Blades vs. Cavity Backs - with Data/Video

[tinker]

Most players I see and play with don’t realize that every time you hit a ball it should be a “shot”. The modern style and instruction is all based on swinging as hard as possible and then having to make a miracle shot to save the hole. A miracle shot with a lob wedge is just as hard or harder than a well placed shot with a 5 iron. From driver on down every swing should be made with a shot in mind. I use low offset blades because they allow the most shot making options. I can always knock down a higher lofted iron but adding loft to a jacked up low lofted iron is pretty difficult. Getting the face to square is also pretty hard with a gigantic iron swung out of control. Golf monitor distance might be a fun game but it’s a different game than golf on the course with varying lies and conditions. 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, tinker said:

The modern style and instruction is all based on swinging as hard as possible

I don’t think that’s true. 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, tinker said:

The modern style and instruction is all based on swinging as hard as possible and then having to make a miracle shot to save the hole.

I 100%......... Disagree. 

If you look at Arnold, Jack, Miller... they hit the ball HARD!!! 

Golf is about risk assessment. On a hole where I know it's not in my shot shape, I will not go at it. If there is hole that is open and gives me a lot of room, I can let loose. I was never taught to just go all out. 

Now, I think there is benefit to allowing someone growing up to turn a lot and swing harder since it develops speed. Then later on, getting them to control it. I rather have speed than not to have it at all. 

In terms of what you are saying, that is game planning. 

2 hours ago, tinker said:

A miracle shot with a lob wedge is just as hard or harder than a well placed shot with a 5 iron.

Again, 100%.... Disagree. 

You can get a lob shot to end up inside 30-Ft way more often than hitting a 5-iron to inside 30-Ft. Also, being aggressive, doesn't mean lob shot is your next shot all the time. I can be aggressive, hit a 3-wood into a par 5 green and know the ball is not going to be short sided. 

2 hours ago, tinker said:

I can always knock down a higher lofted iron but adding loft to a jacked up low lofted iron is pretty difficult.

I agree that game improvement irons make it difficult to hit the ball lower. I swing too hard to even what to consider game improvement irons. For those who don't have the swing speed, they struggle to get the ball high enough. So, this maybe for you, it doesn't speak for those who would benefit from game improvement irons the most. 

2 hours ago, tinker said:

Getting the face to square is also pretty hard with a gigantic iron swung out of control.

It's hard to do when you swing out of control with muscle back irons. Its also hard to do when your a 30 handicap golfer in general. I rather that golfer get some distance, and proper yardage gaps on their irons than add more struggle to their golf game by playing muscle back irons. In the end, it's the golfers swing not he club that matters the most. 

2 hours ago, tinker said:

Golf monitor distance might be a fun game but it’s a different game than golf on the course with varying lies and conditions. 

It is pretty beneficial to know what your yardages are. Golf monitors are very beneficial. Especially when you can't get outside for 3-4 months out of the year. 

 

[Pretzel]

On 5/8/2021 at 10:19 AM, saevel25 said:

It's hard to do when you swing out of control with muscle back irons. Its also hard to do when your a 30 handicap golfer in general. I rather that golfer get some distance, and proper yardage gaps on their irons than add more struggle to their golf game by playing muscle back irons.

This right here is the heart of the discussion, and I'm not sure that I agree with this statement that muscle back irons necessarily add struggle to a golfer's game (at least at a certain point).

Game Improvement and Super Game Improvement irons certainly are more forgiving on most shots hit fat or in wet turf conditions simply because they don't dig into the ground the same way a thin muscle back does. Beyond that, however, the data and testing (in the original video and in others) seems to show that forgiveness in an iron is a very overrated concept for players who can get the ball off the ground with that iron in the first place.

SGI irons do definitely help with launch angle, and for somebody who regularly misses fat or who plays with soft turf conditions regularly they can provide a benefit. For people whose miss is thin/who play on firm turf, or for those who are at least generally getting the ball in the air every time, the SGI/GI style irons aren't helping you with anything and in fact can even be hurting your dispersion. That may not be the general 30+ handicap golfer you were referring to, but it does encompass most of the golfers 20 handicap and below.

I switched to playing MB-style irons 4 years ago after doing a lot of my own testing (100+ shots on simulators and 10+ rounds of golf using both my forgiving irons and 2 sets of blades side by side) and noticing that the horizontal and distance dispersions were tighter, even when you leave miss-hits in the dataset (and believe me, I can still miss-hit some irons surprisingly badly). I picked up those two sets of blades used for only around $200-300 apiece, and that was for 2 year old clubs in great condition (older models go for even cheaper). I think a lot of golfers would be surprised if they did a similar experiment with some used blades compared to their current clubs, especially if they have access to a launch monitor anywhere nearby to book an hour or two on several different occasions to get hard numerical data for their comparisons alongside their on-course data just hitting two balls for every iron shot.

[WillieT]

32 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

Game Improvement and Super Game Improvement irons certainly are more forgiving on most shots hit fat or in wet turf conditions simply because they don't dig into the ground the same way a thin muscle back does.

Totally agree as I saw it in action for myself this past winter.   Played a number of days where the conditions were soggy at best.  I used my Diablo Edge irons solely (pun intended) for their fat soles.  Much less plowing around the course.  As it has greatly dried up I moved back to the SLDR irons - similar lofts, shafts as the Diablos.  They also look much better at address.  

 

35 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

SGI irons do definitely help with launch angle, and for somebody who regularly misses fat or who plays with soft turf conditions regularly they can provide a benefit. For people whose miss is thin/who play on firm turf, or for those who are at least generally getting the ball in the air every time, the SGI/GI style irons aren't helping you with anything and in fact can even be hurting your dispersion.

Interesting comment about dispersion and remember the original video talking about it.  I do have a mixed bag of older MB style irons from the 70's (aka Spalding/MacGregor/Lynx/Northwestern/etc.) that I have thought about bringing to the course, just need to get them regripped as this discussion has continued to pique my interest about the MB-v-CB debate.  The first few rounds I played were with those irons, as I did not start until the summer of 2017, which I "updated" to a set of Tommy Armour 845s Silver Scots from the late '80's (again this was in late 2017).   

 

[snow bird]

On 5/8/2021 at 9:25 AM, tinker said:

 I use low offset blades because they allow the most shot making options.

I have never seen "offset blades". Every manufacturer sells their  blades as their players clubs and then move into more player improvement clubs for the average players like us.

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, snow bird said:

I have never seen "offset blades". Every manufacturer sells their  blades as their players clubs and then move into more player improvement clubs for the average players like us.

Sure you have. Even traditional blades tend to have some offset.

P7TW Irons | TaylorMade Golf

---

Each iron has been meticulously shaped to meet Tiger's discerning eye—longer blade length, thinner topline, progressive face height, and more.

Tiger's P7TW blades have around 2mm of offset right up through the 6I, and even his 9I has over 1mm.

Some blades (many blades, honestly, since these are some old Mizuno style blades) have more. Few have less.

[Pretzel]

Titleist blades designed for Adam Scott, up to the 718MB line, actually had more offset than the Titleist CB irons. It was only with their newer 620MB that they finally made their blades into a "low offset" design.

Blades do have offset, it's just generally designed to be less obvious and to be less than most GI/SGI irons. Clubs with truly zero offset will actually look quite strange to most people's eyes because they are so uncommon.

With the slight bulge on the leading edge of most irons, since it's not a straight line, it makes a true zero offset iron look like it actually has onset in most cases. By comparison, below are some photos of some blades with traditional/standard designs below (620MB, P7TW, MP-20):

[measureoffsetinnm]

3 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Clubs with truly zero offset will actually look quite strange to most people's eyes because they are so uncommon.

Cobra RF irons are good example of this.

[BHI 99]

Which is more important, the “right” head design or the “right” shaft? 

Obviously the trick is having both. I’m assuming the test means everything else being equal. Seems benchmark in success is when someone can finally say “yeah, I need X-100 shafts”

[billchao]

25 minutes ago, BHI 99 said:

Which is more important, the “right” head design or the “right” shaft? 

Obviously the trick is having both. I’m assuming the test means everything else being equal. Seems benchmark in success is when someone can finally say “yeah, I need X-100 shafts”

That's a valid question, but not the point of this topic.

[measureoffsetinnm]

12 hours ago, billchao said:

That's a valid question, but not the point of this topic.

Relevant in the sense that blades vs. cavities doesnt matter as much if shaft is bigger factor?

[billchao]

1 hour ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

Relevant in the sense that blades vs. cavities doesnt matter as much if shaft is bigger factor?

No. Did you read the OP and watch the video? The golf shaft is not a variable in either experiment. This topic is about blades vs cavity-backs, not whether the shaft or the club head is more important.

[BHI 99]

1 hour ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

Relevant in the sense that blades vs. cavities doesnt matter as much if shaft is bigger factor?

That was sort of the question.....but apparently off topic. 

[measureoffsetinnm]

32 minutes ago, BHI 99 said:

That was sort of the question.....but apparently off topic. 

I saw how he maybe missed what you said so asked trying to clarify.

1 hour ago, billchao said:

No. Did you read the OP and watch the video? The golf shaft is not a variable in either experiment. This topic is about blades vs cavity-backs, not whether the shaft or the club head is more important.

Blades vs. cavity backs is itself not as important a question if the shaft is more important than the club head I mean. I get that it is technically off topic but seems close enough I personally wouldn't consider it completely off the rails.

Edited May 31, 2021 by measureoffsetinnm

[iacas]

It’s entirety off topic.

[BHI 99]

He didn’t mention left and right dispersion, at least on the data posted. Or maybe I missed it in the video. He said himself his pulled his own “card tricks” when fitting. Regardless, it entertaining to see and probably got a lot of clicks. I suppose someone on the fence wanting to improve their game with blades or justify the purchase might appreciate it. There’s a reason tour pros play blades a reason 25HC’s don’t. 

[colin007]

1 hour ago, BHI 99 said:

 There’s a reason tour pros play blades. 

That's a bit of a blanket statement tho, innit?