My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[mahonie]

> @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.

 

Maltby’s Playability Factor charts all show the weight of every clubhead tested. Give or take a couple of grams they are all pretty much the same. As I posted earlier using Ping as the current theme of the topic, the S55 is in fact a few grams heavier than the G30 but on the whole clubhead weights are pretty standard. So the hammer/frying pan analogy does absolutely work.

 

[Exactice808]

Dr Google.

6 iron head weights

http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/titleist/

http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/taylormade/

http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/

 

Im seeing a very odd consistency, Most MB offerings are the heavier of the Cavity back head offering

 

http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/taylormade/

Blade P730 - 265.9 grams

SGI - M2 - 252.7 grams

Players CB - P790 -263.6 grams

Players GI - P750 - 255.6 grams

 

http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/titleist/

 

Blade MB Forged - 261.5 grams

SGI - AP1 - 257.7 grams

Players CB - CB -259.8 grams

Players GI - AP2 - 259.3 grams

 

my spider sense not calculating........ how a CB is a CB but potentially has the same MASS behind the sweet spot as an MB..... yeah not looking good

[Exactice808]

> @mahonie said:

 

> Maltby’s Playability Factor charts all show the weight of every clubhead tested. Give or take a couple of grams they are all pretty much the same. As I posted earlier using Ping as the current theme of the topic, the S55 is in fact a few grams heavier than the G30 but on the whole clubhead weights are pretty standard. So the hammer/frying pan analogy does absolutely work.

>

Yups yups and yups.......

 

[Stuart_G]

> @Exactice808 said:

> my spider sense not calculating........ how a CB is a CB but potentially has the same MASS behind the sweet spot as an MB..... yeah not looking good

 

Raw head weights is not really the best basis to use. It's the final head weight in the build that matters. And if you want to compare two properly built clubs for the same individual to compare just the heads then it's safe to assume the same shaft, the same playing length, the same grip, and the same swing weight - then the head weights will pretty much end up with negligible differences. So a difference in mass really isn't really going to be a valid basis for any argument (assuming proper builds).

 

 

[Stuart_G]

> @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.

 

There are actually a lot of other reasons the hammer / frying pan analogy doesn't work. The frying pan blocks the swingers view of the nail - that makes it much harder to actually hit the frying pan with the nail in line with the c.g. of the frying pan - which means it's much easier for some energy to be lost and go into rotating the frying pan instead of into moving the nail. Also, the hammer/frying pan hitting a nail uses a MUCH smaller radius for the swing. So in that case, the difference in mass distribution can have a potential effect on the total energy of the object BEFORE impact. e.g. most of the mass of the hammer is moving at a similar velocity while there is a big difference in the velocity across the mass of the frying pan pre-impact. Which can also effect the amount of velocity that can be created (not even bringing in air resistance differences).

 

IF you could set up a robot or mechanism to swing the frying pan and hammer - both to get perfect in line impact and at the same uniform velocity (through the entire hammer or frying pan - not just the same velocity at the impact point) - then the hammer is not really going to be any more effective than the cast iron frying pan.

 

For off center hits, mass distribution (specifically MOI) definitely matters, for purely linear force transfer it doesn't matter for solid body mechanics. Only when that solid body starts to get a "significant" amount of elasticity or deformation will mass distribution start to matter - as well as the structural strength. The potential contribution of the shaft's mass to impact in the golf swing is a perfect example of when that elasticity and structural strength makes a BIG difference.

 

For anyone who doubts that or doesn't believe it - here is a challenge. Go find one equation used in Newtonian dynamics that shows a dependence on the mass distribution for a perfectly in-line hit/impact (no resulting rotational components).

[boggyman]

Several in our weekly group play TM M CGB irons now. I tried one Monday on a par three, 142 to the pin, flag tucked directly behind the bunker. Hit what I “thought” was good. Looked at club face, highly obvious it was toe struck, and short, so all that packed tech didn’t help me there! Needless to say, it was in the bunker. 8 iron is easily 145 all day under normal conditions for me which it was that day. Played a round with ‘19 Apex last week. I’m a believer in hot spots, jumpers, whatever you’d like to call them after that round. Not opening up no can of worm here but I’m sticking to my ole faithful W/S FG17s and W/S Progressives from here on. I’ll let all you guys keep the debates a going!

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> This is not a revolutionary concept.

 

First off, I have no interest in rehashing this again which is why I was supporting your position over the last several pages. I don't know why you're so touchy about me using your name a few posts ago. Again, I was supporting your position as _legitimate_. You seem to have taken offense at that and now you're punching back at me again. Seems weird to me. I wasn't trying to be critical.

 

If you do want to rehash it then fine, but I thought we settled this awhile back. Anyhow, here goes...

 

No, training aids are definitely _not_ revolutionary. And the measure of a training aid is it's effectiveness.

 

I'm not debating whether something like a Tour Striker is a training aid or whether they work. It is and it does. But IMHO you haven't shown any really compelling reasons why a blade should be seen as a (good) training aid.

 

You're a nice guy so I'll defend your right to use it as a means of adding some sort of challenge to your practice sessions (as I have been doing). Maybe there's something in your swing that makes the blade seem worthwhile to you? Who really knows?

 

What I do know is that in 10 years the blade didn't make me swing _better_ and the hallmark of a training aid is that it should, in theory, apply the same lesson to anyone that uses it. And moreover, that message should be quite clear.

 

So if the blade is teaching _you_ something, then great! But if it isn't teaching everyone else (or they don't get the message) then how can we call it an effective training aid?

 

A Tour Striker is a good training aid because of how clearly and immediately it directly encourages one thing: forward shaft lean. A training aid like that provides clear and immediate instruction to help a golfer feel what's "proper." That data is easy to understand.

 

A blade does not clearly or immediately encourage any physical move. It merely punishes less than perfect impact quality while leaving the player to wonder what it is that he or she ought to do. It's a horribly inefficient tool when used as a training aid _because of how complicated the fixes are when we try and get into swing mechanics_.

 

The Tour Striker teaches a particular feature of the swing through its _exaggerated design_. That's really what makes it a useful training aid.

 

I've never argued that there's no legitimacy to your position. I've only argued that for the vast, vast majority of players it's not the best path.

 

That said, you know my position and I know yours so why are you bringing this up again? It's no problem for me to restate my opinion but it seems pointless when we simply disagree on the effectiveness of the tool in question.

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

>

> 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.

>

 

Everyone has their own set of goalposts inside which they want their club to reside.

 

"I don't want too much offset..."

 

"I want the top-line a little slimmer..."

 

We've all heard that stuff and we've all got our own preferences. There is nothing wrong with that IMO. A club's appearance can absolutely have an effect on how we swing.

 

To cite an example, I briefly switched from MBs to AP2 for a moment before settling on my current CBs. With the AP2 I immediately started hitting the occasional hook. Maybe it was the added offset or something in the weighting that helped turn the face over? Who really knows?

 

If a player feels more comfortable with a smaller club, that's fine by me. Sometimes I stuck with the blade because I felt I could "get under" the ball with the smaller face as crazy as that sounds. It almost felt like I needed to "beat down" on larger club heads. That was all in my head but I certainly understand how those kinds of things can influence a player.

 

But any talk of "focus" or "laziness" has _nothing_ to do with whether or not someone is comfortable with the look or their clubs. Concentration, focus and effort are features of the player. They exist in a totally different chapter, apart from debates about equipment.

 

Any suggestion otherwise is nothing short of _insulting_ to the accomplished players out there who've put in the work to develop high-level performance in those critical areas. It's really just the foolish naivete of the novice player that leads to confusion here.

 

And btw, poor shots are rarely a lack of concentration anyhow. They are a reflection of the inconsistencies in one's golf game. Again, the naivete of the novice attributes a mistake to a lack of effort rather than the natural outcome of an imperfect player. Golf is not a game where you can simply apply more _effort_ to get better shots.

[sdandrea]

> @LowAndLeft32 said:

> 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.

>

>

 

Yes!!! This!! I can hit equally crappy shots with a shovel and a MB. The shovel may go farther, but I still miss the green. I'm kinda hooked on blades (this month).

[dciccoritti]

I'm sensing a questioning of the old stigma. An awakening if you will.

 

 

[dciccoritti]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> 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?

 

Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

 

And if anyone ever came to work with a frying pan, they would be escorted off the property immediately.

 

This in an industry (like many) where time is money and precision matters.

 

[puttingmatt]

> @nostatic said:

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

>

 

Lol's, I know. Noticed handicaps not listed for most, how are we to know

If they are playing the right clubs?

[dubbelbogey]

> @revanant said:

 

> Easiest way to test this for yourself is to find a cheap 6 iron or bargain basement blade set (I.e. ~$50)/something that can be returned, and take them to the range. No real risk, and you’ll have a definitive answer as to what happens when you hit blades. : )

>

But what you'll be told actually be told is that this is not definitive at all.

 

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > 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?

>

> Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

 

I've got an old sheet metal planishing hammer at home that came from my dad's junk tool box. I think it weighs on the order of some of my claw hammers. The head area is something like twice the size of a typical claw hammer. I might give a shot trying to hit some nails with it off center just to see what it's like. Meaningful? Hard to say, but I'm curious enough to try.

 

[Tree Levino]

It's ridiculous how many threads are turning into this now. Seems to be a very hot topic. I've just ordered a set of i210 from global golf to try against my CBs to see if I can increase my GIR again. I'm not scoring as well as I was and I'm creeping back up to a 10 handicap. This is partially due to chipping and putting. I'm also having some weird inconsistencies with my iron distances (could be due to increasing the length of the irons). My guess is that I will see more greens, but only testing will tell. I think anybody who can hit a ball reasonably well could game 8-PW in a bladed club or the rest of the set teed up on par 3s. There's a reason a ton of pros are now using more forgiving clubs in 2-5 iron. It is not by mistake.

[Exactice808]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > my spider sense not calculating........ how a CB is a CB but potentially has the same MASS behind the sweet spot as an MB..... yeah not looking good

>

> Raw head weights is not really the best basis to use. It's the final head weight in the build that matters. And if you want to compare two properly built clubs for the same individual to compare just the heads then it's safe to assume the same shaft, the same playing length, the same grip, and the same swing weight - then the head weights will pretty much end up with negligible differences. So a difference in mass really isn't really going to be a valid basis for any argument (assuming proper builds).

>

>

 

> @Stuart_G said:

 

> There are actually a lot of other reasons the hammer / frying pan analogy doesn't work. The frying pan blocks the swingers view of the nail - that makes it much harder to actually hit the frying pan with the nail in line with the c.g. of the frying pan - which means it's much easier for some energy to be lost and go into rotating the frying pan instead of into moving the nail. Also, the hammer/frying pan hitting a nail uses a MUCH smaller radius for the swing. So in that case, the difference in mass distribution can have a potential effect on the total energy of the object BEFORE impact. e.g. most of the mass of the hammer is moving at a similar velocity while there is a big difference in the velocity across the mass of the frying pan pre-impact. Which can also effect the amount of velocity that can be created (not even bringing in air resistance differences).

>

> IF you could set up a robot or mechanism to swing the frying pan and hammer - both to get perfect in line impact and at the same uniform velocity (through the entire hammer or frying pan - not just the same velocity at the impact point) - then the hammer is not really going to be any more effective than the cast iron frying pan.

>

> For off center hits, mass distribution (specifically MOI) definitely matters, for purely linear force transfer it doesn't matter for solid body mechanics. **_Only when that solid body starts to get a "significant" amount of elasticity or deformation will mass distribution start to matter - as well as the structural strength. _**The potential contribution of the shaft's mass to impact in the golf swing is a perfect example of when that elasticity and structural strength makes a BIG difference.

>

> For anyone who doubts that or doesn't believe it - here is a challenge. Go find one equation used in Newtonian dynamics that shows a dependence on the mass distribution for a perfectly in-line hit/impact (no resulting rotational components).

 

Hey @Stuart_G So I am dumb as rocks and cant hold a candle to the wind in any intellect conversation, so if you could have a dumb down conversation with me.

 

Question 1 - Is there a quantitative difference between an MB and a CB, Center for center sweet spot for sweet spot. Is the MB inherently more precise?

Question 2 - I highlighted your specific statement ' significant amount of elasticity or deformation. What is considered significant? For years the manufacturers have been stating the face flex with "distance irons" Now add in Speed slots, face cup, pocket cavities etc etc. Is that not enough elasticity or deformity to equate to "flex" flex thus created some type of inconsistency?

Question 3 - This just popped in my mind.... IF mass is not significant enough... then is it safe to assume the CB cavity back point is misleading? Because supposedly weight was moved to the perimeter to help retain ball speed, but it must not be significant enough or elastic enough to do so?

 

Anyways.... While it could be "Marketing" all I have been debating recently is based on the podcast that was highlighted here.

 

MB's are more precise

CB's are more forgiving

basic nut shell is there actual truth to this?

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> Everyone has their own set of goalposts inside which they want their club to reside.

>

> "I don't want too much offset..."

>

> "I want the top-line a little slimmer..."

>

> We've all heard that stuff and we've all got our own preferences. There is nothing wrong with that IMO. A club's appearance can absolutely have an effect on how we swing.

>

> To cite an example, I briefly switched from MBs to AP2 for a moment before settling on my current CBs. With the AP2 I immediately started hitting the occasional hook. Maybe it was the added offset or something in the weighting that helped turn the face over? Who really knows?

>

> If a player feels more comfortable with a smaller club, that's fine by me. Sometimes I stuck with the blade because I felt I could "get under" the ball with the smaller face as crazy as that sounds. It almost felt like I needed to "beat down" on larger club heads. That was all in my head but I certainly understand how those kinds of things can influence a player.

>

> But any talk of "focus" or "laziness" has _nothing_ to do with whether or not someone is comfortable with the look or their clubs. Concentration, focus and effort are features of the player. They exist in a totally different chapter, apart from debates about equipment.

>

> Any suggestion otherwise is nothing short of _insulting_ to the accomplished players out there who've put in the work to develop high-level performance in those critical areas. It's really just the foolish naivete of the novice player that leads to confusion here.

>

> And btw, poor shots are rarely a lack of concentration anyhow. They are a reflection of the inconsistencies in one's golf game. Again, the naivete of the novice attributes a mistake to a lack of effort rather than the natural outcome of an imperfect player. Golf is not a game where you can simply apply more _effort_ to get better shots.

 

Odd there is a consistency..... I hook my AP2 more than my blades.. Yikes.

 

OK so you understand the psychological aspect you stated it your self that blades make you feel you could get under the ball its a head thing right.

This same "Feelings" are what motivates people in the form of practice and intent.

Focus and laziness is EXACTLY above.... Again 2 simple stigmas.

Cavity backs are more forgiving.

Blades are more punishing.

 

Just those 2 stigmas does it NOT change a persons inherent psychology?

 

Any suggestion is insulting? I disagree I think its helpful to those that THINK its only the club or ONLY a club can help their game. As for accomplished player we are NOT talking about accomplished player so dont move the goal post when its convenient (sorry I know that sounds antagonistic, but please dont take it that way).

 

Misses, are a reflection of ones inconsistencies.. 100% agreed!!!!! How do we fix inconsistencies? Practice. Again it seems what you dont agree with is wrong. People are different from you.

 

I 100% disgree with your last statement, Golf IS a game where you apply more effort to get better shots. I am a product of that... Let me say this.... Again at one point you and I had the same Handicap no? Single digit... How you got there seems to be very different how I got there. How I got there. I beat balls to no end.... I practice and hit and failed until I found something that worked.... guess what? It left me due to reduced practice, Then I did it again (beat balls) and guess what game its coming back.

 

I bet that more EFFORT by people would likely help their game rather than "BUY" CB's or a more forgiving club. THEY are trying to Buy handicap rather then put effort, part of golf is PRACTICE. TW is all over the net saying he has hit MILLIONS of golf balls. He isnt the GOAT because he picked a club and became a 15 time major champion in one day.... he has natural talent AND effort.

 

Effort and Practice is 100% the reason why he is where he is..... Now the one caveat as you have said it and I acknowldege. FOCUSED and INTENT-FULL effort is key.

 

Anyways I hope you receive this as respectfully as possible as your post have been Excellent lately and I truly enjoy the discussion so I hope it does NOT devolve here because we disagree.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > This is not a revolutionary concept.

>

> First off, I have no interest in rehashing this again which is why I was supporting your position over the last several pages. I don't know why you're so touchy about me using your name a few posts ago. Again, I was supporting your position as _legitimate_. You seem to have taken offense at that and now you're punching back at me again. Seems weird to me. I wasn't trying to be critical.

>

> If you do want to rehash it then fine, but I thought we settled this awhile back. Anyhow, here goes...

>

> No, training aids are definitely _not_ revolutionary. And the measure of a training aid is it's effectiveness.

>

> I'm not debating whether something like a Tour Striker is a training aid or whether they work. It is and it does. But IMHO you haven't shown any really compelling reasons why a blade should be seen as a (good) training aid.

>

> You're a nice guy so I'll defend your right to use it as a means of adding some sort of challenge to your practice sessions (as I have been doing). Maybe there's something in your swing that makes the blade seem worthwhile to you? Who really knows?

>

> What I do know is that in 10 years the blade didn't make me swing _better_ and the hallmark of a training aid is that it should, in theory, apply the same lesson to anyone that uses it. And moreover, that message should be quite clear.

>

> So if the blade is teaching _you_ something, then great! But if it isn't teaching everyone else (or they don't get the message) then how can we call it an effective training aid?

>

> A Tour Striker is a good training aid because of how clearly and immediately it directly encourages one thing: forward shaft lean. A training aid like that provides clear and immediate instruction to help a golfer feel what's "proper." That data is easy to understand.

>

> A blade does not clearly or immediately encourage any physical move. It merely punishes less than perfect impact quality while leaving the player to wonder what it is that he or she ought to do. It's a horribly inefficient tool when used as a training aid _because of how complicated the fixes are when we try and get into swing mechanics_.

>

> The Tour Striker teaches a particular feature of the swing through its _exaggerated design_. That's really what makes it a useful training aid.

>

> I've never argued that there's no legitimacy to your position. I've only argued that for the vast, vast majority of players it's not the best path.

>

> That said, you know my position and I know yours so why are you bringing this up again? It's no problem for me to restate my opinion but it seems pointless when we simply disagree on the effectiveness of the tool in question.

 

Disagree. A narrow low bounce sole does encourage ( or require) a wide attack that gets ball first. You can’t hide. I like to call it shallow attack. But it’s really not shallow it’s just not steep.

[bladehunter]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> > @revanant said:

>

> > Easiest way to test this for yourself is to find a cheap 6 iron or bargain basement blade set (I.e. ~$50)/something that can be returned, and take them to the range. No real risk, and you’ll have a definitive answer as to what happens when you hit blades. : )

> >

> But what you'll be told actually be told is that this is not definitive at all.

>

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > 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?

> >

> > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

>

> I've got an old sheet metal planishing hammer at home that came from my dad's junk tool box. I think it weighs on the order of some of my claw hammers. The head area is something like twice the size of a typical claw hammer. I might give a shot trying to hit some nails with it off center just to see what it's like. Meaningful? Hard to say, but I'm curious enough to try.

>

 

 

I’m a metal worker / fabricator etc by trade. I have many body hammers. Most weigh the same and feel the same in hand. But. Some have big 2-3 inch pie pan heads. Some pick ends and some oval shaped hooking ends. Some stretch metal Some shrink metal. You can take a big flat faced shaping hammer and hit sheet metal and work high spots down without adding more dents. Don’t try that with a pick hammer. Why ? Concentrated mass. It’s going to dent the sheet metal every time it strikes. You actually use it to make tiny dents with some heat applied to shrink a big dent down to a flat spot. This is why I laugh. I work with transfer of energy every single day. Spread the mass out and it will transfer less to a localized center point , every time.

[MelloYello]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

>

> > Everyone has their own set of goalposts inside which they want their club to reside.

> >

> > "I don't want too much offset..."

> >

> > "I want the top-line a little slimmer..."

> >

> > We've all heard that stuff and we've all got our own preferences. There is nothing wrong with that IMO. A club's appearance can absolutely have an effect on how we swing.

> >

> > To cite an example, I briefly switched from MBs to AP2 for a moment before settling on my current CBs. With the AP2 I immediately started hitting the occasional hook. Maybe it was the added offset or something in the weighting that helped turn the face over? Who really knows?

> >

> > If a player feels more comfortable with a smaller club, that's fine by me. Sometimes I stuck with the blade because I felt I could "get under" the ball with the smaller face as crazy as that sounds. It almost felt like I needed to "beat down" on larger club heads. That was all in my head but I certainly understand how those kinds of things can influence a player.

> >

> > But any talk of "focus" or "laziness" has _nothing_ to do with whether or not someone is comfortable with the look or their clubs. Concentration, focus and effort are features of the player. They exist in a totally different chapter, apart from debates about equipment.

> >

> > Any suggestion otherwise is nothing short of _insulting_ to the accomplished players out there who've put in the work to develop high-level performance in those critical areas. It's really just the foolish naivete of the novice player that leads to confusion here.

> >

> > And btw, poor shots are rarely a lack of concentration anyhow. They are a reflection of the inconsistencies in one's golf game. Again, the naivete of the novice attributes a mistake to a lack of effort rather than the natural outcome of an imperfect player. Golf is not a game where you can simply apply more _effort_ to get better shots.

>

> Odd there is a consistency..... I hook my AP2 more than my blades.. Yikes.

>

> OK so you understand the psychological aspect you stated it your self that blades make you feel you could get under the ball its a head thing right.

> This same "Feelings" are what motivates people in the form of practice and intent.

> Focus and laziness is EXACTLY above.... Again 2 simple stigmas.

> Cavity backs are more forgiving.

> Blades are more punishing.

>

> Just those 2 stigmas does it NOT change a persons inherent psychology?

>

> Any suggestion is insulting? I disagree I think its helpful to those that THINK its only the club or ONLY a club can help their game. As for accomplished player we are NOT talking about accomplished player so dont move the goal post when its convenient (sorry I know that sounds antagonistic, but please dont take it that way).

>

> Misses, are a reflection of ones inconsistencies.. 100% agreed!!!!! How do we fix inconsistencies? Practice. Again it seems what you dont agree with is wrong. People are different from you.

>

> I 100% disgree with your last statement, Golf IS a game where you apply more effort to get better shots. I am a product of that... Let me say this.... Again at one point you and I had the same Handicap no? Single digit... How you got there seems to be very different how I got there. How I got there. I beat balls to no end.... I practice and hit and failed until I found something that worked.... guess what? It left me due to reduced practice, Then I did it again (beat balls) and guess what game its coming back.

>

> I bet that more EFFORT by people would likely help their game rather than "BUY" CB's or a more forgiving club. THEY are trying to Buy handicap rather then put effort, part of golf is PRACTICE. TW is all over the net saying he has hit MILLIONS of golf balls. He isnt the GOAT because he picked a club and became a 15 time major champion in one day.... he has natural talent AND effort.

>

> Effort and Practice is 100% the reason why he is where he is..... Now the one caveat as you have said it and I acknowldege. FOCUSED and INTENT-FULL effort is key.

>

> Anyways I hope you receive this as respectfully as possible as your post have been Excellent lately and I truly enjoy the discussion so I hope it does NOT devolve here because we disagree.

>

>

 

I don't mind conversing but I don't want to _debate_ something that isn't clear. I'm trying to explain something very particular here. If it's not clear, I can only restate my original point again and again. But I need you to understand it first.

 

Here is the gist of it again:

 

Being most comfortable looking down at a certain type of club is one thing. Having the discipline to focus on each and every shot during a 4-hour round is another altogether different skill that has nothing to do with equipment.

 

Being able to concentrate is part of what makes a good player.

 

So when you talk about how a player might lose focus or get lazy, that's just mental fortitude. That's not anything to do with whether he's comfortable with a given type of golf club.

 

Good players do not conflate those two concepts. The mental game is a huge part of golf. We'll all be working at that for long after we're "properly fit" to whatever clubs we most like.

 

A golfer can go purchase an entire bag of clubs that fit his eye. I implore folks to do just that. But his mental game really won't have changed much if at all.

 

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> > @revanant said:

>

> > Easiest way to test this for yourself is to find a cheap 6 iron or bargain basement blade set (I.e. ~$50)/something that can be returned, and take them to the range. No real risk, and you’ll have a definitive answer as to what happens when you hit blades. : )

> >

> But what you'll be told actually be told is that this is not definitive at all.

>

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > 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?

> >

> > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

>

> I've got an old sheet metal planishing hammer at home that came from my dad's junk tool box. I think it weighs on the order of some of my claw hammers. The head area is something like twice the size of a typical claw hammer. I might give a shot trying to hit some nails with it off center just to see what it's like. Meaningful? Hard to say, but I'm curious enough to try.

>

Yes by all means, you should try that hammer because there are always exceptions and even though a ball peen hammer works for another person, it doesn’t mean you should be scared to try another hammer (or pan) nor should you feel you need to start with a ball peen hammer by default. Hammer with what you like.

 

[MelloYello]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > @revanant said:

> >

> > > Easiest way to test this for yourself is to find a cheap 6 iron or bargain basement blade set (I.e. ~$50)/something that can be returned, and take them to the range. No real risk, and you’ll have a definitive answer as to what happens when you hit blades. : )

> > >

> > But what you'll be told actually be told is that this is not definitive at all.

> >

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > > 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?

> > >

> > > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

> >

> > I've got an old sheet metal planishing hammer at home that came from my dad's junk tool box. I think it weighs on the order of some of my claw hammers. The head area is something like twice the size of a typical claw hammer. I might give a shot trying to hit some nails with it off center just to see what it's like. Meaningful? Hard to say, but I'm curious enough to try.

> >

> Yes by all means, you should try that hammer because there are always exceptions and even though a ball peen hammer works for another person, it doesn’t mean you should be scared to try another hammer (or pan) nor should you feel you need to start with a ball peen hammer by default. Hammer with what you like.

>

 

Well...I mean...definitely go get fitted first, right?

 

It might be something simple. I heard Butch Harmon say that a thicker grip can improve power, accuracy and consistency.

 

[nostatic]

That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

[MelloYello]

> @nostatic said:

> That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

 

Don't waste your money...the new models will be out in another few months.

[nostatic]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

>

> Don't waste your money...the new models will be out in another few months.

 

Maybe. I didn’t see any interesting ones at the PHA show though...

[IamMarkMac]

> @nostatic said:

> That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

 

That's just marketing. Once you match up shaft length, they perform the same.

[nostatic]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

>

> That's just marketing. Once you match up shaft length, they perform the same.

 

I'm thinking of going with a midsize grip though - it is supposed to keep me from bending my nails to the left.

[MelloYello]

> @IamMarkMac said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

>

> That's just marketing. Once you match up shaft length, they perform the same.

 

Marketing!? Oh, great...now Comrade Mark is going to go off on the capitalist agenda again...here we go!

 

Can't you just let people be free?

 

Freedom man...like how I have all my hammers custom stamped with my initials. Let me guess, I'm just a poser fanboy, right?

[sdandrea]

>

I d> @balls_deep said:

> ......I think anybody who can hit a ball reasonably well could game 8-PW in a bladed club......

 

Yep

[sdandrea]

> @nostatic said:

> That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

 

Swingweight? Lie angle? Pics?

[nostatic]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > @nostatic said:

> > > That settles it - I’m heading to Home Depot to get a Game Improvement hammer...

> >

> > That's just marketing. Once you match up shaft length, they perform the same.

>

> Marketing!? Oh, great...now Comrade Mark is going to go off on the capitalist agenda again...here we go!

>

> Can't you just let people be free?

>

> Freedom man...like how I have all my hammers custom stamped with my initials. Let me guess, I'm just a poser fanboy, right?

 

 

Depends on what color your lettering paint is. Anything other than black or white...well...