Im quite suprised how big some irons are.

[bladehunter]

6 hours ago, 1Mordrid1 said:

That really has nothing to do with the club and more to do with a lack of discipline...You can easliy use impact tape or footspray during practice to train yourself to strike the ball better. The question is whether you are willing to make the effort or not. 

 

I would bet if you hit all over the face on a larger iron that you are doing the same with a smaller iron....yes on the smaller iron the total area of strike may be smaller but you are likely fooling yourself if you think that this means you are striking it more "pure".

This has been discussed sooooo many times.      Compare a persimmon driver to a 460cc one.  If you miss toeside on the 460 it’s off the end of the toe on the persimmon head.  So to play a persimmon sized driver , you need to keep in a relatively small area.  An area considered the size of the dead sweet spot of a 460cc head.  
 

problem is.  The smaller head swings easier.  Or better yet the larger head is harder to swing.  So yes. It’s more forgiving. But it also needs to be.  Because it’s harder to hit. Big irons are same.  They’ll launch higher.  But. They’re designed to be hit fat.  Wide soles and a high vertical cog say this. So if you hit them pure , it’s actually a low strike.   Kind of like hitting a 460cc driver pure.  It’s going to be slightly high and toeside of the face.  Do that with a persimmon sized head. Snap hookasuarus Rex.  
 

point.  It Depends.  

[1Mordrid1]

22 hours ago, bladehunter said:

This has been discussed sooooo many times.      Compare a persimmon driver to a 460cc one.  If you miss toeside on the 460 it’s off the end of the toe on the persimmon head.  So to play a persimmon sized driver , you need to keep in a relatively small area.  An area considered the size of the dead sweet spot of a 460cc head.  
 

problem is.  The smaller head swings easier.  Or better yet the larger head is harder to swing.  So yes. It’s more forgiving. But it also needs to be.  Because it’s harder to hit. Big irons are same.  They’ll launch higher.  But. They’re designed to be hit fat.  Wide soles and a high vertical cog say this. So if you hit them pure , it’s actually a low strike.   Kind of like hitting a 460cc driver pure.  It’s going to be slightly high and toeside of the face.  Do that with a persimmon sized head. Snap hookasuarus Rex.  
 

point.  It Depends.  

I don't know of any company that is designing irons to be hit fat. Some designs provide relief on "fat" strikes, but even then, a "fat" hit will not produce the same consistent result that a solid strike will on that very same club. And I am not sure what you think a high VCOG is or does, but a club is not designed for VCOG to determine the optimum strike location. It is designed that way to affect flight characteristics i.e. ball flight and spin.

 

Plus you yourself said that bigger irons launch the ball higher....which is a product of weight low and back....not a high VCOG.

 

And none of this really has any bearing on my original point which was that with discipline you can strike the center of the face consistently even with a larger game improvement club. The same skill that it takes to hit a "blade" pure is the exact same skill that is used to hit a GI club pure...Either you have it or you don't. And I still contend that if you strike the ball all over the face of a GI, I guarantee you are not striking that blade as "pure" as you think.

[lefthack]

[bladehunter]

10 hours ago, 1Mordrid1 said:

I don't know of any company that is designing irons to be hit fat. Some designs provide relief on "fat" strikes, but even then, a "fat" hit will not produce the same consistent result that a solid strike will on that very same club. And I am not sure what you think a high VCOG is or does, but a club is not designed for VCOG to determine the optimum strike location. It is designed that way to affect flight characteristics i.e. ball flight and spin.

 

Plus you yourself said that bigger irons launch the ball higher....which is a product of weight low and back....not a high VCOG.

 

And none of this really has any bearing on my original point which was that with discipline you can strike the center of the face consistently even with a larger game improvement club. The same skill that it takes to hit a "blade" pure is the exact same skill that is used to hit a GI club pure...Either you have it or you don't. And I still contend that if you strike the ball all over the face of a GI, I guarantee you are not striking that blade as "pure" as you think.

Super high Vcog is impossible to get to or below the equator of the ball without a “ fat “ strike.  It’s 3-4 grooves up on some irons.  Check out Maltbys site for specs if you don’t think so.  Some irons are most definitely designed for the guy or gal who hits it an inch behind the ball.     Vcog is not low and back on most GI irons as you say. The data is there to check. I’m not making it up.  
 

 

my point is.  The same swing that hits one iron design pure doesn’t hit the other pure.  If it did there’d be no use in different designs.  They’d all play the same.  Yes ?    I’m not bashing any design.  I’m saying that one design won’t fit all. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by bladehunter

[xkilgorextroutx]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Super high Vcog is impossible to get to or below the equator of the ball without a “ fat “ strike.  It’s 3-4 grooves up on some irons.  Check out Maltbys site for specs if you don’t think so.  Some irons are most definitely designed for the guy or gal who hits it an inch behind the ball.     Vcog is not low and back on most GI irons as you say. The data is there to check. I’m not making it up.  
 

 

my point is.  The same swing that hits one iron design pure doesn’t hit the other pure.  If it did there’d be no use in different designs.  They’d all play the same.  Yes ?    I’m not bashing any design.  I’m saying that one design won’t fit all. 

 

Designing clubs to help provide forgiveness on a common miss isn't "designing them to be hit fat". 

 

You're right that some designs will work better for others. But bottom line OEMs are going to make clubs that will benefit the largest portion of their customers. 

[bladehunter]

32 minutes ago, xkilgorextroutx said:

 

Designing clubs to help provide forgiveness on a common miss isn't "designing them to be hit fat". 

 

You're right that some designs will work better for others. But bottom line OEMs are going to make clubs that will benefit the largest portion of their customers. 

So semantics ?      Designing a club for A. Steep aoa or B. Early extension and a heavy contact point , or a combination of the two , is exactly what most widely soled irons with very high vertical center of gravity are designed to “ help “.  No ?  Please explain if that’s incorrect.  
 

I don’t understand why people take this statement personally?  It’s not an indictment on the club or the player.  Just an observation based on club specs and my own personal testing.  I agree with your last statement.  Based on handicap data the club folks are catering to the largest target audience.  Which is 15 handicap and up.  We’re saying the exact same thing. 

[ChipNRun]

Decision factor: where does the ball go when you hit it with Model X irons?

 

I will replace my irons this season, or next season if the supply chain doesn't loosen up.

 

In rough fittings, I did a side-by-side test with the Callaway Mavrik (basic) and Mavrik Max irons. Base Mavrik has a smaller head, but rather strong lofts. Mav 7i = 27*, Max 7i = 30*. But, I hit the ball a club longer and noticeably higher with the Max than the base Mav. And both clubs had the Catalyst 65 (R) shaft.

 

And, in an odd shakeout, the suggested Mav family combo iron set has Mav Pros at the short end and the Max at the long end. (Lofts of base Mavs don't mesh well with the other two models.)

 

Part of the problem with bladish irons is I simply don't get very good launch with them. It has in part to do with interior clubhead design: make sure high speed swingers don't balloon the ball.

 

The past few years, I get recommended for GI irons with lighter shafts. In my iron replacement, I will be going for graphite shafts. I'm still getting centerish strikes, but my distance is increasingly inconsistent.

 

If I'm swinging smoothly, I get my impacts from GI irons within the second and third quadrants of the clubface. Not tour level, but not sloppy.

 

A few years back I got to product test the TaylorMade SLDR irons, which are now in my backup bag. The SLDRs had the Thru-Slot technology polymer insert in the sole of the 3i-7i, and a traditional cavity design in 8i on up. The GI model SLDRs worked very well at both ends of the bag. Too bad TM didn't give them longer to take off.

 

The follow-on irons, the RSi 1 and 2 models, added vertical polymer slots on the clubface, bracketing both ends of the grooves. Sorry, but no magic polymer face insert is going to save a shot hit with impact outside the grooves. Did a side-by-side of both the RS models and the SLDRs at a demo day, and the SLDRs just felt cleaner overall.

 

Those of you who have high clubhead speed and can play bladish irons have my respect. As for me, I go with what works.  Just make sure you play bladish irons, which is not the same as piddling with bladish irons and not scoring well.  Our Classified section is dense with players irons fitted with X100 and PX 6.5 shafts that people are casting aside.

[1Mordrid1]

4 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Super high Vcog is impossible to get to or below the equator of the ball without a “ fat “ strike.  It’s 3-4 grooves up on some irons.  Check out Maltbys site for specs if you don’t think so.  Some irons are most definitely designed for the guy or gal who hits it an inch behind the ball.     Vcog is not low and back on most GI irons as you say. The data is there to check. I’m not making it up.  
 

 

my point is.  The same swing that hits one iron design pure doesn’t hit the other pure.  If it did there’d be no use in different designs.  They’d all play the same.  Yes ?    I’m not bashing any design.  I’m saying that one design won’t fit all. 

 

The problem is you are still looking at VCOG as direct reference to optimal strike location. That is not how club design works. Club designers are still designing clubs to have their own "optimal" strike characteristics from what would be considered a "normal" strike location. If you start trying to only hit from the exact VCOG position, then you are completely missing the whole point of different designs. And no one is designing irons to be hit an inch behind the ball and ignoring performance on solid strikes. They are designing the clubs to be hit properly, but with the ability to provide some relief on the "fat" shot. 

 

You are also ignoring the fact that the effect of a club's VCOG can be manipulated by moving mass closer or further from the face of a club. A "blade" with a .850 VCOG will affect the ball differently than a SGI club with the same .850 VCOG because of where the mass of the club is located. Simply by moving some of the mass further back, even just by millimeters, you start to change the flight characteristics. 

 

 

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, 1Mordrid1 said:

 

The problem is you are still looking at VCOG as direct reference to optimal strike location. That is not how club design works. Club designers are still designing clubs to have their own "optimal" strike characteristics from what would be considered a "normal" strike location. If you start trying to only hit from the exact VCOG position, then you are completely missing the whole point of different designs. And no one is designing irons to be hit an inch behind the ball and ignoring performance on solid strikes. They are designing the clubs to be hit properly, but with the ability to provide some relief on the "fat" shot. 

 

You are also ignoring the fact that the effect of a club's VCOG can be manipulated by moving mass closer or further from the face of a club. A "blade" with a .850 VCOG will affect the ball differently than a SGI club with the same .850 VCOG because of where the mass of the club is located. Simply by moving some of the mass further back, even just by millimeters, you start to change the flight characteristics. 

 

 

Sure. I don’t disagree with the idea. 
 

but. I never used the word blade.  Nor have I said that Vcogs effect on flight wasn’t effected by weigt placement .  
 

I simply stated that in general.  The large headed design is purposely made to forgive something.  Yes ?   What is that something ?  Usually it’s a toe miss and or a fat strike.  If a player had neither. Why would he want a wide sole or a longer clubhead ? Real question.  Outside the odd person who just has a mental block , what other reason are there ? 
 

 

now to the actual point. The person who says “ I just hit the smaller head better. For whatever reason “.   Why is this so hard to believe ?  Why is it that some folks can need a larger head and  wider sole with weight back etc etc and yet the opposite is impossible ? 
 

now sure. I don’t believe every internet jockey who claims to hit it middle enough for a small iron.  Some are in fact delusional.  But what about us 0 to plus handicaps who try to swap to a bigger iron to buy some shots and find that out handicaps rise ?  I’ve made that trip around the sun 4-5 times now.  Why is that ?  I can tell you.  It’s because everything is a trade off .   Every single thing.  And  the same swing won’t work with both achieve optimum results.  T100 is the best compromise I’ve found.  Which is why I’m playing them currently.  The turf interaction separates them from the ap2 and makes them playable in my eyes.  
 

which brings me back t my original post here.   And my point is. You can’t just pAint the situation with that broad brush.  It truly depends on the player , his or her wants and needs , and the playing conditions.   It just depends.  

[Krt22]

Oh look, a thread where golfer A provides commentary on what golfer B does, even though what golfer B does has zero effect on golfer A. We should have these types of discussions more often, that way everyone can get their fill of ego stroking

[ChipNRun]

11 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Some are in fact delusional.  But what about us 0 to plus handicaps who try to swap to a bigger iron to buy some shots and find that out handicaps rise ?  I’ve made that trip around the sun 4-5 times now.  Why is that ?  I can tell you.  It’s because everything is a trade off .

 

Yes, everything is a trade off. Case in point is former small-college golfers I have met. During intercollegiate competition, they played bladish irons at scratch HDCP. But after graduation to a wife, kids, and a full-time job, they found their HDCPs starting to rise with the blades. The reason: they don't have time to keep their swings blade-ready. They switched to Players D or GI irons, and their HDCPs and scores started to fall.

 

@bladehunter, you made solid arguments on iron heads based on performance. Further, you acknowledged that everything is a trade-off. The GolfWorks Academy stresses this in the clubfitting segment of their intro course. Your comments are valid and presented well. 👍

 

This contrasts with some posters for whom golf seems to be the only meaningful activity in their lives. They seem to want to shame us lesser golfers who don't use Players irons. Well, don't bother. I go with what works for me.

[txgolfer45]

I am surprised anyone cares about irons they don't care to play.    Seems like a waste of energy.

[dropkicked]

Just to add a data point to this conversation...

My best mate has always played SGI's. He had some massive Cobra SGI's and he has always been inconsistent. More often fatting shots... Late last season he didn't have access to his irons, so I loaned him my old 718-AP2's.. He had his best scoring and striking day ever on the course.. Because of his high cap he felt that he need maximum forgiveness... Well, he now games my old 718-AP2's and hasn't played better.

Could have been the heads, could have been the shafts, but he definitely makes better contact with more center face strikes.

 

Whatever lowers your score! #playonplaya

[NRJyzr]

41 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

This contrasts with some posters for whom golf seems to be the only meaningful activity in their lives. They seem to want to shame us lesser golfers who don't use Players irons.

I'm sure it's happened, but I don't remember seeing what you're describing.  I *do* remember seeing a fair number of posts where those who dare to play something less forgiving are called out, or trashed.

 

I don't see what the big deal is.  I don't care for oversized clubheads (it's a visual/mental thing for me), but I don't look down on anyone for using them.  Seems silly.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by NRJyzr

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:05 AM, NRJyzr said:

Reminds me of the Oversized irons trend in the 90s.

 

It might be interesting comparing the size of some modern clubheads with 90s clubs like the 845s Oversize, Ram's FX Oversize,  Callaway's various Big Berth models, etc...

 

 

On 4/25/2021 at 2:24 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My irons are CB from a little company (now apparently out of business) called Infiniti, circa 2001 and labeled "oversize". I've got Sub70 699 Pro demo clubs on order, and I'll snap some pics when they arrive this week.

Sub70 699 Pro vs Infiniti 603 oversize CB from 2001.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, ChipNRun said:

 

Yes, everything is a trade off. Case in point is former small-college golfers I have met. During intercollegiate competition, they played bladish irons at scratch HDCP. But after graduation to a wife, kids, and a full-time job, they found their HDCPs starting to rise with the blades. The reason: they don't have time to keep their swings blade-ready. They switched to Players D or GI irons, and their HDCPs and scores started to fall.

 

@bladehunter, you made solid arguments on iron heads based on performance. Further, you acknowledged that everything is a trade-off. The GolfWorks Academy stresses this in the clubfitting segment of their intro course. Your comments are valid and presented well. 👍

 

This contrasts with some posters for whom golf seems to be the only meaningful activity in their lives. They seem to want to shame us lesser golfers who don't use Players irons. Well, don't bother. I go with what works for me.

Lol.  What kept you ?  ( a joke ) 
 

isnt his premise this in a nutshell ?” You can’t possibly play better with a smaller iron if you don’t hit a big iron well “?    Isnt that exactly what he’s accusing others of.  In reverse ?  I’m simply saying what fits me won’t always work for you.  Reverses is true.    I guess I just don’t get the broad brush strokes of the original  statement that was made. You can’t say that a guy who hits big irons poorly cant possibly hit smaller ones better. It happens too often to deny. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by bladehunter

[chippa13]

This never ending discussion can't be proved or disproved by the anecdote of some guy happening into a set of the other type of clubs one day and magically playing better with them. There are too many unknown variables between the two sets to know if it was simply the style of club head that made the difference.

[Texas Golfer]

Another of the endless variables is the turf, or lack thereof, on your course.  Some courses here have soil consisting of a very sticky clay, especially when slightly damp.  In this condition, high bounce is not your friend.  On another side of town, the soil is more sandy and a wide sole iron glides over it nicely.

[DaRiz]

Agree 100% with OP. Been playing MP4 for a while, bought some Miura MC501 to try out and was pretty shocked how much slimmer and compact they were, and despite being smaller were not at all harder to hit. Anywhere on the grooves with any club is going to be a decent strike IMO, it’s just how much real estate you need (or think you need). Now going back to MP4s these things feel giant, which is fine. But can’t imagine playing anything larger. It’s all about what you are accustomed to. I used to think MP4s were demanding, now they are my baseline 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

First off to everyone... thanks all for responding and having a nice discussion. Second...at no point ever shamed anyone for playing bigger irons and just 2 or 3 years ago i was playing vapor speed irons so i have no ill will toward big iron players when i was one of them. Im simply saying after playing a modern players cb and blade this past year or two... when i look at the bigger irons now in stores i dont think its needed to be as big as they are. Some of these new player cb and blades are veryy hittable. I am not a great iron striker. Id say im maybe a C to B+ on an amazing day and yet every time out im able to shoot my normal scores or lower. Golf  score is not just iron shots its everything combined and really feel its down to short game as you get to be better as a player. Now i do believe a fatter iron has some benefits like keeping the ball a bit straighter and launching higher and maybe a touch of speed retention... but i must say i do think the forgiveness is minimal. I can shank a blade and a gi cavity thats thick... i can push them both right... hook left... you get the idea. I think the irons equal out pretty much but the only true big differences are turf reaction, look to the eye, easier workability, i hear and think distance control, feel. In a way i can argue the irons i now play feel more forgiving then what ive played in years past.

[iNeedMoreGolf]

17 hours ago, DaRiz said:

Agree 100% with OP. Been playing MP4 for a while, bought some Miura MC501 to try out and was pretty shocked how much slimmer and compact they were, and despite being smaller were not at all harder to hit. Anywhere on the grooves with any club is going to be a decent strike IMO, it’s just how much real estate you need (or think you need). Now going back to MP4s these things feel giant, which is fine. But can’t imagine playing anything larger. It’s all about what you are accustomed to. I used to think MP4s were demanding, now they are my baseline 

This pretty much hits ball on the sweetspot. Im trying to tell people to try blades or players cb because maybe its not as out of their league as we are told to believe. They make you think only tiger can strike a blade. Its simply not true with todays forgiveness. Years past yes im sure blades would have been a big no no.

 

22 hours ago, txgolfer45 said:

I am surprised anyone cares about irons they don't care to play.    Seems like a waste of energy.

Im trying to explain to ppl to give smaller irons a shot. They are more forgiving then ever thats all. Not looking down on anyone. 

 

23 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Sure. I don’t disagree with the idea. 
 

but. I never used the word blade.  Nor have I said that Vcogs effect on flight wasn’t effected by weigt placement .  
 

I simply stated that in general.  The large headed design is purposely made to forgive something.  Yes ?   What is that something ?  Usually it’s a toe miss and or a fat strike.  If a player had neither. Why would he want a wide sole or a longer clubhead ? Real question.  Outside the odd person who just has a mental block , what other reason are there ? 
 

 

now to the actual point. The person who says “ I just hit the smaller head better. For whatever reason “.   Why is this so hard to believe ?  Why is it that some folks can need a larger head and  wider sole with weight back etc etc and yet the opposite is impossible ? 
 

now sure. I don’t believe every internet jockey who claims to hit it middle enough for a small iron.  Some are in fact delusional.  But what about us 0 to plus handicaps who try to swap to a bigger iron to buy some shots and find that out handicaps rise ?  I’ve made that trip around the sun 4-5 times now.  Why is that ?  I can tell you.  It’s because everything is a trade off .   Every single thing.  And  the same swing won’t work with both achieve optimum results.  T100 is the best compromise I’ve found.  Which is why I’m playing them currently.  The turf interaction separates them from the ap2 and makes them playable in my eyes.  
 

which brings me back t my original post here.   And my point is. You can’t just pAint the situation with that broad brush.  It truly depends on the player , his or her wants and needs , and the playing conditions.   It just depends.  

 Yeah it would seem their is trade off between the two types of irons whichever way anyone goes. I think this is why most ppl like to find something that is middle ground for them. I just so happen to like the way a ball feels off some of the gi irons but i also like knowing where i struck it and a smaller look with close to no offset. I hate major offset. Give me barely any lol i can play both and get the same results but i prefer the player cb or forgiving blade. Not going to lie... some blades are a bit more forgiving then others out there. My mp5s  descended down from above into my arms and are almost perfect if i had the perfect shaft in them. My MMC's are great. Some blades and player cb out there im sure are still a bit punishing but i still think the everyone should take a look at some point or might be missing out.

[lefthack]

[geakins]

26 minutes ago, lefthack said:

Isn’t that a training aide? I remember selling something like that at the store I use to work at. 

[lefthack]

2 minutes ago, geakins said:

Isn’t that a training aide? I remember selling something like that at the store I use to work at. 

 

That's what the ebay ad said. "Improve ball striking. Gain distance". 🤣

 

<Edit> if it had less offset, it would be the perfect WRX iron.

Edited April 30, 2021 by lefthack

[geakins]

1 minute ago, lefthack said:

 

That's what the ebay ad said. "Improve ball striking. Gain distance". 🤣

Almost as good as the hammer x putter! lol

[lefthack]

I was just looking at my old Ping Zing 2 2i (1995)  compared to my KZG blade 4i (2001). Damn.

 

 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

On 4/29/2021 at 8:25 PM, lefthack said:

What in the hell?? Thats a fisher price iron lol.

[iNeedMoreGolf]

5 hours ago, lefthack said:

I was just looking at my old Ping Zing 2 2i (1995)  compared to my KZG blade 4i (2001). Damn.

 

 

And what is the playing difference you have seen between the two?

[Esox]

    I think oversized clubs may often lead to sloppy ball striking. "Aim small, miss small" . I played "blades" for my entire life. Some of the more notable ones were the oddballs. Wilson Staff Goosenecks. Mizuno Grads, and my all time favorite irons ever, Yonex ADX Tours, which my kid still plays. Last year I started playing an old set of Mizuno MX-20's. Nice feeling, slightly oversize compared to the Yonex set. And a bit of offset.

I used to be a very good ball striker, but given the mounting bad swing days due to arthritis driven spinal stenosis, I decided to start looking at game improvement irons.  I don't want loft jacked clubs so I can brag about how far I hit my PW that is really an 8 iron of old.. And I cant stand the look of those huge headed, thick topline monstrosities that are so prevalent on the market. The last club I ever thought I would find myself ordering was the Ping G425, But the head is more compact than most Game Improvement irons, and the lofts on the Retro spec set aren't ridiculously strong. And they aren't done up in a bunch of garish colors and flash like a cheap hooker. I know it is difficult to improve MOI without increasing head length, but the Ping seems to do a pretty good job of producing an iron that isn't offensive when you stand over it, yet offers a good degree of forgiveness.

[Ruleschamp]

You asked, OP, so here you go.

 

On one side, we have you.........a weekend hacker who walks into a store, looks around, sees some heads you classify as large, and then make anectdotal assessments that playing blades or  small headed irons results in 5 yards or less difference on mishits as well as several other anectdotal observations.

 

On the side 2, we have major equipment manufacturers who spend years and millions of dollars on scientific studies of signficant populations, then perform advanced engineering analysis and techniques from statistically valid data that easily refutes every single one of your anectdotal observations.   This led to them creating a space for super game improvement and improvement irons to assist golfers in those segments, based on statistically significant and statistically valid, measurable data points.

 

You can decide which one looks crazy.