Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Stug

Explain to me again! Long,straight and forgiving isn't what we should aspire too?

46 posts in this topic

Need new irons.

Still playing RAM Fx2 (20 yrs old now).

Hard to hit very consistently but great on the perfect strike.

I keep reading and reading and watching and reading reviews, videos etc. where everyone wants to move on from clubs that hit straight, easily and are forgiving.

What am I missing here. Who really doesn't want straight, easy, true flight etc.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are a bit deluded.

I play regularly and with numerous different levels of players and only see a tiny percentage of folks who genuine strike the ball really well most of the time.

Lots of people talk a good game but it's rarely borne out in practice. IMHO.

BUT... I'm still reluctant to go for SGI or even GI irons!

Not sure why, I bet they will help me play and score much better!#

Just my 2 cents worth.

Stug

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I think SGI and GI clubs ARE the one clubs that hit it straight.  You might be confused.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they are. The point I was making its how do average golfers 'grow out of clubs'that hit straight and true!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched from Callaway Fusions when I could not control distance. It seemed that sometimes a "good swing" would spring off the face and launch well longer than planned. They were more "forgiving" than my current clubs but distance was always a guess. I gave up average distance for consistent distance. So, I opted for less distance.

The other difference I've noticed is that my current clubs are not designed to launch as high as theFusions but, the sole/turf interaction is better for me -- particularly out of the rough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it was because I wanted to learn how to shape the ball and become a better ball striker. I was playing well with my Burner 2.0's but felt I was relying more on the club than my golf swing. I switched to a set of MP-29's and have become a better ball striker and can shape shots like never before, also my distance control is 10x better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading and reading and watching and reading reviews, videos etc. where everyone wants to move on from clubs that hit straight, easily and are forgiving.

What am I missing here. Who really doesn't want straight, easy, true flight etc.

People think good players shape the ball.  They generally don't.  You are right and you are not missing a thing.  Also GI irons are just about as easy to "shape" as a blade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

People think good players shape the ball.  They generally don't.  You are right and you are not missing a thing.  Also GI irons are just about as easy to "shape" as a blade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what other players can and can't do. It should be about what you want out of irons. IMO GI irons are nowhere as easy to shapes as blades for "most" people out there. Since everyone's game is a little bit different then it would be fair to assume some players can also shape GI's fairlry easy but most can't. And you never know if your missing anything until you try it.

Unless you shape by supposedly manipulating the club face through impact(which is the wrong way), GI irons should be just about as easy to "shape" for most people IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

For the sake of avoiding a stupid argument where we go back and forth with reason why we are both right, how about we agree that not all GI irons are created equally and some may be easier to shape shots correctly. (Those closer to blade designs.) While others (closer to SGI irons) are not as easy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of avoiding a stupid argument where we go back and forth with reason why we are both right, how about we agree that not all GI irons are created equally and some may be easier to shape shots correctly. (Those closer to blade designs.) While others (closer to SGI irons) are not as easy.

How about we just understand the facts of the matter: GI irons are no more difficult to "shape" when hit on the sweet spot than the most blade-like of clubs. It's just physics, and it's fact. All the ball cares about at impact is clubhead mass (can easily be the same on a GI iron and a blade), the direction of the center of mass, the location of the center of mass, and the angle of the face.

Where GI irons excel is in getting the ball up in the air, and on helping to reduce the error caused by mishits due to their higher MOI. But nobody good "shapes the ball" by mishitting the ball (missing the sweet spot).

In short, it's an old wive's tale that GI irons are "harder" to shape the ball. I used to say the same types of things. And it's still true in one area - because GI irons tend to want to force the ball UP in the air with a much lower CG, they tend to be more resistant to hitting a ball LOW. But a) we're talking about a few degrees, and b) nobody is referring to hitting the ball 2° lower then they say "shape the ball." They're talking about curve.

I will also add that I agree that hitting blades can improve your "ballstriking" because you will know more when you mishit the ball slightly. GI irons tend to transmit less feedback, so you don't know if you tried to cut the ball but hit it on the toe and ended up with a straight push because the gear effect canceled out the fade you tried to hit, while a blade will tell you "you toed it!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Everybody's got there "fact" filled ideas that they are right and good for you, but if you took the moment to really read what I posted It started with "IMO" and also stated That for "most" people it is not easy because 90% of people using GI irons are using them because they can't hit the ball flush. So what you are saying is as long as you hit the "sweet spot" it will not be harder shape the shot? But in fact it is making it harder than a blade to shape because it has to be a flush shot? I'm not saying it cant be done, but more has to go right with a GI to shape a shot than with a blade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody's got there "fact" filled ideas that they are right and good for you, but if you took the moment to really read what I posted It started with "IMO" and also stated That for "most" people it is not easy because 90% of people using GI irons are using them because they can't hit the ball flush. So what you are saying is as long as you hit the "sweet spot" it will not be harder shape the shot? But in fact it is making it harder than a blade to shape because it has to be a flush shot? I'm not saying it cant be done, but more has to go right with a GI to shape a shot than with a blade.

I'm with you man! Facts are stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm with you man! Facts are stupid.

And the Fact is "unless" hit on the sweetspot it is harder to shape a shot with a GI iron. (Not saying a miss hit with a blade is going to be a good shot but it will have more shape than with a GI)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anything about hitting blades, but I have no problem curving a Ping G5 iron.  Sometimes on purpose - sometimes not.  Sometimes on purpose - but in the wrong direction.  I can't imagine wanting it to be easier to curve it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Fact is "unless" hit on the sweetspot it is harder to shape a shot with a GI iron. (Not saying a miss hit with a blade is going to be a good shot but it will have more shape than with a GI)

Also factually incorrect. I could create situations where either will curve more. Or the same. And nobody "shaping" the ball is talking about mishits. So keep arguing if you'd like but it's just physics and facts. I'll side with them. I recommend you do as well. :-) Play what you like. I like more of a blade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't know anything about hitting blades, but I have no problem curving a Ping G5 iron.  Sometimes on purpose - sometimes not.  Sometimes on purpose - but in the wrong direction.  I can't imagine wanting it to be easier to curve it.

Exactly. There are an awful lot of people out there hitting epic slices and hooks with GI or even SGI irons. Claims about these clubs being more difficult to shape are just myths. If a flat surface strikes a round projectile the flight of that projectile will be dictated by the direction the flat surface is facing and the path it took into impact. That's pretty much the end of story.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
GI irons are no more difficult to "shape" when hit on the sweet spot

Well now you are just going against yourself, was it not you who just posted this?  Is it really that hard to not try and assume you know more than someone else? Especially when I came on here and gave an example of something that worked for "me" and if you look back I stated

Quote:
FOR ME it was because I wanted to learn how to shape the ball and become a better ball striker. I was playing well with my Burner 2.0's but felt I was relying more on the club than my golf swing. I switched to a set of MP-29's and have become a better ball striker and can shape shots like never before, also my distance control is 10x better.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. There are an awful lot of people out there hitting epic slices and hooks with GI or even SGI irons. Claims about these clubs being more difficult to shape are just myths.

If a flat surface strikes a round projectile the flight of that projectile will be dictated by the direction the flat surface is facing and the path it took into impact. That's pretty much the end of story.

If that were even remotely true than all irons would be the same and there would be no difference between blades and GI irons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • 2016 BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth
      Nice to see Chris Wood win this,well done.He tends to play well in the British Open with a best T3 at Turnberry maybe this win will spur him on. Surely another Ryder cup player.
    • Your best golfing bargain
      I got two: Played Orange County National (Orlando) for 50 dollar. Including lunch and both Crooked cat and Panther lake. And got vouchers to play the course next time for half the normal price. Played a three day tourney in Sauerland (Germany) including a pré tourney round for 220 dollar. During the three days ALL drinks for free, food for free, last day dinner for free. Not just a hamburger, but full fetched all you can eat top meal (and again all drinks for free). Will be back next year 
    • GPS, WHY ?
      It comes down to how big are your shot zones. It's usually better to try to line up the shot zone center to the center of the green.
    • Are you a Better Golfer than a Year Ago?
      And confirmation. Last year I played a three day tournament in Germany and scored 82, 86 and 91. Same tourney this year 80, 83 and 86. Happy 
    • What would a PGA Tour player shoot at your home course?
      Here's some more below about the lowest you might expect - even on an easy course. I think this is largely true, but pros don't tend to play a lot on 'easy' courses so there doesn't seem to be even much anecdotal stuff. The quote below describes what's considered the 'perfect round'. I guess you could also consider a 'go-for-green' perfect round where you also hit all the par 5's in two and one-putted those for eagle for a 'go-for-green perfect' score of 50. Obviously the likelihood of doing this in a single round defies the essence of golf, but it's a good a hard theoretical lower limit that probably depends more on the par than the course rating. Likely the odds grow exponentially as the percentage of birdied / eagled holes rises. I think we can discount albatrosses as a 'perfect round' option. Most tournament pro scores don't get below 56 and 59 with about an 80/20 rule separating the more frequent 59s from the 58's. That's 4-5 strokes (assuming par 72) over the 'perfect round' and 8-9 over the 'go-for-green perfect round', each of which represent grabbing about 75% and 61% respectively of the potential shots under par realistically available. I suppose a short par-4 would add another potential eagle opportunity, but we'll discount that as I'm not sure how universal they are. The lowest tournament round was 55 (par of 71) by one single golfer out of how many total tournament rounds by pros and plus HCP amateurs over the years? So while 55 is humanly achievable it's super rare and likely represents the lower limit of any possible likelihood. That would put the absolute lowest threshold around 17.8 below the course rating (72.8) and 16 below par. So there's a lot of room to go below even a low course rating or par of 70. I don't think the expected scores would get too squished and the distribution would still likely be normal in shape. The thing that is probably unrealistic is how narrow the range of expected scores is. The field is extremely consistent, but I think a single individual player (whose average score is the same as the field) will have a score variance significantly larger than the field. I think the mode likely stays the same while the distribution flattens / spreads out more into the tails with a little more probability to both go low and high and less certainty of shooting within a stroke or two of the mode / most likely score.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries