Handicap to play blades?

[Nard_S]

> @Fairway14 said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @Golfjack said:

> > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> >

> > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

>

> I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

 

Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

[Tree Levino]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @Fairway14 said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > >

> > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> >

> > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

>

> Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

 

This is how false news gets spread man.

 

 

"Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

 

_For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

 

Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

[MooJersey]

Everyone saying "Handicap is irrelevant, but you need to be a GREAT ball striker". That sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

If you can't break 90 pretty regularly I would advise against it. I'd say you should be shooting 77-80 to really even consider blades.

 

That's if you care about your score.

[Fairway14]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @Fairway14 said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > >

> > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> >

> > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

>

> Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

 

Karsten Solheim founded Ping on a conviction that players of all skill levels would benefit from perimeter weighting (for both irons and putters). However, Karsten did not advocate for over sized heads. I expect he believed that reasonable head size, combined with deep cavity back perimeter weighting , made for the most sensible iron design.

Once Karsten was aged and no longer providing input to new product offerings, his heirs began abandoning most of Karsten's design convictions, and I doubt he would have approved of models such as the iBlade or Blueprint.

[Pepperturbo]

> @chippa13 said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > Nobody that I know that plays blades gives a squat what someone's club dejour is. I repeat, there is NO handicap requirement. Just the right attitude, that is, not give a squat what others think about your choices in life. I am proud to know a 79 year old man that is an 18-20 handicap, and for the last fifty years has played blades and now plays the senior tee's. He's happy, that's all that matters.

>

> Nobody I know that plays **any style of clubs** gives a squat what someone's club du jour is. This site is the only place I have ever seen anyone care who plays what.

 

I agree that's how it is for healthy people. Unfortunately, there's an Abby-normal segment that frequents this DB and others that thinks otherwise. lol

[Fairway14]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @Fairway14 said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > >

> > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> >

> > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

>

> Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

 

For some players (of all skill levels from beginner to Tour player) squaring at impact a relatively small head is easier to do than with a large head. It's true that Ping (Karsten Solheim) is the "paternal; father of GI in iron design",

my recollection is that Karsten believed in cavity back perimeter weighting, but not necessarily over size club heads.

My guess is that were he alive and well today,Karsten would approve of the iblade, blueprint head size, but he would want these irons to have cavity back perimeter weighting.

[Fairway14]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @Fairway14 said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > >

> > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> >

> > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

>

> Traditional as in post 1997 or any of the sizes pre 1997?

 

My recollection is that it was about year 2000 when most all companies began producing and promoting over size iron heads.

[Bad9]

> @Fairway14 said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > >

> > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > >

> > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> >

> > Traditional as in post 1997 or any of the sizes pre 1997?

>

> My recollection is that it was about year 2000 when most all companies began producing and promoting over size iron heads.

 

I think it happened in the decade before that. Big Bertha - 94, VAS - 93, Hogan H40 OS - 94, Powerbilt TPS-1990, various Spalding models in the early 90's including the Executive XE which were one of the precursors to the modern hollow bodied iron designs, TM Burner OS - 96, various Wilson Staff models of early 90's, Titleist DTR - 87, and who will forget the Tommy Armor T100 from 96 or 97.

[atmorrow13]

FWIW, I change my irons from blades to AP2s when it's under 50 degrees outside. The slightest mishit is magnified in the nerves of your arms and hands in colder weather.

[NRJyzr]

> @chippa13 said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > Nobody that I know that plays blades gives a squat what someone's club dejour is. I repeat, there is NO handicap requirement. Just the right attitude, that is, not give a squat what others think about your choices in life. I am proud to know a 79 year old man that is an 18-20 handicap, and for the last fifty years has played blades and now plays the senior tee's. He's happy, that's all that matters.

>

> Nobody I know that plays **any style of clubs** gives a squat what someone's club du jour is. This site is the only place I have ever seen anyone care who plays what.

 

I've actually run into one guy, in person, who kind of questioned my iron choice (had Golden Rams in the bag). Maybe two, now that I think about it. That's over 20 years.

 

So yeah, it happens sometimes. LOL

[Nard_S]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > >

> > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > >

> > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> >

> > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

>

> This is how false news gets spread man.

>

>

> "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

>

> _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

>

> Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

>

>

>

>

> Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

 

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > >

> > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > >

> > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> >

> > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

>

> This is how false news gets spread man.

>

>

> "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

>

> _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

>

> Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

>

>

>

>

> Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

 

False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

 

Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

[Fairway14]

> @Nard_S said:

 

>

> False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

>

> Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

 

I don't think one has to look at Ping or Miura's recent findings. The reality is that 30 years ago beginners and high handicaps were striking some good iron shots with the relatively small head irons of that era (as good as the shots happening today from current club offerings).

 

 

 

[Tree Levino]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > >

> > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > >

> > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > >

> > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> >

> > This is how false news gets spread man.

> >

> >

> > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> >

> > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> >

> > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

>

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > >

> > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > >

> > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > >

> > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> >

> > This is how false news gets spread man.

> >

> >

> > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> >

> > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> >

> > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

>

> False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

>

> Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

 

Condensing that paragraph into "ping says that players hit smaller irons better" is inaccurate. I don't think there is insane criteria either, but I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them. The MOI is lower intentionally so you can move the ball easier. This means wider dispersion for bad players generally speaking.

[Fairway14]

> @balls_deep said:

I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them.

 

Do you agree it is possible that some players (for whatever reason) are able to make square contact more consistently with a small head iron versus a large head iron ?

 

 

[Nard_S]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > >

> > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > >

> > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > >

> > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > >

> > >

> > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > >

> > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > >

> > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> >

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > >

> > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > >

> > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > >

> > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > >

> > >

> > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > >

> > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > >

> > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> >

> > False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

> >

> > Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

>

> Condensing that paragraph into "ping says that players hit smaller irons better" is inaccurate. I don't think there is insane criteria either, but I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them. The MOI is lower intentionally so you can move the ball easier. This means wider dispersion for bad players generally speaking.

 

PIng found them to work better for the target market intended. I've hit them, the BP is not super difficult iron to hit. Sorry but stating a state am champ is a criteria to playing blades is somewhat insane.

[Tree Levino]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > > >

> > > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > > >

> > > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > > >

> > > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> > >

> > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > > >

> > > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > > >

> > > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > > >

> > > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> > >

> > > False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

> > >

> > > Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

> >

> > Condensing that paragraph into "ping says that players hit smaller irons better" is inaccurate. I don't think there is insane criteria either, but I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them. The MOI is lower intentionally so you can move the ball easier. This means wider dispersion for bad players generally speaking.

>

> PIng found them to work better for the target market intended. I've hit them, the BP is not super difficult iron to hit. Sorry but stating a state am champ is a criteria to playing blades is somewhat insane.

 

 

Sure a 30 handicap could play them they just wouldn't be doing themselves any favours or using the design features of the iron to their advantage.

[Titleist_PT23]

I plan to get a set of Blueprints or G710s (waiting to see what these look like). I expect the Blueprints will make things somewhat worse, but I just want to try them (I don't expect them to make me concentrate more, hit the ball better, etc). My two major concerns are a) much lower offset (will probably get them bent strong so some offset is added back) and b) cannot get an ideal trajectory with them. I assume I can adjust to a) with practice. However, b) may be something that can't be fixed at my swingspeed. The 5-iron at 25 degrees may just fly too low (180 yard carry club for me). The shorter irons I can probably get some half-way usable trajectory / height but I still don't think it's ideal.

 

Personally, I have a belief that many people over-estimate how good their iron game is (i.e. if I could only chip and putt or the great ball striker that shoots in the 80s). I think our memory of reaching for another ball, can't make 3.5 footer, or a chunked/skulled chip is much more painful / lasting in our mind than some of the bad iron shots that occur. You can hit a bad (or at least not good) iron shot and still be on the green sometimes. And a lot of 2nd shot misses can still result in a par or bogey. But it doesn't mean they were good swings/contact. Of course some people may be better with their irons than they are with other parts of their game (I actually think this is the case for me too but not by much relative to my overall skill level) but I would bet that the disparity is not as wide as many think it is.

[chisag]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > >

> > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > >

> > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > >

> > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > >

> > >

> > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > >

> > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > >

> > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> >

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > >

> > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > >

> > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > >

> > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > >

> > >

> > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > >

> > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > >

> > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> >

> > False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

> >

> > Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

>

> Condensing that paragraph into "ping says that players hit smaller irons better" is inaccurate. I don't think there is insane criteria either, but I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them. The MOI is lower intentionally so you can move the ball easier. This means wider dispersion for bad players generally speaking.

 

 

... What an interesting thread with such unusual content. I have only been a member here since 2005 and I don't believe I have ever seen this discussed on WRX. o:)

[Tree Levino]

> @chisag said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > > >

> > > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > > >

> > > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > > >

> > > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> > >

> > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > > @Fairway14 said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > I still haven't seen any studies on how many strokes you actually lose when you play a blade versus a GI club.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's not really any good reason to do one, and studies cost money

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I suppose if a company wanted to sell traditional head size irons they could do a study and prove much of the claims about over size irons are false.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, Ping went small on the Blue Print because they found in their testing, smaller worked better. Quite astonishing since they are the paternal father of almost all GI in iron design.

> > > >

> > > > This is how false news gets spread man.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > "Blueprint is a niche product, **best suited to accomplished ball-strikers**. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

> > > >

> > > > _For some players_, it will. In testing,**PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses)** when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the **target player**.

> > > >

> > > > Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, the target player is not a 20hc.

> > >

> > > False news? I responded to someone asking if anyone found "smaller is better". Ping did. Miura did too. The most revered MB of last ten years has to be the 1957 Baby Blade. It's the size.

> > >

> > > Nowhere did I say a 20 cap should play them, but I do not believe you need to meet some insane criteria for playing them either.

> >

> > Condensing that paragraph into "ping says that players hit smaller irons better" is inaccurate. I don't think there is insane criteria either, but I do believe that if you aren't shot making and hitting middle or d*amn near it every time, there is not point in playing them. The MOI is lower intentionally so you can move the ball easier. This means wider dispersion for bad players generally speaking.

>

>

> ... What an interesting thread with such unusual content. I have only been a member here since 2005 and I don't believe I have ever seen this discussed on WRX. o:)

 

Agreed. I'm glad someone has finally brought this up.

[NRJyzr]

There should probably be a pinned thread to use as an index of sorts, for anyone who wants to start another blade thread. It can point them at all the others.

[herbert7890]

I actually love the blade threads. Very entertaining to see both sides, although I love blades myself.

[aenemated]

This has been one of the more chill blades threads. Everyone lit up for Halloween or what? :D

[MtlJeff]

I made a pretty benign post and logged on after 4-5 hours and has 15 notifications that I'd been quoted

 

#bladesvscavities

[mschantz]

I did not read all the responses, so I apologize if I repeat what someone else has written. I bought blades but used a much different calculation. I knew blades are hard to hit and so on. I reasoned that if I bought blades I would become a much better ball striker while I was learning to hit them. I was right.

 

What have the blades given me?

 

Distance control. I never get one shot of 150 and another of 180.

 

Feedback so sensitive that I don't even need to look up to see where the ball went. I already know. And when you really mishit it stings; like hitting a baseball with the neck of the bat. Even thin shots zing you a little. But when you hit them in the sweet spot it's like slicing through room-temperature butter. It feels effortless.

 

I never shot shaped with GI irons so I can't compare, but my blades make working (draw/fade) the ball easy.

 

They are less lofted so my shots have a lower trajectory and lower back spin; unless I want to hit a really high shot with lots of spin.

 

I find changing trajectories relatively easy. For example, the natural pitch on my 7-iron is 30 degrees. My dynamic launch angle for normal shots is around 25 degrees with +2 degrees of forward shaft lean at impact. When I want to hit it high, I will go all 30 degrees by moving the ball forward and reducing shaft lean to +1 or less. Shots I want to keep low will launch around 21 degrees with +5 of shaft lean.

 

Some say that GI irons are longer. I'm not sure this is accurate. When I really compress a 5-iron it will go around 200. I have no idea what other people get from their 5-irons.

 

I would NEVER give up my blades for anything. And I play the Callaway Apex MB.

 

So, play blades if you want. I think anyone can learn to hit them properly. Don't listen to what people say or write. Do what feels right.

[wmblake2000]

Let me tell you a cautionary tale. I played blades. Then, in the middle of the night there was a pounding on my door. 3 guys broke the door down, slapped those plastic ties around my wrist, put a bag over my head and dragged me to a dungeon deep in a fetid place of misery until I confessed and repented. Never again. I have learnt my lesson. People care what I play, they really care. Beware the blade police. They are out there and they are nasty.

[rt_charger]

Just to thread jack a little. An interestimg concept that I've come up with and feel I've experienced is that blades are easier to control because there is inevitably less weight in the head (vs GI's because of the size), therefore the COG of the entire club is closer to the hands, meaning easier to feel where the head is and more control.

[justasgood]

Seriously, the Handicap for playing blades is 6-8...................inches. The space between your ears is the only handicap to playing blades.

[pholway]

These threads are great. Play blades if you want. Or play shovels. Nobody cares but the End goal is lower scores right ? Will blades lower your score ? No way they would lower my score as when I don’t strike it well it’s out off the toe and and of course my swing speed isn’t breaking any records. I imagine if you are asking if you can play blades that probably means you shouldn’t.

 

 

[vman]

I don't use them because the soles and top lines are too thin...similar to women, I like a bit of chunk. However I've never really seen anyone over a 6/7 handicap hit consistently decent iron shots regardless of what they're using...and they're certainly not "working" the ball.

[Bad9]

> @rt_charger said:

> Just to thread jack a little. An interestimg concept that I've come up with and feel I've experienced is that blades are easier to control because there is inevitably less weight in the head (vs GI's because of the size), therefore the COG of the entire club is closer to the hands, meaning easier to feel where the head is and more control.

 

Iron heads are almost all within a few grams of each despite the style of head. A blade 7 iron is going to be virtually the same weight as a GI 7 iron for the most part.