Does the "Cut Muscle" in Mizuno do anything?

[usfbulls09]

Ever since the pics of the MP52/MP62 came out, I've seen a lot of posts saying how glad they were that Mizuno was taking away the "gimmicky" cut muscle feature. So, I was just wondering if anybody thought the Cut Muscle added anything to the club or if the consensus is they are just another way for a company to promote something new in their product? I'm asking this because I've been strongly considering the Macgregor ProC's, Mizuno MP57s, and since the pics came out, the MP52s. I'm also wondering if you all think I should wait for the MP52s before pulling the trigger on the other sets. Thanks for all opinions and advice!

[kylemacca01]

I think the cut muscle allows weight to be re located to the extremities of the club head to increse forgivness. Personally this seems pretty silly on a players iron like the 32's and 67's although they are both some of the most forgiving blades ive erver hit. Bit of a gimmik in my opinion, if its a blade, i dont want a hole in the back, if its a cavity back, i really cant see this doing much extra on top if the cavity.

[jaskanski]

Here come the views! 50% will probably say they have no effect. The other 50% will say that "they are an important factor in the design of this club". 83.7% of the latter views will be Mizuno owners.

[mat562]

I've hit a few Mizuno irons with the mystical Cut Muscle technology.

 

In the case of the MP32s, I'd say that it probably does have a tangible effect. The irons are very forgiving for a blade and I'm sureat least some of that forgiveness and the slightly higher trajectory owe themselves to the weight distribution and the CoG that the Cut Muscle design allows.

 

In the case of the MP60s, I'm less convinced that the Cut Muscle has any effect whatsoever. I'm sure the overall design of the club as a fully fledged CB has more to do with the forgiveness than the afterthought in the cavity that the Cut Muscle amounts to.

 

The MP67s? It's window dressing.

[puttputty]

I had the orignal cut muscle - MP32. It did nothing for me, it felt just like a normal blade. Some people swear by it, however. Must be my swing.

[gregcindyh]

I like Mizuno clubs, but I think, if the "cut" makes such a difference, why are they getting rid of it?

[DLiver]

It's just another way to redistribute weight around the club.

 

I think mat562 describes it perfectly above.

[villa]

The MP-32's are a great iron and I've got absolutely no doubt that the cut muscle is an integral part of the overall technology of the club. If it wasn't there, they'd just have a flat back and I can't think of any blades that have worked without some sort of muscle.

 

As far as adding it to the MP-60's and MP-67's though, I'm not convinced. I anything, I was hugely dissapointed that Mizuno had strayed from making a traditional looking blade. Many people will argue that the cut muscle allowed Mizuno to improve weight distribution in the 67's and while that may be the case, it doesn't make them a better iron. Look at it this way, the MP-33's will always remembered as a great iron but I doubt we'll be saying the same about the 67's (the replacement for the 33's) when they stop being produced.

 

I only hope that the replacement for the 67 is a classic looking blade. There is a huge market for muscle back irons nowadays as proved by the fact that the majority of OEM's now have at least one in their line up. People buy Mizuno blades because they're Mizuno, not because of silly gimmicks.

[bobcat]

The large cut muscle was specifically designed to improve the performance and forgiveness of the MP-32's and was so effective there that Mizuno tried to exploit the popularity of that innovation by adding a smaller cut muscle to other models as well. Obviously putting a cut muscle inside a full perimeter weighted cavity back iron isn't going to do very much, (i.e. the MP-60's). Similarly, the little cut muscle used on the MP-67's is not the the primary weight distribution scheme in those irons as those are based on the MP-33's scheme.

 

Bottom line: The large cut muscle works great in the MP-32, (for which it was designed), but the smaller cut muscle designs are little more than a marketing gimmick in the other Mizuno model applications. Mizuno's only claim on those was that the cut muscle helped "fine tune" the weighting scheme a bit more, i.e. to assist the primary scheme.

[BluesDrive]

I agree with bobcat. My MP-32s are awesome. I, personally, like the look of the big cut muscle on the 32. However, the 67s were a bit more harsh for me.

 

On a side note, I'll probably be purchasing a set of 62s later on. That way I can keep the 32s fairly fresh and still play them every once in a while.

[stage1350]

It helps weight distribution, period. Same as the Hogan Channelbacks and the Wilson Bulletbacks did.

 

It's not like this was a new invention. :)

[skongolf]

I had demo'd the MP 33's several times and was going to buy them when I saw that 32's were going to come out. I loved the looks and never hit them. When I got my set to my specs I was a little nervous, but that lasted about 2 shots. They were so much better than the 33's. Definately more forgiving and for me longer with a better ball flight. So if you ask me there is something to the cut muscle. Personally I think the 67's were a wasted design and screwed up the cut muscle idea. I think I am going to definately give the 62's a shot when they come out.

[GaijinGolfer]

Not sure if it does anything or not, but I will tell you this, my MP Fli Hi (which is a cut muscle club) is the easiest to hit, most forgiving club Ive ever owned.

Obviously Mizuno has discovered some reason why cut muscle is undesirable though. Perhaps they found that the golfers for whom those clubs are intended prefer a true blade over something that is halfway between a cavity-back and a blade.

[jmittens24]

The cut muscle on the Fli-Hi is even more pointless than the one on the 67s. Agreed with most posts on here, it's crucial to the 32s, but for marketing and looks elsewhere.

[schmatt]

The cut-muscle is just a gimmicky way of saying they redistributed the weight. Really, it is just Mizuno's way of making a more forgiving club head with workability. They are just players CBs. It really doesn't matter what they call it, they make excellent irons that perform.

[dlygrisse]

It helps weight distribution, period. Same as the Hogan Channelbacks and the Wilson Bulletbacks did.

 

It's not like this was a new invention. :)

They have always reminded me of the Wilson staff Goosenecks from the early 90's.

[stage1350]

1969 Wilson Staff "Bullet Back"

Hogan Apex Channel Back

Mizuno MP-32

[sweeet]

It helps weight distribution, period. Same as the Hogan Channelbacks and the Wilson Bulletbacks did.

 

It's not like this was a new invention. :)

That's exactly what I thought. Neither do I find gimmick :good:

[ronster]

It helps weight distribution, period. Same as the Hogan Channelbacks and the Wilson Bulletbacks did.

 

It's not like this was a new invention. :)

That's exactly what I thought. Neither do I find gimmick :good:

 

Cleveland 588Ps too. Ah what's old is new again (and now old)

 

On the flip side I remember hitting an MP60 when the first came out and thought they were a club longer, but really unpredictable distances with the same swing.