What IS the Smallest Blade iron ever made?

[seve1972]

 

[Chuck905]

> @EBlade1 said:

> > @Chuck905 said:

> > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > Ping Blueprint is smallsy, guy brought a demo head out the other day, to randomly show me, and I immediately looked at it and said, "Way, waaaayyyy too small for my skill level, I'm more of a i500 type."

> > >

> > > His look at me after this exchange said it all...

> >

> > I agree, the Blueprints are the smallest out of the modern main stream brands, however, they are very forgiving for their small size. You would be surprised.

> >

>

> Smaller than the p7TW? I just saw those in person and the soles are tiny.

 

They look smaller than they really are; actually the same size as my MP18s. I actually did the TM demo on grass and honestly, it’s a Mizuno MP DNA.

 

You find the right shafts, lie, lofts and launch conditions, any irons are playable.

 

Personally, I enjoy hitting stingers all day everyday down to a two iron but there will be a day soon.

 

Whichever gives you the most enjoyment?

 

 

[seve1972]

MP 9’s were tiny...

[Chuck905]

> @Fairway14 said:

> > @"Canadian Bubba" said:

> > He is a couple pics showing the size of the Muirfield 20ths

> >

> >

> >

>

> Winner !

 

 

That’s ridiculous? What’s the point of such a small design?

[Fairway14]

> @Chuck905 said:

> > @Fairway14 said:

> > > @"Canadian Bubba" said:

> > > He is a couple pics showing the size of the Muirfield 20ths

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Winner !

>

>

> That’s ridiculous? What’s the point of such a small design?

 

Throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's that was standard blade size from Macregor, Wilson Staff, Dunlop, Power Bilt, Hogan etc...

[sergizmo]

> @WonIron said:

> Anyone remember the 80's circa Accuforms?? Canadian company. Joey Sindelar played 'em

Davis Love at the start of his career as well. The sweetspot is in the middle (not heelside). They have milled faces and grooves, which is quite something for an 80's set of blades.

I have a set of PTM's (flatback blades) 3-SW. Wish I was good enough to play them properly.

The Muirfield 20ths are for sure smaller though.

 

[Chuck905]

> @Fairway14 said:

> > @Chuck905 said:

> > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > @"Canadian Bubba" said:

> > > > He is a couple pics showing the size of the Muirfield 20ths

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Winner !

> >

> >

> > That’s ridiculous? What’s the point of such a small design?

>

> Throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's that was standard blade size from Macregor, Wilson Staff, Dunlop, Power Bilt, Hogan etc...

 

That’s perplexing but, makes the modern blades look like frying pans. That’s how I really feel and chuckle when people talk about CB forgiveness.

 

My one golf club, I’ve had millennials take a video of my golf swing and 2-PW iron set blades because they have all been pushed by TM M-series.

 

They have never seen a bladed two iron never mind 3 or 4 iron numbering system lol. We had good laughs when hitting each other irons.

 

I still prefer to throw darts (low launch and high spin) into the greens vs higher launch and less spin.

 

 

[JD3]

> @"Canadian Bubba" said:

> He is a couple pics showing the size of the Muirfield 20ths

>

>

>

 

Reminds me of view of my Wilson staff fluid feel...ball dominated head at address. The feel really felt "fluid" too. Iirc they claimed it had something to do with how they tweaked the TT shaft which came stock with the set.

[Chuck905]

> @JD3 said:

> > @"Canadian Bubba" said:

> > He is a couple pics showing the size of the Muirfield 20ths

> >

> >

> >

>

> Reminds me of view of my Wilson staff fluid feel...ball dominated head at address. The feel really felt "fluid" too. Iirc they claimed it had something to do with how they tweaked the TT shaft which came stock with the set.

 

The ferrule and hosel is longer than the blade length lol!

 

 

[seve1972]

NCWs

[jwb10]

> @craz-e said:

> Here are a few small blades I have played and owned.

> Miura Baby Blade

> Wilson Staff FG59

> Ping Blueprint (only tested)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

My Wilson Staff Tour Blades were smaller than FGs. I know, I had the FG one iron and used to flush it. I don’t know how

 

[ebk]

My (inherited from Dad) 1966 Wilson Staff Dynapower fluid feel irons are quite small - and so is the sweet spot.

[Chemist]

Daiwa DG-201's, I had a set around 15 years ago and they were very small. Think those are the model that Ian Baker Finch won The Open with in 91.

[nolixul]

IBF played the Daiwa Advisor DG273 model. Bigger then the DG201s. The DG201s are smallish, but a bit bigger than the Muirfields or BBs.

[Sparty4202]

I have a set of Arnold Palmer Standards musclebacks from the early 80’s that are very small. The 1 iron looks like a butter knife! They are way out of my pay grade today!!

[Shallowface]

> @seve1972 said:

>

>

 

Beautiful! So clean and simple, and stainless steel as well. Would love to see these produced once again.

[boggyman]

?? I just purchased a 2 iron 30 minutes ago.> @floycota said:

> > @boggyman said:

> > Wilson Staff FG 17s

>

> I was looking at the FG-17 2-iron I have in the basement, I use it as a training aid. It's so small that if you aren't stripping it you'll know very quickly.

 

 

[memurphy93]

The pictures in this thread are unreal - keep em coming! The Muirfields might take the cake

[NRJyzr]

I'll have to see about taking a pic with a Muirfield iron, compared to my Golden Ram TW282s and maybe also my 1980 Tour Grinds. Also have a set of 78 Staffs in there.

 

Seems like a worthy project. :)

[therev]

I had some hogan pc back in the 80's and the sweet spot was smallest I ever played

 

[deepred]

> @Shallowface said:

> > @deepred said:

> > Already mentioned, but these have to be the smallest, although they are pretty forgiving.

> >

>

> I have a lot of experience with those. As shallow as they are, they aren't all that narrow heel to toe.

> The Adams hybrids I use for my 2-5 irons these days remind me a lot of the Brownings. I know Barney Adams was a big fan of the Browning 440s.

> I never had any problem with the Brownings in the rough. I've always tried to be aware of where the leading edge is at all times no matter what kind of iron I'm playing. While the Brownings may have gone a bit overboard in the low profile department in the eyes of some, it was available in the marketplace for over 20 years and spawned a number of lower profile designs in the 70s and 80s. The oversized irons that followed, with their high centers of gravity, served to drive long irons out of the game and were why hybrids (which went back to the more playable shallow designs) were invented.

> Commenting on the post above with the Miura vs the Wilson Staff, I find it interesting how designers vary the amount of "unscored toe" in order to achieve a certain look in an iron. There's quite a bit of difference in those two models. I remember when MacGregor came out with a cast Tourney iron in the late 1970s that was designed by David Graham. He designed it with a longer blade heel to toe but then extended the scorelines, reducing the amount of unscored toe to the extent that it didn't look like a longer blade at address.

>

 

I don’t know if making the heads larger has driven long irons from the game, as much as longer shafts and bigger gaps in loft. My current Wilson 4 iron is 1/8 longer than my Wilson 68 2 iron.

[Shallowface]

> @deepred said:

> > @Shallowface said:

> > > @deepred said:

> > > Already mentioned, but these have to be the smallest, although they are pretty forgiving.

> > >

> >

> > I have a lot of experience with those. As shallow as they are, they aren't all that narrow heel to toe.

> > The Adams hybrids I use for my 2-5 irons these days remind me a lot of the Brownings. I know Barney Adams was a big fan of the Browning 440s.

> > I never had any problem with the Brownings in the rough. I've always tried to be aware of where the leading edge is at all times no matter what kind of iron I'm playing. While the Brownings may have gone a bit overboard in the low profile department in the eyes of some, it was available in the marketplace for over 20 years and spawned a number of lower profile designs in the 70s and 80s. The oversized irons that followed, with their high centers of gravity, served to drive long irons out of the game and were why hybrids (which went back to the more playable shallow designs) were invented.

> > Commenting on the post above with the Miura vs the Wilson Staff, I find it interesting how designers vary the amount of "unscored toe" in order to achieve a certain look in an iron. There's quite a bit of difference in those two models. I remember when MacGregor came out with a cast Tourney iron in the late 1970s that was designed by David Graham. He designed it with a longer blade heel to toe but then extended the scorelines, reducing the amount of unscored toe to the extent that it didn't look like a longer blade at address.

> >

>

> I don’t know if making the heads larger has driven long irons from the game, as much as longer shafts and bigger gaps in loft. My current Wilson 4 iron is 1/8 longer than my Wilson 68 2 iron.

 

It's all about the location of the center of gravity, and generally speaking the deeper the face the higher the COG, which makes a lower lofted club just that much more difficult to get airborne.

Combine that with a lot of offset (I'm in the camp that believes offset makes the ball go lower, not higher. Personal experience of myself and many of those around me) and you have a club that is very difficult to hit. Then look at hybrids and you'll see shallow faces and onset, not offset (even a hybrid that has an offset hosel is just a fairway wood with reduced face progression and is often still a bit onset). Combine that with a deep center of gravity that just isn't possible to achieve in an iron and that is why hybrids were met with such acceptance and success.

Of course, everything is a tradeoff in golf equipment design, and that deep center of gravity results in a club that for some is a little too easy to hook. That's probably why we are seeing a resurgence of driving irons among pros and stronger amateurs. But those clubs have very thin faces and no offset to speak of, and they certainly don't have the deep faces of the oversized irons of the mid to late 1990s.

 

[Ben Berube]

I am playing Nike Forged Blades right now. Amazing forgiving and same blades Tiger played in 2000’s. But FG62 (I believe) I had couple years ago were tiny. Also very easy to hit. Some of these blades are easier than CB’s. IMO

 

[justasgood]

 

Here is my MT Macgregor 1 iron. Hard to miss the sweet spot.

[Oliver Klozoff]

I think the Ping Blueprints have this won. Hard to believe one of the newest irons would be the smallest. It certainly isn't the trend.

[justasgood]

> @"Oliver Klozoff" said:

> I think the Ping Blueprints have this won. Hard to believe one of the newest irons would be the smallest. It certainly isn't the trend.

 

The Miura Baby Blades are smaller......by a smidge....

[musclefront]

Love that you took the muirfield picture with an ancient ball :)

[tbonetw]

I owned Haig Ultra and Staff Dynapower and these are quite a bit smaller than both.

 

 

[justasgood]

> @tbonetw said:

> I owned Haig Ultra and Staff Dynapower and these are quite a bit smaller than both.

>

>

>

 

Okay, I am in love with those!

 

More deets please.......

[Kingcat990]

> @tbonetw said:

> I owned Haig Ultra and Staff Dynapower and these are quite a bit smaller than both.

>

>

>

 

Yup. One of the thinnest soles I've seen on an iron that also had leading edge relief