My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[gvogel]

> @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.

>

> 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.

>

 

So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

[MelloYello]

> @nostatic said:

> > @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...

 

Don't get jelly.

 

Next you'll be hating on my baby blue ferrules or telling me it's inappropriate to clean my hammer in the kitchen sink after every session.

[nostatic]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @nostatic said:

> > > @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...

>

> Don't get jelly.

>

> Next you'll be hating on my baby blue ferrules or telling me it's inappropriate to clean my hammer in the kitchen sink after every session.

 

I see you've met my ex-wife...

[dciccoritti]

> @gvogel said:

> > @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.

> >

> > 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.

> >

>

> So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

 

My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

 

[Exactice808]

> @MelloYello said:

 

> 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.

>

You are right we are on the same topic discussing it differently.

 

If I understand you correct you are likely continuing on the point that a higher handicap is playing blades during their round. Which they likely should not if they are using it as a practice tool or equipment. The statement that I think you are trying to imply that the Concentration should be regardless of the club in hand? Did I get that right? I 100% agree with you that it SHOULD. But I debate the point that, that is NOT happening. Again I had a factual conversation with a higher handicap that explicitly stated the admit they sculled a shot on the green, BUT because the result was good, they chalked it up and moved on. That will hurt the player continuely down the road. the sculled shot was not necessarily the fault of the club but the golfer. that refuses to address the issue because the "club" likely help turn a pure strike into a decent result?

 

Mental fortitude, IS related to comfort with the club..... That is what I am tying to debate with you. I am not comfortable with looking down to a heavy offset SGI.... I just cannot play with it... Is it mental fortitude to grit my teeth and play with those clubs regardless? Its a mental distraction. it creates doubts, it creates concern, worry and lack of commitment. A club can seemingly do that. take a Full sized 460cc driver vs a 290cc driver... give it to a high handicap, WHAT mental fortitude will the player have. It will affect their came as a whole right? (SORRY again this is the separate conversation from your above)

 

To recap -

in discussion with higher handicaps using a training aid like a blade. for them to take it live on the course (could be a detriment) . For the most part like we agree most high handicappers could benefit from Cavity Backs, but its not universal. Some high hanidcappers can take blades live on the course and for what ever reason it does make them focus more.... Im not making that statement, GolfWRX members over the years have stated.

 

High skilled players are not having this discussion as they know what they have to do. The know if a Blade or a SGI helps them play their best golf. So lets not conflate the conversation =) This my topic and other topics are, High handi's playing Blades and Do you play clubs based on your appropriate handicap.

 

Finally. While the MENTAL focus should be constant that is the obvious. The debate is that it is NOT. Some people factually stated that they need something else to help them push them over the edge. Why did I need to put tape and a dot on my irons if focus is constant I should not need it right? If by Ping's statement/data, high level players should NOT need smaller heads as they should already have razor sharp focus NO?

 

Each persons mental ability/stability is what dictates the ability to play their best golf and if the excuse is they need blades to focus more..... can you doubt that just because it doesnt make sense to you?

 

 

[gvogel]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @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.

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

> >

> > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

>

> My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

>

 

Got it.

 

So for those of us who are distance challenged, GI irons make sense.

[dpb5031]

> @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.

 

Sorry, not really touchy but a bit frustrated when you take things completely out of context and ignore previous points. Still it's been a good discussion, so no hard feelings...

 

I responded the way I did because you suggested that perhaps the reason practicing with blades has been helpful to me was because I was more "deliberate" in my practice with them. I told you that was incorrect and not the case. I told you that I'm no more (or less) deliberate in my practice with my blade than when I am practicing using any club. When I explained that I warm-up first using 3/4 swings while trying to feel connection (again, with any club I happen to be using) you came back and said "sounds deliberate to me." WTF...lol? Do you read? Or are we going to argue over the meaning of "deliberate?" I think we'd all agree that there should always be some intention, or deliberateness to one's practice routine, but I don't see the relevance to this discussion.

 

You've continued to reject the notion that practicing with more demanding equipment can be beneficial. You've been given multiple examples like the small golf hole on a putting green, a smaller basketball hoop, longer skis v. shorter shaped skis, etc. You've had several others support the notion that this works... as better technique and more precision is required...not just in golf, but also in the other sports. Many analogies have been provided, all of which you've rejected including the comparison to the Tour Striker.

 

Now, practicing with a blade is not quite as punishing/demanding as the Tour Striker (I know because I have one), but incrementally there's more precise feedback with a true MB blade than with many of the larger CBs and other GI irons. To a decent player who chooses to play CBs on the course for their forgiving qualities, this feedback can help fine-tune ball striking. And I'll acknowledge that it may be of way less value to a less skilled player. All I know is when I go back to my more forgiving Pings, the skills transfer...my ball striking is better...plus my confidence is boosted! And BTW, if all I've gained is a confidence boost and the rest is simply placebo effect, does it really matter? I mean if it helps, it helps...lol...No?

 

So, although it's something you have actually never tried yourself, you're going to remain adamant it's of little or no value to anyone else. OK

[Exactice808]

> @gvogel said:

> Got it.

>

> So for those of us who are distance challenged, GI irons make sense.

THIS!!!!! While its not perfect science..... let me try one more time explaining my situation?

 

PW-6iron Blades -

4,5iron MC's (Cavity, backs/pocket cavities)

BLASPHEMY!!!!! WHY?

 

PW-6iron are potentially my scoring irons which I have a set distance for and scoring intent. I expect them to go a certain distance period. I am confident about it. I have the ability of consistencies for these anticipated distances .

 

MY 5 iron is a crap shoot.... I have a specified distance in mind yet the reality is likely I am not getting it on a basis that is confident say 50% at best. With that the distance of the 5 iron what im looking for is likely something I am willing to sacrifice precision for overall distance. Meaning my 5 iron is 185 yards, if I am approaching a green at this distance. I know I am in either some type of trouble so if I hit it less then optimal I want the forgiveness to get me closer to the green, Or I hit a monster driver and coming in a Par 5 with this club, (Short courses) So if I get on, 2 putting for eagle well Hallelujah , if not Im missing near and chipping up for a birdie.

The 4 iron is my off the tee iron for shorter Par4's (also same scenarios above) I have a set distance (200), but off the tee, its a lay up with the most distance I can squeeze. NOW here is the thing. Fairways average about 25-65 yards in width... Thats my target.... A Green averages no more than 30 yards.... which one is easier to hit without regards to accuracy? The Fairway thats 25-65 yards im not aiming for a pin I just want to get it out there more times than not.

 

Can I say with confidence if I had a Par3 both 185 and 200 yards respectably, I can hit it with my 5 & 4 irons with greater consistency? No I cannot, so I accepted that getting closer to the hole is more important and possible spraying is in the cards. That is why I will not play Blades in the 5 & 4 iron as its a NET loss for me.

 

Compared to my PW-6, 30 yard green 175yards down to 130 yards Im pretty darn confident.

 

NOW...... If personally I saw my distances shrink, if I saw that my confidence drop in my PW-6iron would slowly transition my MB's.... But for the time being they have been producing results that have been anticipated.

 

 

TL : DR, the Benefits in my interpretation of CB's is distance advantage if you lack the distance consistency they provide a benefit over an MB in my opinion.

 

[VNutz]

> @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.

 

Get lessons instead.

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @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.

>

One of my buds has just had his driver regripped with an oversize grip and has suddenly started hitting it an extra 30 yards (now 280 yards) and also straight! There might be something in it.

 

[dpb5031]

Great interview here with Marty Jertson, one of the top designers at Ping, and a very good player:

https://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2019/05/22/equipment-q-and-a-ping-designer-marty-jertson-pga-championship-bethpage-black.html

 

Relative to our discussion here, when asked about Ping's new BluePrint blade irons and the fact that they come with an actual warning that they are for highly skilled players:

 

"This iron was designed for Louis Oosthuizen and the most pure ball strikers in the world. These are guys that literally, with an iron, do not miss the center of the face. Candidly, I am not one of those players. I want and need a little bit of mishit protection. I need a little bit of that insurance. That’s why this past week you saw me using iBlades, which iBlades have a moment of inertia (MOI) that exceeds Eye2 irons. So in a tiny, pretty compact blade, you get even more forgiveness than you would with an old Eye2, which is pretty incredible, through the multi-material design and the geometry we put in there. So yeah, I really like that we put that warning on the Blueprint irons because it’s true, you have to be a true flusher to be able to play those irons.

 

This is a hard thing to do, but when you’re evaluating and hitting irons, you need to drop your ego for one second and candidly assess how much mishit protection you need. Do you need to manipulate and work the golf ball? Or are you better off just trying to hit your irons pretty straight as you work on your technique and try to score? That would be the big deciding factor between the Blueprint and the iBlade, or an i210. Those are the offerings in our portfolio for the better player out there. And then how much height you need on the golf ball, and if you need any ball speed. "

[Titleist_PT23]

> @dpb5031 said:

> This is a hard thing to do, but when you’re evaluating and hitting irons, you need to drop your ego for one second and candidly assess how much mishit protection you need. Do you need to manipulate and work the golf ball? Or are you better off just trying to hit your irons pretty straight as you work on your technique and try to score? That would be the big deciding factor between the Blueprint and the iBlade, or an i210. Those are the offerings in our portfolio for the better player out there. And then how much height you need on the golf ball, and if you need any ball speed. "

I think that the pros and top amateurs know the difference in and value of a couple/few yards that are saved on a slight mishit. In contrast, many of the comments in this threads (from hackers of various degree) talk about the ball that comes up 20 yards short or poor face/path issues that nothing will save and thus why the club design doesn't matter.

Again, the difference in score may be small in absolute shots and there are other factors to consider with irons beyond just the performance of slight mishits, but I think both the starting point and how different skilled players can truly assess the clubs are also quite different.

 

For me, I have not hit any blades or small players CBs with some lightweight steel shafts. In the past, they were all S300 or maybe Dynalite Gold (which are softer tip, but still a bit heavier). At my swing speed (carry a 25* iron 180 yards or so), I always felt like the GI clubs produced a better ball flight. Not just in terms of straight but also the trajectory and what you saw when the ball's in the air. But I haven't done any side-by-side tests on the same day recently, so some of this may just be in my head (and justifying my position). But I do think there is also something to do with the iron design and your overall speed. I think almost all of Ping's LPGA players (say 250-260 off the tee and probably an 8-iron from 150) are playing the i210s, and generally speaking they don't have any issues with their swing/strike that would prohibit them from playing a more demanding iron.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @Exactice808 said:

> 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?

 

I don't believe so and can not think of any quantitative basis for any difference in precision. The difference comes in either

1) the off-center impact results - but remember a perfection at impact is rare so even pretty well struck shots can still have a tiny bit of off center effects influence the results.

and also possibly in some cases (some swing)

2) the ability to manipulate the club in the swing pre-impact (e.g. ability to control face orientation coming into impact).

 

Personally I think 2 is the more likely reason for those with thoughts of the smaller designs being more "precise".

 

> @Exactice808 said:

> 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?

 

VERY good question.

 

The simple answer is that elastic deformation causes some of the kinetic energy to be stored as potential energy for a period of time. If that deformation rebounds back (potential energy goes back to kinetic) while the ball is still in contact with the face, then that energy can still be transferred to the ball. For any potential energy to kinetic energy conversion that happens after the ball leaves, then it becomes "lost" in the context of the impact and energy transfer to the ball.

 

But it's actually gets quite a bit more complicated than that due to the relationship between the deformation of the face and the deformation of the ball. The conversion from kinetic to potential energy and back is never really perfect in the real world and so the more the deformation, the more energy that can potentially be lost - but that amount of loss is very dependent on the material. And steel looses a LOT less energy in that process than the polymers that the ball is made of so increasing the deformation of the face will actually decrease the deformation of the ball and total energy transfer will actually increase. I can't say I've run the numbers myself but we know and have learned a lot from the work and R+D done to try and increase (and maximize) the driver/wood COR and in the newer work to increase the cor of irons. More flexible faces in fact do start to help ball speed when the deformation gets to a certain point - and that point is actually more deformation than you'd get in a traditional cavity back design. It doesn't start until you start looking at the more modern 'thin face' or slot based designs.

 

As far as inconsistency goes, that would have to come down to a more detailed structural (strength) analysis of the specific design. Different amounts of deformation for different impact positions and strengths certainly could lead to the potential for inconsistencies across those different impact conditions.

 

 

> @Exactice808 said:

> 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?

>

 

Misinterpreted maybe but I personally wouldn't' call it misleading. The basis for the traditional CB retaining ball speed comes entirely from distributed weight increasing the head MOI and the resulting off center behavior. Perfection in ball striking may be a goal but it's rarely a reality (particularly for ams - and that includes single digits). So the off center effects come into play a lot more than people might think - or maybe it's better to say perfect in-line impact is a lot more of a rarity than some people seem think or consider in these types of theoretical discussions.

 

Also don't forget that the off center behavior is not just about toe-heel impact offset but high and low impacts as well. Both in terms of resulting ball speed and the resulting launch angle and distance due to the launch angle changes.

 

 

 

 

 

[bodhi555]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @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.

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

> >

> > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

>

> My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

>

 

I really do think you are on to something here - back in the day, when I was playing CB's and a wiry 22 year old, every swing I took was flat out. I'd grown up watching the WIld Thing, and even though this new Tiger fella was a better golfer, Daly could still hit it further so that's what I tried to do. After the switch to blades, I quickly figured out this was only going to end in a world of pain, so I quickly learned the value of the 90% strike - I'd only lose 5 - 10 yards or so, but my chances of making good contact doubled so I ended up hitting better shots.

 

Now obviously I could have worked to get the same effect with any set of irons, but the shiny Nikes I treated myself to didn't really give me a choice. 15 years later my irons are one of the strongest parts of my game, so I don't feel I've made a poor decision in the slightest to play a less forgiving iron.

 

IMO, YMMV, etc etc.

[Nard_S]

> @Stuart_G said:

 

> 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).

 

The frying pan analogy is an extreme example granted. But you cannot have it both ways, more mass behind the ball on "on center " is meaningless but it is meaningful on the toe miss shot because there's mass there? Really?

 

In Newtonian physics, force has a direction, a vector, always does. Mass with velocity is a force and it has direction. If you hit something off center , energy transfer becomes less efficient , isn't that why toe shots on an MB suck?

In real world, if you machine metal (I do), cutting tool design principles is about applying force in an efficient manner via tool geometry and to convey the energy used to cut metal to heat, specifically to the chip and not the tool or metal being cut. If you have a tool that is slightly off center, more than a hair's width in the wrong plane, guess what, it does not cut efficiently, tool burns up and it takes more horsepower to do same work.

 

A water jet can cut sheet steel, take the same Newton's of water power put it in a wide nosel and kids can play in it. The energy of a bullet, take that and put into something bigger in diameter, it will just sting. Design a sport's car, you put the mass as dead center between 4 wheels as possible to maximize handling. Why? Mass has it's own direction.

In golf, does this add up to a big hill of bean? For Driver's absolutely, for irons, ahh, somewhat but my point is that there's always some trade off and the perspective and scope of what tech does and does not do has been off kilter for a long long time. A PCB is not longer than a traditional given same loft and mass, so on a center strike, might be same, might fly higher, but it will not outgun a muscle back. My multi year experience is traditional's are often longer. Of course everything is dependent on, can you find the center. And that's what CB's are about. I would dispute they are as accurate also but that's also "anecdotal". But if CB design was as accurate, the Vokey wedge would have a big a** cavity in it's caboose. The verdict is in there.

[Stuart_G]

> @Nard_S said:

> The frying pan analogy is an extreme example granted. But you cannot have it both ways, more mass behind the ball on "on center " is meaningless but it is meaningful on the toe miss shot because there's mass there? Really?

 

Yes, Really :-) (more below)

 

> In Newtonian physics, force has a direction, a vector, always does. Mass with velocity is a force and it has direction. If you hit something off center , energy transfer becomes less efficient , isn't that why toe shots on an MB suck?

 

It's not really about a reduction in the efficiency of the energy transfer but where the energy goes. For off center hits, that linear force vector creates both a linear force on the head but also a moment arm and therefore applies a torque to the head. So now as a result, not only is there a linear deceleration of the head, but there is also rotational acceleration. So energy and momentum that could have gone to the ball, now has to go into added rotation of the head. And that energy and momentum is dependent on the MOI of the head - which is where the mass distribution comes into play. No off center impact means no moment arm to the linear force and no rotational acceleration of the head and therefore no dependence on the mass distribution.

 

 

> In real world, if you machine metal (I do), cutting tool design principles is about applying force in an efficient manner via tool geometry and to convey the energy used to cut metal to heat, specifically to the chip and not the tool or metal being cut. If you have a tool that is slightly off center, more than a hair's width in the wrong plane, guess what, it does not cut efficiently, tool burns up and it takes more horsepower to do same work.

 

Machining is all about permanent (plastic) deformation of the material so really is another useless analogy. If you want to make a club head out of unfired clay or puddy where there is a lot of plastic deformation at impact, I'll agree that mass distribution will matter. Throw out plastic deformation and keep the elastic deformation down to a bare minimum and you simplify the dynamics considerably.

 

> A water jet can cut sheet steel, take the same Newton's of water power put it in a wide nosel and kids can play in it. The energy of a bullet, take that and put into something bigger in diameter, it will just sting. Design a sport's car, you put the mass as dead center between 4 wheels as possible to maximize handling. Why? Mass has it's own direction.

 

Again, plastic deformation and fluid dynamics is not going to help you here. And the race car example has a lot to do with both rotational properties (turning) as well as how the mass distribution effects traction at the different wheel - but those reasons don't have anything to do with energy transfer as a result of the impact two bodies - so again really a useless analogy.

 

It's not about whether or not mass has a directional component or not but rather how the relationship of all the different mass particles stays the same or changes as a result of the impact. How forces or energy are transferred between all the different particles of the structure before the energy gets to the ball (or not). Yes no argument that things get much more complex with more general continuum mechanics but fortunately those complexities are, for the most part, not relevant in this particular context.

 

> In golf, does this add up to a big hill of bean? For Driver's absolutely, for irons, ahh, somewhat but my point is that there's always some trade off and the perspective and scope of what tech does and does not do has been off kilter for a long long time. A PCB is not longer than a traditional given same loft and mass on a center strike, might be same, might fly higher, but it will not outgun a muscle back. Of course everything is dependent on, can you find the center. That's what CB's are about.

 

I agree it's all about the ability to find the center and consistency of that impact location. I'm not trying to argue that there are no potential benefits to the smaller blade design for some people - but those benefits are not based on the efficiency of the energy transfer at impact. But there are other possible sources for benefits pre-impact - visual aesthetics, pre-impact or in swing manipulation/delivery of the head, feel, etc...

 

[Nard_S]

> @Stuart_G said:

 

> It's not really about a reduction in the efficiency of the energy transfer but where the energy goes. For off center hits, that linear force vector creates both a linear force on the head but also a moment arm and therefore applies a torque to the head. So now as a result, not only is there a linear deceleration of the head, but there is also rotational acceleration. So energy and momentum that could have gone to the ball, now has to go into added rotation of the head. And that energy and momentum is dependent on the MOI of the head - which is where the mass distribution comes into play. No off center impact means no moment arm to the linear force and no rotational acceleration of the head and therefore no dependence on the mass distribution.

>

...."but where the energy goes"...........So we are agreeing.

 

 

> Machining is all about permanent (plastic) deformation of the material so really is another useless analogy. If you want to make a club head out of unfired clay or puddy where there is a lot of plastic deformation at impact, I'll agree that mass distribution will matter. Throw out plastic deformation and keep the elastic deformation down to a bare minimum and you simplify the dynamics considerably.

>

Machining is about a lot more than that. There's thermodynamics, there's directing energy transfer in the proper form and there's a component of focusing the energy at the proper point with Newton 's per meters adequacy. Geometry matters a great deal in this, force has a VECTOR, it's everywhere around us.

 

> I agree it's all about the ability to find the center and consistency of that impact location. I'm not trying to argue that there are no potential benefits to the smaller blade design for some people - but those benefits are not based on the efficiency of the energy transfer at impact. But there are other possible sources for benefits pre-impact - visual aesthetics, pre-impact or in swing manipulation/delivery of the head, feel, etc...

>

I don't play traditional because of mass behind the ball efficiency, I point it out because folks say it has no benefit, that moving mass away to increase MOI is all gain and that there's zero trade off. I simply do not agree. Especially in long irons you'll see on center strikes go much further than a a one piece CB. "The other possible sources"? I will say this, sooner or later, your swing will find the COG of a club, I 've experienced this and there was even an article on WRX about how a guy experimented having Pro's hit a driver (DBD) and when he inverted the weight all the pros' found it (the weight) via their impact. What is under appreciated in our hyper CAD/CAM search for a greater sweetspot era is that mass concentrated is mass better felt in the hands and the dominant form of communication during the 1.5 second of swinging is feel. The visual matters but it is the feel of forces in body and transmitting those to the mass of head & club. I do play traditional; because of that despite their inherent drawbacks on toes & thins. Again, trade off's. This business of "well you just like shiny and pretty objects" is rather patronizing. The only shiny and pretty I see in golf, is a shiny white ball with a pretty trajectory and some giddy up.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @bodhi555 said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @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.

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > >

> > > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

> >

> > My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

> >

>

> I really do think you are on to something here - back in the day, when I was playing CB's and a wiry 22 year old, every swing I took was flat out. I'd grown up watching the WIld Thing, and even though this new Tiger fella was a better golfer, Daly could still hit it further so that's what I tried to do. After the switch to blades, I quickly figured out this was only going to end in a world of pain, so I quickly learned the value of the 90% strike - I'd only lose 5 - 10 yards or so, but my chances of making good contact doubled so I ended up hitting better shots.

>

> Now obviously I could have worked to get the same effect with any set of irons, but the shiny Nikes I treated myself to didn't really give me a choice. 15 years later my irons are one of the strongest parts of my game, so I don't feel I've made a poor decision in the slightest to play a less forgiving iron.

>

> IMO, YMMV, etc etc.

I agree with this for the irons, and the prior comment about how much easier it is to keep a driver in play than a 3-wood swinging full-out. I tend to think that the 460 cc drivers have allowed some of the pros to swing a bit harder than they otherwise would on nearly every tee shot.

 

However, I'm not sure if this translates to the decent but not great amateur. Personally, I can't swing that much harder with any hope of making good contact consistently. 3 mph faster would be about 10 yards if perfect contact was retained? But it's usually not. I tend to get the best drives swinging that club the same way as my irons (effort wise). But my contact/efficiency is no where near that of the pros/top amateurs. My guess is that people swing today's drivers so hard and are overly influenced by the smaller proportion of drives that go really far. When you consider the reasonably bad mishits and more severe foul balls, I'm not sure if swinging harder is really a better strategy for many. I.e. when people state how far they hit their driver, my guess is that for many it's not their best swing ever but it's a rough average of pretty well struck shots. I.e. not a real average like the pros calculation.

 

[gvogel]

> @dpb5031 said:

> Great interview here with Marty Jertson, one of the top designers at Ping, and a very good player:

> https://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2019/05/22/equipment-q-and-a-ping-designer-marty-jertson-pga-championship-bethpage-black.html

>

> Relative to our discussion here, when asked about Ping's new BluePrint blade irons and the fact that they come with an actual warning that they are for highly skilled players:

>

> "This iron was designed for Louis Oosthuizen and the most pure ball strikers in the world. These are guys that literally, with an iron, do not miss the center of the face. Candidly, I am not one of those players. I want and need a little bit of mishit protection. I need a little bit of that insurance. That’s why this past week you saw me using iBlades, which iBlades have a moment of inertia (MOI) that exceeds Eye2 irons. So in a tiny, pretty compact blade, you get even more forgiveness than you would with an old Eye2, which is pretty incredible, through the multi-material design and the geometry we put in there. So yeah, I really like that we put that warning on the Blueprint irons because it’s true, you have to be a true flusher to be able to play those irons.

>

> This is a hard thing to do, but when you’re evaluating and hitting irons, you need to drop your ego for one second and candidly assess how much mishit protection you need. Do you need to manipulate and work the golf ball? Or are you better off just trying to hit your irons pretty straight as you work on your technique and try to score? That would be the big deciding factor between the Blueprint and the iBlade, or an i210. Those are the offerings in our portfolio for the better player out there. And then how much height you need on the golf ball, and if you need any ball speed. "

 

Thank you for posting that article. Besides the consideration of irons, there are a few other very helpful considerations relative to power, and practice.

[Stuart_G]

> @Nard_S said:

> ...."but where the energy goes"...........So we are agreeing.

 

Agreeing about what? If you want to use the word "efficiency" that doesn't bother me. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, we don't seem to be agreeing on the effect of the mass distribution on that efficiency for perfect impacts with no off center component.

 

 

> @Nard_S said:

> Machining is about a lot more than that.

 

Yes, and all those other differences just make the analogy even worse. But the discussion and point is about what is and (more importantly) what is not relavent when the club head impacts the ball - not what happens in machining.

 

 

> I don't play traditional because of mass behind the ball efficiency, I point it out because folks say it has no benefit, that moving mass away to increase MOI is all gain and that there's zero trade off. I simply do not agree. Especially in long irons you'll see on center strikes go much further than a a one piece CB. "The other possible sources"?

 

Seeing and understanding is not always the same thing. And FWIW, that's not what I see - but let's put that aside. One thing that you're probably missing is that "perfectly on-center impact" and "center strikes" doesn't always mean the same thing. it's not just about toe-heel impact location but impact height relative to the vertical c.g. location. One of the "benefits" of the CB design is the fact that it lowers the c.g. to the point where it is typically below the impact force line - which helps with the launch angle and 'getting the ball in the air'. Therefore what might seem to be a good center face impact may not really be perfectly in line with the c.g. and may still contain some (or more) of that rotational loss than if the c.g. was higher (as with the blades or MB). And that's amount of being in line will depend on other aspects of impact (shaft lean, dynamic loft delivered, AoA) so it's not something that should be generalized at all and the amount of potential difference can vary a lot between different individuals and swings. But that's just a guess. One would have to look at a lot more detailed data analysis before coming to any real conclusions.

 

 

> I will say this, sooner or later, your swing will find the COG of a club, I 've experienced this and there was even an article on WRX about how a guy experimented having Pro's hit a driver (DBD) and when he inverted the weight all the pros' found it (the weight) via their impact.

 

I'd like to see a repeat of that experiment with a bunch of double digit handicap players instead of pros. What pro's can do hardly makes up any kind of universal truth for the golfing community in general. When it comes to golf and the golf swing, the only one absolute truth I believe in is that there are no absolute truths. Make up any 'rule' and you'll always be able to find exceptions to it. For that reason, I have little interest in that perticular aspect of this thread. I'll just stick to the physics of impact.

 

 

>What is under appreciated in our hyper CAD/CAM search for a greater sweetspot era is that mass concentrated is mass better felt in the hands and the dominant form of communication during the 1.5 second of swinging is feel. The visual matters but it is the feel of forces in body and transmitting those to the mass of head & club. I do play traditional; because of that despite their inherent drawbacks on toes & thins. Again, trade off's. This business of "well you just like shiny and pretty objects" is rather patronizing. The only shiny and pretty I see in golf, is a shiny white ball with a pretty trajectory and some giddy up.

 

I think less understood is more accurate than under appreciated. People inherently know what feels good to them and what doesn't and it certainly will influence their decisions. However, it's very difficult to objectively include it in any discussion of this type. Both due to the complexity of it and the subjective nature of it.

 

 

[pinestreetgolf]

> @gvogel said:

> > @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.

> >

> > 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.

> >

>

> So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

 

Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using inferior equipment to improve focus.

 

We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

[dpb5031]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

>

> > It's not really about a reduction in the efficiency of the energy transfer but where the energy goes. For off center hits, that linear force vector creates both a linear force on the head but also a moment arm and therefore applies a torque to the head. So now as a result, not only is there a linear deceleration of the head, but there is also rotational acceleration. So energy and momentum that could have gone to the ball, now has to go into added rotation of the head. And that energy and momentum is dependent on the MOI of the head - which is where the mass distribution comes into play. No off center impact means no moment arm to the linear force and no rotational acceleration of the head and therefore no dependence on the mass distribution.

> >

> ...."but where the energy goes"...........So we are agreeing.

>

>

> > Machining is all about permanent (plastic) deformation of the material so really is another useless analogy. If you want to make a club head out of unfired clay or puddy where there is a lot of plastic deformation at impact, I'll agree that mass distribution will matter. Throw out plastic deformation and keep the elastic deformation down to a bare minimum and you simplify the dynamics considerably.

> >

> Machining is about a lot more than that. There's thermodynamics, there's directing energy transfer in the proper form and there's a component of focusing the energy at the proper point with Newton 's per meters adequacy. Geometry matters a great deal in this, force has a VECTOR, it's everywhere around us.

>

> > I agree it's all about the ability to find the center and consistency of that impact location. I'm not trying to argue that there are no potential benefits to the smaller blade design for some people - but those benefits are not based on the efficiency of the energy transfer at impact. But there are other possible sources for benefits pre-impact - visual aesthetics, pre-impact or in swing manipulation/delivery of the head, feel, etc...

> >

> I don't play traditional because of mass behind the ball efficiency, I point it out because folks say it has no benefit, that moving mass away to increase MOI is all gain and that there's zero trade off. I simply do not agree. Especially in long irons you'll see on center strikes go much further than a a one piece CB. "The other possible sources"? I will say this, sooner or later, your swing will find the COG of a club, I 've experienced this and there was even an article on WRX about how a guy experimented having Pro's hit a driver (DBD) and when he inverted the weight all the pros' found it (the weight) via their impact. **What is under appreciated in our hyper CAD/CAM search for a greater sweetspot era is that mass concentrated is mass better felt in the hands and the dominant form of communication during the 1.5 second of swinging is feel. **The visual matters but it is the feel of forces in body and transmitting those to the mass of head & club. I do play traditional; because of that despite their inherent drawbacks on toes & thins. Again, trade off's. This business of "well you just like shiny and pretty objects" is rather patronizing. The only shiny and pretty I see in golf, is a shiny white ball with a pretty trajectory and some giddy up.

 

"What is under appreciated in our hyper CAD/CAM search for a greater sweetspot area is that mass concentrated is mass better felt in the hands and the dominant form of communication during the 1.5 second of swinging is feel."

 

I do agree with this. A player with reasonably good mechanics and some athletic ability will find the sweet spot. It happens on a subconscious level and is indeed about feel. The acute feedback provided by an MB blade due to that concentration of mass can aid in that process. Absolutely perfect strikes are unmistakable but require precision. Good players will find that spot intuitively and can groove what it takes to get there through repetition, with no pre-frontal cortex interference or specific swing-mechanics intentions. In fact, pre-frontal cortex interference is actually destructive in the process. That's not to say that one cannot feel a sweet spot strike with a CB or other GI iron, just that the precision required of an MB is greater as is the acuteness of feel & feedback.

[Jon H]

I don't understand why there is a HC connection to equipment. What if I drive the ball well and can putt, but cannot hit irons to save my life? My handicap says GI, but iron play says SGI? Or hit irons well, but struggle with short game? Play what you like, just don't complain if you are or are not improving.

[AC in TX]

G400 woods, G700 irons, Glide wedges, Circa 62 - shoot 44 in the front nine, then 56 in the back nine ... f*$%^!g 28 handicap!

[pinestreetgolf]

> @"Jon H" said:

> I don't understand why there is a HC connection to equipment. What if I drive the ball well and can putt, but cannot hit irons to save my life? My handicap says GI, but iron play says SGI? Or hit irons well, but struggle with short game? Play what you like, just don't complain if you are or are not improving.

 

Because 99.9% of people who think they fit this are lying to themselves. The swings are not identical but if you are so bad with irons that you are a double-digit its overwhelmingly likely you can't drive either. The golfer who makes great, crisp, low-single-digit contact with a 9 iron but can't pitch onto the green is likewise non-existent.

 

In theory, you're right. "Handicap" is a bad way of identifying equipment. In practice, there are very, VERY few players who can hit a x-flex TS3 like a scratch and can't hit a 6 iron. Its the same reason most NBA scouts value free throw shooting percentage so highly - its really unlikely a bad shooter with a bad motion can consistently make free throws, whereas other shots depend on decisions, defense, etc...

[MelloYello]

> @dpb5031 said:

> You've continued to reject the notion that practicing with more demanding equipment can be beneficial. You've been given multiple examples like the small golf hole on a putting green, a smaller basketball hoop, longer skis v. shorter shaped skis, etc. You've had several others support the notion that this works... as better technique and more precision is required...not just in golf, but also in the other sports. Many analogies have been provided, all of which you've rejected including the comparison to the Tour Striker.

 

I am not _against_ any of those practice techniques, but at the end of the day they are practice techniques rather than training aids. I'm not trying to refute their value or belittle them when they are shown to increase performance.

 

In the end, it's confusing and somewhat arbitrary but I'll explain to you how I approach it and why I'm not sure I totally accept your view. That said, do what you think works and don't worry about my opinion. It's just my personal take.

 

To begin, it's probably worthwhile to draw some distinction between training aids and practice techniques because in my view they seem like separate things. In my mind, one changes the _target_ while the other changes the _tool_. Then again, I'm not sure if that's technically always the case. It's just one way in which they sometimes separate themselves.

 

Practicing one's putting while using a smaller-than-normal hole might be great. But that involves a change to the _hole_, not the ball or the golf club. That example changes the _target_ rather than the equipment directly used to perform the task. So I consider it a practice technique.

 

Shooting a basketball at a smaller hoop involves a change to the _goal_, not the thing you're heaving towards it. So again, practice technique.

 

Aside from the fact we change the target rather than the tool, these practice techniques are also identifiable by virtue of the fact that their benefits are fleeting. The effects soon "wear off" after the person goes back to a normal-sized target.

 

That all sort of seems to me that maybe practice techniques are kind of aimed at temporarily re-training the subconscious to be all the more precise? That's just a hunch.

 

On the other hand, I've always thought of training aids as _teaching tools_. In my mind they are things that replace or modify normal equipment and which force someone to make a different movement, one that is either more proper or purposefully opposite of some flaw they have. The only time we use these sort of teaching tools is when we want to train ourselves to make a different move. Ideally, the effects are more long-lasting because they are structural. Ideally you're permanently fixing a flaw.

 

To contrast how the practice techniques attack the subconscious, maybe it's the case that training aids (teaching tools) are more for making structural changes to one's swing which is a bit more to do with assembling a series of moves before anything becomes subconscious.

 

Another clue that you're using a training aid is that you immediately feel yourself having to make a different move. Usually a training aid will deliberately force you into another motion. For that reason, it's often only necessary to hit a few shots with a training aid to familiarize yourself with the "feel" of the new move. Meanwhile, practice techniques still require you hit tons of shots hoping that the smaller target will subtly re-train your subconscious to be a bit more accurate.

 

So getting back to your blade example, you are obviously swapping tools so at first it sounds like a training aid. And unless I'm mistaken you were originally claiming that blades had a teaching effect in regards to compressing the ball better or something like that (don't recall). So again, it sounded like you were basically claiming the blade was a training aid.

 

But when I think about it, I would disagree because blades don't seem to promote one particular thing the way a typical training aid would (i.e. a Tour Striker). For instance, the other day a friend showed me a little clamp device that forced me to keep my wrist in a certain position at impact. That's a good example of a training aid. A blade doesn't really force me to do anything so it's not really something I'd call a training aid.

 

On the other hand, it now sounds like you think hitting the blade temporarily tightens up your center-face contact. You also just mentioned how a good player uses their conscious to do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to syncing things up and hitting the center of the face.

 

> @dpb5031

> A player with reasonably good mechanics and some athletic ability will find the sweet spot. It happens on a subconscious level and is indeed about feel.

 

I 100% agree with you on that, btw.

 

So if we're going with that notion, the use of a blade seems like it's more of a practice technique. Semantics, I know. But you can see the difference here.

 

But even that creates problems. Most practice techniques involve changes to the target because we fear changing the equipment will promote a slightly different movement. We assume that the subconscious will automatically try and dial itself in, right? We can't control that.

 

So for someone who seems to appreciate the subtleties of what the subconscious is doing, it seems a bit inconsistent to remain so flippant about using the blade as a practice technique.

 

While a pro golfer might practice putting with his normal putter and a smaller hole immediately before going out to play, your practice with a blade is not exactly analogous.

 

You're taking a step forward improving your center-face contact while simultaneously taking another step back pushing your subconscious to get dialed in with the wrong club.

 

So which one is more significant? Is there a net gain or a net loss? I doubt we really know. So it's a gamble at best IMHO.

 

I think you will likely find it necessary to go back to practicing with your Ping's somewhere between using the blade and going to play else you'll risk having grooved the wrong swing.

 

And if indeed you have to do that I would assume that the short-term blade-induced benefits of better face contact would have likely gone away before you hit the course.

 

IDK, but it kind of sounds like you've convinced yourself that what you're doing works without rationally thinking it out.

 

You can clearly see why I think the gate drills that are out there are a better way of accomplishing what you're trying to get at.

 

After all, I see lots of pros using gate drills. I can't say I've seen even one temporarily swapping to a blade.

 

> @dpb5031 said:

> Now, practicing with a blade is not quite as punishing/demanding as the Tour Striker (I know because I have one), but incrementally there's more precise feedback with a true MB blade than with many of the larger CBs and other GI irons. To a decent player who chooses to play CBs on the course for their forgiving qualities, this feedback can help fine-tune ball striking. And I'll acknowledge that it may be of way less value to a less skilled player. All I know is when I go back to my more forgiving Pings, the skills transfer...my ball striking is better...plus my confidence is boosted! And BTW, if all I've gained is a confidence boost and the rest is simply placebo effect, does it really matter? I mean if it helps, it helps...lol...No?

 

It it helps you or you think that it helps you, then great. Keep doing it.

 

 

 

 

[Nard_S]

> @dciccoritti said:

> > @gvogel said:

> >

> > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

>

> My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

>

Not many years ago Japanese engineers tried to determine ideal volume of Driver given constraints of material, COR & playability. They determined best "on the screws" performance was found at 385 cc.

 

[dpb5031]

@MelloYello , one thing you're right about is that you've turned this into not a whole lot more than semantics which indicates to me that you're more interested in winning an argument than really discussing the merits or anything of substance. Call it a training aid or a practice technique; who cares, and why would it matter within the context of this discussion?

 

Maybe just think of the sweet spot on your club as "the target" lol? Does it meet your semantics criteria now? Not sure why you think the benefits would be any more fleeting than with any other practice or training? I completely disagree. Read my comments a couple of posts prior about pre-frontal cortex interference in athletic motion and subconscious physical adjustments/improvements that are the result of feedback. Doesn't mean that you don't also work consciously on mechanics. That's important too. But to become proficient in striking an MB blade "dead solid perfect" repeatedly, requires sufficiently sound mechanics. It's both validation and reinforcement at the same time.

 

So, you're right, practicing effectively with an MB blade doesn't just train you to be better at one particular thing, it trains/encourages multiple good things that translate to your swing with other clubs. So does the TourStriker. It's not just about forward shaft lean at impact, though that is one component. To hit it solidly and produce good ball flights you need to strike the exact center, you need to have ample shaft lean while still coming into the ball sufficiently shallow so it doesn't dig, you have to keep the handle moving on the proper path, you must maintain your spine angle and not bob up and down, you must have an appropriate attack angle with proper ball position, the face must be square which means good impact alignments, which in turn means that your grip, hand path, club path, plane, shoulder plane, and pivot must all be sufficiently married up so that the parts match. The acute feedback from an MB blade and also the Tour Striker encourages all of these things.

 

Can you learn to swing well with a CB and or a GI/SGI? Of course you can! I've never claimed otherwise. I've simply claimed that practicing with a more demanding MB blade will expose your flaws and give you more precise feedback on what needs fixing. The fixes may be both conscious or intuitive. It will transmit to you very clearly what "dead solid perfect" feels like, as it won't cover up your flaws the way many other clubs will... letting you get away with what seems like a good shot, when in fact it was less than perfect.

 

Now, as I've said, this is probably of limited utility to most higher HC players or beginners where simply striking the ball somewhere reasonably close to the center, elevating it, and having some semblance of directional control is probably "good enough" in terms of shaving strokes/making progress. I've also suggested that this may be less effective for YOU @MelloYello , because you're using some pretty demanding player's CBs to begin with, whereas I choose to play with more forgiving Ping i200s where the difference (compared to my MP33 practice blades) is more profound.

 

Again, I've shared my experience as a 0-3 HC who is still trying to improve and fine-tune ball striking quality and consistency. Adding some practice with an MB blade helps with that for the reasons I've stated. As I said before, perhaps you should try it?

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @Stuart_G said:

> I don't believe so and can not think of any quantitative basis for any difference in precision. The difference comes in either

> 1) the off-center impact results - but remember a perfection at impact is rare so even pretty well struck shots can still have a tiny bit of off center effects influence the results.

> and also possibly in some cases (some swing)

> 2) the ability to manipulate the club in the swing pre-impact (e.g. ability to control face orientation coming into impact).

>

> Personally I think 2 is the more likely reason for those with thoughts of the smaller designs being more "precise".

>

> > @Stuart_G said:

> VERY good question.

>

> The simple answer is that elastic deformation causes some of the kinetic energy to be stored as potential energy for a period of time. If that deformation rebounds back (potential energy goes back to kinetic) while the ball is still in contact with the face, then that energy can still be transferred to the ball. For any potential energy to kinetic energy conversion that happens after the ball leaves, then it becomes "lost" in the context of the impact and energy transfer to the ball.

>

> But it's actually gets quite a bit more complicated than that due to the relationship between the deformation of the face and the deformation of the ball. The conversion from kinetic to potential energy and back is never really perfect in the real world and so the more the deformation, the more energy that can potentially be lost - but that amount of loss is very dependent on the material. And steel looses a LOT less energy in that process than the polymers that the ball is made of so increasing the deformation of the face will actually decrease the deformation of the ball and total energy transfer will actually increase. I can't say I've run the numbers myself but we know and have learned a lot from the work and R+D done to try and increase (and maximize) the driver/wood COR and in the newer work to increase the cor of irons. More flexible faces in fact do start to help ball speed when the deformation gets to a certain point - and that point is actually more deformation than you'd get in a traditional cavity back design. It doesn't start until you start looking at the more modern 'thin face' or slot based designs.

>

> As far as inconsistency goes, that would have to come down to a more detailed structural (strength) analysis of the specific design. Different amounts of deformation for different impact positions and strengths certainly could lead to the potential for inconsistencies across those different impact conditions.

 

> > @Stuart_G said:>

> Misinterpreted maybe but I personally wouldn't' call it misleading. The basis for the traditional CB retaining ball speed comes entirely from distributed weight increasing the head MOI and the resulting off center behavior. Perfection in ball striking may be a goal but it's rarely a reality (particularly for ams - and that includes single digits). So the off center effects come into play a lot more than people might think - or maybe it's better to say perfect in-line impact is a lot more of a rarity than some people seem think or consider in these types of theoretical discussions.

>

> Also don't forget that the off center behavior is not just about toe-heel impact offset but high and low impacts as well. Both in terms of resulting ball speed and the resulting launch angle and distance due to the launch angle changes.

>

Hey @Stuart_G

Thanks! so as I evolve, more questions.

Agreed that is the benefit Cavity backs we can all agree is off centered hits, (I just realized something, but I will close with the thought)

 

Elasticity and deformation. Lets take the ball out as we can agree that the ball deforms and is the receiver of such Kinetic energy. We agree that the ultimate point is the transfer of energy to the ball. So I just want to first discus the club head's effect of transferred energy.

 

As you stated COR/CT units its the standard for Drivers/Woods irons are in the next face but due to design there is limitation. SO the only facet I can imagine an iron face is like a trampoline. The Center of the trampoline is the most efficient location as equal forces to the center will maximize energy transfer right? If we jump off center its less efficient and the transfer of energy is inconsistent as well as now the angle of flex would throw direction of as well.

 

an Iron face is generally flat, with no concave like a driver (as it fights gear effect) But the point is that the most elastic point is the center? Pure strike and Perfect strike vs Good strike is quantifiable as long time dicussions I think we can agree that a Pro gets lets then 10% PURE strikes on a ball in a round. But 88% good strikes So lets take out Pure and good strike and lets just say center strikes. There is no perfection in golf where even a robot cannot get hole in ones with any type of consistency right? ie Iron Byron in door no outside influences set swing speed, same balls and a set distance will the ball go exactly the same place and distance etc.... BUT with a quality human is the dispersion RATE smaller with an MB due to its centered mass rather than a spread mass? So outside of metallurgical measurements is it fair to assume that a thinner face GC with less mass in the center is more pro to deformation and elasticity than a centered mass MB.

 

Back to the trampoline effect, The large back yard trampoline has more surface area and more "elasticity" to increase kinetic transfer to the bouncer. Versus the small kid trampoline. which is much smaller and likely reduce elasticity more so the confined size the bouncer would jump at a more consistent height and in the center Were as the large back yard trampoline would spread the bouncer and have inconsistent energy transfer? Sorry I dont know physics measurements or terms so I have to use the most basic examples.

 

While the Trampoline is at a much greater effect compare to the milliseconds and the 1000th of an inch of metal on contact on a golf swing.... the same applies in my prior life background. 1 MOA (minute of angle) is 1" @ 100 yards, Concurrent, 1 MOA = to 3"@ 300 yards... that 1MOA translate an offline shot greatly. Even smaller a "Milradian" equals .33" at 100 yards. this is significant at distances.

 

So the effect while minuscule at impact, does the deformation or elasticity affect accuracy or consistency?

 

Next is the retaining ball speed. Yes again I wont deny or argue the perfect strike vs good strikes... I would argue a amateur has about a 1% PURE strike per round .

 

 

So to my first Response and closing.

MOI as @MelloYello and you have discussed is the increase of resistance to twist or rotation. This is then the actual interpretation of ball speed so lack of rotation means maintained kinetic transfer to the ball. This makes more sense. So actually the shifting of mass itself has nothing to do with forgiveness or maintaining ball-speed per say as mass behind the ball is not was is transferring energy.

 

it is the Increased MOI in which it resist twisting (or elasticity/deformation) that does not lose the transfer of energy.

 

Since MOI now to me is the tangent. Where does MOI become relevant, I mean 12 MOI vs 15 MOI rating of a MB vs Players GI does the 3 MOI increase make a difference on a "Good Strike" I mean its twisting, so if the clubs are struck similarly then the should not twist as much?

 

The only benefits then go back to the very basic points.

 

MB are not more precise then CBs?

MB due to mass have better ability to manipulate the ball only. And or affect spin axis better than CB's

 

CB's relocated mass increases MOI or resistance to twist on less then center strikes, to which mitigates loss of energy transfer (loss of ball speed) But the mass it self or placement of mass has nothing to do with maintaining ball speed.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @IamMarkMac said:

 

>

> Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using**_ inferior equipment to improve focus._**

>

> We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

 

Is blades considered Inferior equipment now? I didnt realize that.....

 

Again here is the thing, YOUR interpretation of right or wrong is what dictates what others must do.

 

Just because at no point did anyone suggest it... Would it be surprising to you that there is a coach or even a player out there that actually had a mini racket or USED a mini racket to help them focus better?

 

This is the challenge with you and @MelloYello to which I dont want to be confrontational or even argumentative NOR disrespectful..... BUT I respect and understand all your points... period... Your comments above are just and make sense PERIOD.

 

BUT people approach things with different ideas and methods. The methods that seems logical may NOT always be the one that works for ALL people. As edify is these dumb threads to begin with. I have heard ALL the lies as I have lied to myself. BUT the fact remains if that is the method that gets them to the next level. WHY is it wrong? A said it to @MelloYello we both reach single digits in our career. But it seems we reached it in totally different methods, AM i WRONG for the way I reached a 7 hdcp because it was not the most logical way????

 

your point that all high handicapper should play Cavity backs WHILE sound and generally correct is NOT default. There are others out there that just wont respond well to Cavity backs and needs something else.

 

Same with focus. WE can scream and pound the table and say why cant you FOCUS just as hard with the HUGE SGI head? But sorry to say..... some people out there just cant and want a small headed iron thats what works mentally for them.