blades??

if i can make consistent contact with my irons on the center of the face should i get blades?? what are the pros and cons of them besides the unforgiving aspect of the blades?

For starters, do a TST search on "blade irons." We have recurring threads about this.

Here's one that's lasted 17 months so far:

P.S. No offense, but a moderator may redirect your remarks into this thread above, or a related one. We consolidate common threads to avoid thread clutter .

thank you.. i am only joined a few days ago and am fairly clueless still

Personal opinion: You would be best served by trying to either rent or borrow a good set of blades and then go play a round. You will find out very fast if blades are for you.

The pros are that they are very attractive looking to a lot of us and they are just plain cool.

The cons are that if you ever miss on the toe you will probably see a pretty significant loss of distance vs non blades.  But that's covered under the "unforgiving aspect." ;)

Otherwise, there isn't that much difference.

Pretty much this. I can't help but want to buy shiny golf clubs.

OOOH SHINY!

Pretty much sums it up.

If you can't borrow a set, you can probably buy an old set for less than you can rent them. Epitome old sets would be Wilson Staff Tour Blades or FG17's, MacGregor Muirfields or VIP remakes, Hogan Apex, Apex II, Redline, or PC, Mizuno MP-14's, or Titleist Tour Models. Of course there are many others but these would be the most common of the older ones. Should be able to find on Ebay or Craigs for well under $100, though sometimes people think the Mizzies or Hogans are worth a little more. Many modern examples, but more costly and not that much different, but some modern heads are a little larger if that appeals to you.

I have run into several former small-college golfers who played blades during their college days.

Now in their late 20s and involved with career and families, all have switched to GI irons. Common theme: I don't have time to maintain a finely tuned swing, so I'm better off overall to get the the control/foregiveness of GI irons.

No

PRO: Turf interaction.  A blurb from Titleist CB and MB pages, ´enhanced feel through the turf for the highly skilled golfer´. Implying some association between highly skilled golfers and feel through the turf I guess and why I list it here. If a player is particularly sensitive to and/or cares about turf interaction, it might be easier to find something to suit their preference in a previous era set of clubs than what is offered on the more common mass produced modern clubs.

PRO: Heavy rough. Related to above and depending on your preferences and stroke dynamics, certain head design features tend to enhance performance out of heavy rough. In broad terms small heads, thin soles, and sharp edges.

No one "should" get blades.  One plays or doesn't play blades because they want to or they don't want to.  No one "graduates" to blades, there are far too many touring pros that don't play them to ever think there is truth in that.

The pros are as over exaggerated as the cons.

As golfingdad said, there just isn't that much difference.

After playing blades for nearly ten years and recently switching to some GI irons I can tell you the two pros you have listed are just wrong. Regarding turf interaction, the only time it feels any different is when you catch it a little fat, and it isn't a good feeling. GI irons are also much better out of rough. The lower CG helps you get the ball up and out on a higher trajectory, and GI irons have less weight in the hosel so they have less of a tendency to turn over in the thick grass.

The only benefit you'll get from playing blades is the ability to work the ball from low to high. Great for windy days or controlling that first bounce on the green but that's it, and it isn't as much as you think.

My post was based on playing a combo set of Cleveland CG1 and CG2 irons for few seasons. As far as turf interaction, in Summer when my local goat track had way more hard baked bare earth than grass the CG2 would mostly bounce off leaving a shiny spot or maybe a small dent on the hard earth. It was painful as I tended to take moderately large divots. The CG1 were not a dream to hit off that but still managed to scrape out a quarter inch deep divot of sorts and were tolerable. Which is why I wrote ´If a player is particularly sensitive to and/or cares´. As you posted in the Are you a picker or a digger thread that you ´take nice thin dollar bill divots´ it is understandable that your opinion is different than mine but I do not think that makes mine ´wrong´. Different players, different swings, different conditions, different opinions.

As for heavy rough that is a bit more tricky, you wrote rough where I wrote heavy rough. Up to some point out of what I would call rough I experienced no difference but when it turned into what I call heavy rough I experienced a marked difference between the CG1 7 iron and the CG2 6 iron. However it was also my observation at that time, right or wrong, that for certain players it would make no difference, which is why I wrote ´depending on your preferences and stroke dynamics´.

I have never had a club turn over in thick grass so I do not have anything to say about that. I have seen it happen to other players a bit though so I think it still just comes down to different players, different swings, possibly different conditions, different opinions.

Well for one, hardpan really isn't going to give you any true turf interaction for a good comparison. You are also talking about a combo set. The short irons are always going to take a bit more of a divot and be better out of the rough than a mid or long iron, blade or no-blade.