create artificially-difficult conditions for practice.

 

But why would an average golfer who wasn't a pro-level player want to keep those artificially-difficult conditions when they went out to play?

 

That part doesn't make sense.

[MelloYello]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> >

> > I get your analogy which is a good one. I'm just trying to decide whether I agree. It feels right but I'm trying to understand it.

> >

> > If spreading out the mass (i.e. a frying pan) won't drive the nail as far then surely that's evidence of less energy being conveyed into the nail. Yet the kinetic energy of both the hammer and the pan are the same as they come into the nail (assuming the masses and velocities are equal).

> >

> > You're saying the pan will do a worse job of driving the nail as compared to the hammer with it's more concentrated mass.

> >

> > So how do we explain how the nail "knows" what hit it? What's causing less energy transfer if the object (pan or hammer) is struck "flush" such that it isn't twisting & rotate after impact?

>

> The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

 

LOL...and that's why we use the pan kids.

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > >

> > > I almost always start my warm-up or practice session trying to feel "connection" first.

> >

> > Making partial swings trying to "feel" something sounds like the definition of deliberate, haha.

> >

> > Sounds like you're just _equally deliberate_ with blades!

>

> I'm not sure I understand your point? Seems again like you're ignoring the overall context of our discussion?

 

Not sure how we got back on this TBH, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I think you're deliberate in your practice goals just like I am. I think that's _good_. Maybe you don't, IDK. Beyond that, I really don't know where we're going with this.

[dpb5031]

@MelloYello , I have claimed that practicing with a blade has been beneficial, and I've explained why. You have disagreed from the early pages of this thread and challenged the premise repeatedly. Youve been presented with the smaller basketball hoop analogy, the mini holes on a putting green example, the Tour Striker example, going from long straight skis to shorter modern "shaped skis, etc., etc. This is not a revolutionary concept.

 

You've argued, "why practice with tools that are different than what you play?" It's been explained "why" ad nauseam. Doesnt mean you also dont practice with your regular clubs...lol!

 

So again, what is your point? Beyond the fact that you simply disagree, ya lost me...

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> >

> > So I am in no way arguing your point of your tee their is likely as you stated in your other post an finalized object, You just seem to "respond" better by means of using a 2 tees. Others respond better by means of using a blade.... It neither right nor wrong how someone trains to reach the intended purpose no?

> >

> > Someone wants to run the marathon, what is the difference from running on a treadmill building up to 26 miles or just doing road work building up to 26 miles.

> > While we can debate the time, the impact on the joints, the forces. the end goal is to be able to reach the 26th mile.

> >

>

> You're missing the point here. Both the gate drill and the blade drill create artificially-difficult conditions for practice.

>

> But why would an average golfer who wasn't a pro-level player want to keep those artificially-difficult conditions when they went out to play?

>

> That part doesn't make sense.

 

Because they may "feel" that for a blade in a round FORCES them to maintain the focus. Remember the post to Stuart, I stated the maybe the CB's provide a sense of comfort or laziness? Some people may feel they need that artificial difficulty to maintain it during the round.

 

So while it does NOT make sense to you, it makes sense to them.

 

[cliffhanger]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Exactice808 said:

> > >

> > > I think that is where we are apples and oranges. Think about it, 2 tees what the punishment is? There is a physical obstruction which you are trying to avoid. Isnt it natural to slow down or be more careful?

> > >

> > > Now using a bladed iron or an Iron thats smaller or an Iron with tape on it. There is no reason to slow down there is no obstruction of punishment, You either hit center or you dont. But again your tee argument you place obstructions that cause a different mental and possible physical reaction no?

> > >

> > > I ask you to try and mentally see if there is a difference? 2 tees vs putting tape on your iron.. why would you slow down with the tape what is the punishment out side of the obvious a less then optimal strike?

> >

> > The goal of the 2-tee drill (or any such "gate" drill) is to work up to full-speed.

> >

> > The entire point is to be able to replicate a certain motion at full speed. You're training something physical.

> >

> > But unfortunately with the blade one of two (bad) things have to happen. In one case you have to practice with a club you don't normally use which can only be bad. In the other case with someone who uses blades all the time they never get a respite from the "drill."

> >

> > I can remove my tees/gate when I go play. The guy who's practicing with blades can go to something more forgiving when he plays a real round. The guys who's forcing himself to hit blades out on the course, well, he's locked in.

>

> So I am in no way arguing your point of your tee their is likely as you stated in your other post a finalized objective, You just seem to "respond" better by means of using 2 tees. Others respond better by means of using a blade.... It neither right nor wrong how someone trains to reach the intended purpose no?

>

> **Someone wants to run the marathon, what is the difference from running on a treadmill building up to 26 miles or just doing road work building up to 26 miles.

> While we can debate the time, the impact on the joints, the forces. the end goal is to be able to reach the 26th mile.

**>

> Same with the point, some find using a blade to train to focus better and get the club at impact at the sweet spot, You are Doing NO less by gate drills right and like you said eventually speeding up to full speed. Most likely a blade user for training, couple of shots are getting warmed up and by the end they are taking full cuts.

>

> What I am seeing "our" disconnect is that you may NOT agree with the way people do things (This is not a dig, just my interpretation) So you dont see the value. But in all fairness, I can say the same, why do the gate drill, why not just put tape on the iron use your gamers, right and just focus on sweet spot contact? I think people are just sharing their experiences. RIGHT or Wrong they are just sharing how they reached the level they are currently at. As we can see you reached single digit one way, I reached single digit another and another reached single digit a different way, BUT we all reached single digit in our career so neither is right nor wrong...

There is a large difference in running any distance on a bouncy and forgiving treadmill compared to running on a hard non forgiving outdoor surface like pavement or concrete... I have gone through this myself and it is widely documented by serious runners... with that said... if it is easier to run on a treadmill (which it is), then why do so many people continue to run outside? Why would I put in more effort to run the same distance? Probably for the same reason that a golfer would try a club (in either practice or play) that in relative terms should be harder to hit instead of using the default easier one... because there is increased benefit to it.

However for those that continue to run indoors and only see the negative side of running outdoors, that's ok too. Its fine to not want to make things harder for yourself. This relates directly to this whole conversation. Some people need hard to improve, and some don't... again there really isn't any absolute here, its all about preference and what motivates you.

 

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> >

> > I think that is where we are apples and oranges. Think about it, 2 tees what the punishment is? There is a physical obstruction which you are trying to avoid. Isnt it natural to slow down or be more careful?

> >

> > Now using a bladed iron or an Iron thats smaller or an Iron with tape on it. There is no reason to slow down there is no obstruction of punishment, You either hit center or you dont. But again your tee argument you place obstructions that cause a different mental and possible physical reaction no?

> >

> > I ask you to try and mentally see if there is a difference? 2 tees vs putting tape on your iron.. why would you slow down with the tape what is the punishment out side of the obvious a less then optimal strike?

>

> The goal of the 2-tee drill (or any such "gate" drill) is to work up to full-speed.

>

> The entire point is to be able to replicate a certain motion at full speed. You're training something physical.

>

> But unfortunately with the blade one of two (bad) things have to happen. In one case you have to practice with a club you don't normally use which can only be bad. In the other case with someone who uses blades all the time they never get a respite from the "drill."

>

> I can remove my tees/gate when I go play. The guy who's practicing with blades can go to something more forgiving when he plays a real round. The guys who's forcing himself to hit blades out on the course, well, he's locked in.

 

The phrase you are looking for is ‘dialled in’ not ‘locked in.’ ;-)

[Exactice808]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @Exactice808 said:

> > > >

> > > > I think that is where we are apples and oranges. Think about it, 2 tees what the punishment is? There is a physical obstruction which you are trying to avoid. Isnt it natural to slow down or be more careful?

> > > >

> > > > Now using a bladed iron or an Iron thats smaller or an Iron with tape on it. There is no reason to slow down there is no obstruction of punishment, You either hit center or you dont. But again your tee argument you place obstructions that cause a different mental and possible physical reaction no?

> > > >

> > > > I ask you to try and mentally see if there is a difference? 2 tees vs putting tape on your iron.. why would you slow down with the tape what is the punishment out side of the obvious a less then optimal strike?

> > >

> > > The goal of the 2-tee drill (or any such "gate" drill) is to work up to full-speed.

> > >

> > > The entire point is to be able to replicate a certain motion at full speed. You're training something physical.

> > >

> > > But unfortunately with the blade one of two (bad) things have to happen. In one case you have to practice with a club you don't normally use which can only be bad. In the other case with someone who uses blades all the time they never get a respite from the "drill."

> > >

> > > I can remove my tees/gate when I go play. The guy who's practicing with blades can go to something more forgiving when he plays a real round. The guys who's forcing himself to hit blades out on the course, well, he's locked in.

> >

> > So I am in no way arguing your point of your tee their is likely as you stated in your other post a finalized objective, You just seem to "respond" better by means of using 2 tees. Others respond better by means of using a blade.... It neither right nor wrong how someone trains to reach the intended purpose no?

> >

> > **Someone wants to run the marathon, what is the difference from running on a treadmill building up to 26 miles or just doing road work building up to 26 miles.

> > While we can debate the time, the impact on the joints, the forces. the end goal is to be able to reach the 26th mile.

> **>

> > Same with the point, some find using a blade to train to focus better and get the club at impact at the sweet spot, You are Doing NO less by gate drills right and like you said eventually speeding up to full speed. Most likely a blade user for training, couple of shots are getting warmed up and by the end they are taking full cuts.

> >

> > What I am seeing "our" disconnect is that you may NOT agree with the way people do things (This is not a dig, just my interpretation) So you dont see the value. But in all fairness, I can say the same, why do the gate drill, why not just put tape on the iron use your gamers, right and just focus on sweet spot contact? I think people are just sharing their experiences. RIGHT or Wrong they are just sharing how they reached the level they are currently at. As we can see you reached single digit one way, I reached single digit another and another reached single digit a different way, BUT we all reached single digit in our career so neither is right nor wrong...

> There is a large difference in running any distance on a bouncy and forgiving treadmill compared to running on a hard non forgiving outdoor surface like pavement or concrete... I have gone through this myself and it is widely documented by serious runners... with that said... if it is easier to run on a treadmill (which it is), then why do so many people continue to run outside? Why would I put in more effort to run the same distance? Probably for the same reason that a golfer would try a club (in either practice or play) that in relative terms should be harder to hit instead of using the default easier one... because there is increased benefit to it.

> However for those that continue to run indoors and only see the negative side of running outdoors, that's ok too. Its fine to not want to make things harder for yourself. This relates directly to this whole conversation. Some people need hard to improve, and some don't... again there really isn't any absolute here, its all about preference and what motivates you.

>

 

DDDAAAGGGG NAMIT Cliff..... I said not to discuss it, I Know there is a legit difference... the point being is trying to run 26 miles!!! AHAHAHAHA You Jerk!!!!!!!!

J/k

 

Yups "different strokes for different folks" People respond better to different options. Why do we have cars with different colors.... why not all white, or black or green or purple polka dots.....

 

"YOUR way" is not the only way...... HENCE this crazy thread to begin with..... NOT ALL High handicappers can play SGI's nor MB's. NOT all scratch and single digits can play MB's but maybe SGI's there is NO RULE set by the player just manufacturers and those that want to follow the manufacture's recommended specifications.... You know that change oil 3,000 miles or 3months which ever comes first... yeah kiss my behind... Ill change it when I am good and ready LOL!!!!!!

[bladehunter]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> >

> > > 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.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

>

> toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

 

Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

[bladehunter]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> >

> > I get your analogy which is a good one. I'm just trying to decide whether I agree. It feels right but I'm trying to understand it.

> >

> > If spreading out the mass (i.e. a frying pan) won't drive the nail as far then surely that's evidence of less energy being conveyed into the nail. Yet the kinetic energy of both the hammer and the pan are the same as they come into the nail (assuming the masses and velocities are equal).

> >

> > You're saying the pan will do a worse job of driving the nail as compared to the hammer with it's more concentrated mass.

> >

> > So how do we explain how the nail "knows" what hit it? What's causing less energy transfer if the object (pan or hammer) is struck "flush" such that it isn't twisting & rotate after impact?

>

> The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

 

That would be the whiff that we all agreed never happens. Not with anyone reasonably able to swing a club and break 100. Same way nobody who frames houses misses a nail altogether.

[pinestreetgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> >

> > toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

>

> Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

 

No, that is only true if both heads have identical mass.

[bladehunter]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> > >

> > > toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

> >

> > Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

>

> No, that is only true if both heads have identical mass.

 

Huh ? I thought we assumed the pan weighed same as the hammer. But the weight is spread out. It’s going to lose energy on impact. Easily proven. Setup some nails and hammer away. Guaranteed you can come up with a equal weight cast iron pan and hammer. Even if you had to grind a little off the hammer.

[jpdx]

So the real question is this: should I take my cb clubs, my blades or combo them on my trip tomorrow for 8 rounds????? Help!!!! Haha

[puttingmatt]

> @jpdx said:

> So the real question is this: should I take my cb clubs, my blades or combo them on my trip tomorrow for 8 rounds????? Help!!!! Haha

 

Are your clubs designed for your handicap range?

If so, then yes ,take em

[Nard_S]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> > >

> > > toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

> >

> > Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

>

> No, that is only true if both heads have identical mass.

 

And we are assuming CB's are heavier? That's a rich generality to make. It's really the opposite.

 

I can say I've played PCB 's for many years and MB's for plenty, all with same loft configuration and not in one instance were the CB's longer on a solid shot. Toe shot? Sure, Thin? Yes but not all blades are terrible on thin shots. Well struck? Blades win hands down.

 

 

[nostatic]

There seem to be about 15 different arguments all flying in different directions. Need to make a scorecard to keep track of the game...

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> > > >

> > > > toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

> > >

> > > Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

> >

> > No, that is only true if both heads have identical mass.

>

> Huh ? I thought we assumed the pan weighed same as the hammer. But the weight is spread out. It’s going to lose energy on impact. Easily proven. Setup some nails and hammer away. Guaranteed you can come up with a equal weight cast iron pan and hammer. Even if you had to grind a little off the hammer.

 

Right, that was my whole point. There is no rule that golf club heads have to weigh the same as each other. So the hammer / frying pan analogy doesn't work. The analysis of focusing force through a small vector (or point, whatever) doesn't apply if the two have unequal mass - one could easily be heavier at the edges and equal in the middle.

[pinestreetgolf]

> I can say I've played PCB 's for many years and MB's for plenty, all with same loft configuration and not in one instance were the CB's longer on a solid shot. Toe shot? Sure, Thin? Yes but not all blades are terrible on thin shots. Well struck? Blades win hands down.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I was posting to refute the conclusion the other gentleman drew from the Ping article that conentration of mass in the center of the club precludes mass on the edge. I have idea which "wins" just that as a theorum his statement requires an assumption (all clubs are the same mass) that we don't have

 

I'm against anyone who says "Club X is better, period." I think it likely that more mass on the edges helps a certain group of golfers and more mass in the middle helps another, but much like food it breaks down with individual taste and result. I could argue until I'm blue in the face that filet mignon is superior to a burger king burger but if you like the burger better I would lose that argument. But that is an issue of taste, not science. I don't like it when people try to stretch / pigeonhole science and scientific articles to prove their taste.

[Exactice808]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you hit a nail with a ball peen hammer or a frying pan with same mass & velocity, which one will drive it better. Force formula is what you say, but physics also involves vectored force. Alignment of mass to impact direction, i.e.. directly behind and inline of it , the closer to that ideal, the better. Trade off is real to me, I'm referring to PCB vs MB anyway, never tried springy face goo nor do I care to. Closest I came was fooling around with an old King Cobra iron. Grand daddy of jacked lofts. I could hit it a mile but could not tell you where it was going, but it was 8* stronger than my irons so big deal.

> > > > >

> > > > > toe-MAY-toe toe-MAH-toe. You can invent "vectored force" I suppose, or you can just refer to the mass as the mass. If the frying pan had as much mass as the hammer directly behind the point of impact it would drive the nail just as well. The object has an effective mass at impact. You can use a vector to figure out the effective mass as it regards the total mass, but assuming velocity is constant its still just another way of expressing mass although potentially a useful one.

> > > >

> > > > Isn’t that the point ? The pan and the larger iron does not and cannot deliver as much mass behind the ball as the hammer . Part of the reason for spring faces is to try to make up for lost force when the weight is moved so far away form impact.

> > >

> > > No, that is only true if both heads have identical mass.

> >

> > Huh ? I thought we assumed the pan weighed same as the hammer. But the weight is spread out. It’s going to lose energy on impact. Easily proven. Setup some nails and hammer away. Guaranteed you can come up with a equal weight cast iron pan and hammer. Even if you had to grind a little off the hammer.

>

> Right, that was my whole point. There is no rule that golf club heads have to weigh the same as each other. So the hammer / frying pan analogy doesn't work. The analysis of focusing force through a small vector (or point, whatever) doesn't apply if the two have unequal mass - one could easily be heavier at the edges and equal in the middle.

 

Wait so are you imply though likely obvious, that SGI/GI's potentially have the same Mass on the sweet spot as an MB? I honestly find that hard to believe, I Would like to edify that (Dr Google here I come)

 

While I agree.. NO head is the same wait all clubs go in ascending weight as I already stated this as I have measured no less then 3 sets of varying models (GI vs 2 blade sets)

 

AP2 7 iron with X100 weighs 442grams

Nike Forged Blades w/x100 weighs 448grams

Cobra Amp Cell Pros with PX6.0 weighs 442grams

AP2 7 with 1150GH weighs 432 grams

 

The belief that the SAME amount of mass exist behind an SGI or GI as an MB seems relatively low?

 

AP2 & Nike Blades weigh within 6 grams same shaft,

Amp Cell Pro & AP2 with 120vs 115 grams shafts have a difference of 10grams.

We can assume with little data that the AP2's in general are a lighter head.

How can a lighter head, have the same centered mass when its designed to move discretionary weight outwards.

 

Now imagine pocket cavity clubs, and slot clubs and cup face... I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe club for club descending weight by club that an Cavity back would have the SAME amount of mass behind the sweet spot as an MB.