Master "Forged vs. Cast" or "Blade vs. Game-Improvement" Iron Thread - Page 69

Quote:

Originally Posted by dak4n6 

 

Most of those CB irons that pros use are still 'blades'. I define blades as thin top line, thin sole, minimal to no offset, and small heads. Once you have a club that fits these criteria, it doesn't make much difference if you have a little metal scooped out of the back or not.

 

As for making the game harder on yourself, let me use a fishing analogy: Most fishermen use spinning equipment because it's easier. I have used spinning all my life. However, 2 yrs ago I got my first conventional casting reel. Conventitonal casting reels are looked upon as difficult equipment for 'serious' fishermen. Nonesense. It tool a little dedication and work, but now that I have become adept at using casting reels, I will never go back because the sensitivity and control are unmatched by spinning.

 

In the same way, blades require a little more work and dedication, but in the end you are rewarded with better technique, and you will have the feedback necessary to know when you're a little off.

I believe for the purposes of that article they define a blade as a muscle back iron.  I think center-of-gravity-wise there is more of a difference than most people think.  I kinda get the analogy between fishing and golf, but not really.  You have to play your misses in golf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moparman426 

Is this implying that since most of the tour players are using cavity backs, lesser non-tour players should all be following suit? 

Not really.  Did you read the article?

To further elaborate, so as not to sound snarky.  What I took from the article is:

• There are a number of differences between how blades and cavity backs play
• Changes in ball technology, as well as some of the newer cavity back options make blade irons less desireable
• If you are going to play with blades, you better not only have the game for it, but you better practice an awful lot.

If possession of a MB or CB (pick one) is punishable by death. How many would stop playing golf rather then convert? 

(MB vs CB - a religious war for those of us who attend services on the back 9 every holy day.)

I did read the article.  I also take anything that Golf Digest publishes with a grain of salt.   I don't think the article was meant to be used as tool to compare tour pros to the masses.

I also agree that a cavity back is not a blade.  A cavity back can be a player's iron, but it's still not a blade in the traditional sense.

Luckily for me, my 695mb irons are one of the most forgiving blade designs ever released, I love these sticks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle 

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-08/golf-johnson-equipment-0815

 

Pretty good article on blades vs. cavity backs.  65% - 75% of PGA Tour players (on a given week) use cavity backs.  I've played blades and I've played cavity backs.  No way you'd ever get me to go back to a blade.  Why make the game harder on yourself than it needs to be?

Why would anyone try to get you to go back to a blade? I prefer blades but with the right shaft I'd play a lot of CBs - they just never seem to show up on fleabay in good shape with a shaft I'd play.

I'd guess the majoirity of pro's are playing some form of cavity backs, like the Titleist AP2 or CB, Ping i20/G20, Mizuno MP-59, TaylorMade TP MC/CB/R11, or blends like Phil does where he uses X-Proto's for 5-9 and CB's for 3, 4.  I know some are playing Titleist MB's or MP-68/69 but I don't see too many. 

With the technology in materials, and how golf clubs are made has made cavity backs with great feel. There isn't such a disparity anymore between blades and cavity backs.. 

I would read it more if you care about your score, you should consider cavity backs of some type. If you are playing for fun, use whatever makes you happy.  I wonder what percentage of new pro's (under 30) use blades versus the older crowd. Player Irons 20 years ago when guys like Phil and Tiger were growing up are not the same as the modern ones.  If something works, a lot of people are hesitant to change.

Cavity back and blade are really too vague of categories. Cavity back to me goes from something like Rocketballz Maxx to something like the MP-63.  The forgiveness difference between those 2 is a lot more than between the mp-63 and whatever you consider a blade.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by moparman426 

Is this implying that since most of the tour players are using cavity backs, lesser non-tour players should all be following suit? 

As far as difficulty to hit and workability, I can't say I really noticed a difference between my i3's and my MP-14's. The 2 main differences: the blades feel better and look better. As a result, I feel more confident standing over the ball. 

Yes - I play for fun and feel. It's all I have left. As long as I'm not slowing the game searching for my ball - nobody cares.  The worst that can happen is I buy the coffee.

A Pro has to beat the other guy. (so does a gambler)  He has to make the cut. Different games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

I would read it more if you care about your score, you should consider cavity backs of some type. If you are playing for fun, use whatever makes you happy.  I wonder what percentage of new pro's (under 30) use blades versus the older crowd. Player Irons 20 years ago when guys like Phil and Tiger were growing up are not the same as the modern ones.  If something works, a lot of people are hesitant to change.

 

Cavity back and blade are really too vague of categories. Cavity back to me goes from something like Rocketballz Maxx to something like the MP-63.  The forgiveness difference between those 2 is a lot more than between the mp-63 and whatever you consider a blade.  

 

 

Couldn't agree with you more on both points.  Look at your very first set of clubs or for you younger people look at your dads first set or clubs from the 1980's.  Pretty much every set of clubs were blades or bladish clubs.  Now a days with the younger generation of golfers making pro the clubs when they were teenagers were a hell of a lot different. Iron technology has changed a lot in those two decades.

And on the "what is a blade" subject I think like you Irons like the 712 CB are yes in fact cavity backs but they are still blades because outside of the back of the club the topline, face, and soul look the exact same as the 712 MB.

712 CB's are cavity backs, not blades.  Your point is well taken though, cavity backs vary greatly in terms of playability.  Comparing Titleist iron offerings, the AP1 rates an 838 MPF (SGI) where the AP2 is rated at 548 (Conventional), the CB is 517 (conventional) compared to the blade MB which is rated at 321 (Classic).  Cavity back no longer is indicative of ease of play which is probably the biggest difference from the Hogan days.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosnas 

Couldn't agree with you more on both points.  Look at your very first set of clubs or for you younger people look at your dads first set or clubs from the 1980's.  Pretty much every set of clubs were blades or bladish clubs.  Now a days with the younger generation of golfers making pro the clubs when they were teenagers were a hell of a lot different. Iron technology has changed a lot in those two decades.

 

And on the "what is a blade" subject I think like you Irons like the 712 CB are yes in fact cavity backs but they are still blades because outside of the back of the club the topline, face, and soul look the exact same as the 712 MB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

712 CB's are cavity backs, not blades.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosnas 

. . . are yes in fact cavity backs but they are still blades. . .

Pretty simple. They're either cavity backs or they're not. If they're cavity backs, they're not blades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

 

 

Pretty simple. They're either cavity backs or they're not. If they're cavity backs, they're not blades.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle 

• If you are going to play with blades, you better not only have the game for it, but you better practice an awful lot.

I still haven't seen any evidence of this in my own game.  3-4 years ago when I first started playing and putting my set together, I had a set of SGI irons.  I think they were the Callaway FT9 3-PW.  About 1.5 years ago I bought the Mizuno MP68s.  While they look better and well struck shots sound/feel better (subjectively), I didn't get any better nor worse in using them.  They also didn't help me improve by alerting me to when I made a pure strike vs when I didn't.

My own speculation is that the differences between the two only matter for highly skilled golfers that regularly strike the ball within a few centimeters range on the clubface.  Realistically, a 15 handicap isn't doing that.  He's hitting them on a much wider range from hosel to toe.  And in my experience, a shot off the toe of your 150 club with a SGI iron does not still go 145 yards in the general vicinity of your aim.  And off the hosel, forget about it.

Basically, my own non-scientific experience tells me that I just need to really work on my swing a lot regardless of what I'm playing...so I might as well play what looks good to me.

Brandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

 

I still haven't seen any evidence of this in my own game.  3-4 years ago when I first started playing and putting my set together, I had a set of SGI irons.  I think they were the Callaway FT9 3-PW.  About 1.5 years ago I bought the Mizuno MP68s.  While they look better and well struck shots sound/feel better (subjectively), I didn't get any better nor worse in using them.  They also didn't help me improve by alerting me to when I made a pure strike vs when I didn't.

 

My own speculation is that the differences between the two only matter for highly skilled golfers that regularly strike the ball within a few centimeters range on the clubface.  Realistically, a 15 handicap isn't doing that.  He's hitting them on a much wider range from hosel to toe.  And in my experience, a shot off the toe of your 150 club with a SGI iron does not still go 145 yards in the general vicinity of your aim.  And off the hosel, forget about it.

 

Basically, my own non-scientific experience tells me that I just need to really work on my swing a lot regardless of what I'm playing...so I might as well play what looks good to me.

 

Brandon

Obviously there is no definitive answer for this.  Like I said, no way I'd go back to blades.  Maybe that's just personal preference.

What I believe to be true about blade irons is:

• Smaller sweet spot than GI iron = less forgiving = have to be more precise with your swing to achieve the desired outcome
• Higher center of gravity than GI iron = have to hit the club higher on the face = have to have better swing dynamics
• More heel weighted = actual sweet spot between center of face and heel of clubhead = toe strikers will have trouble

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle 

• 
  
• Higher center of gravity than GI iron = have to hit the club higher on the face = have to have better swing dynamics

Can you elaborate on this one?  If you hit the club lower on the face, is the result that poor swingers are unable to get the ball up in the air with a blade/MB iron?

Brandon