Blades vs. Cavity Backs - with Data/Video

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, colin007 said:

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

Yup. Jason Kokrak, who won this weekend plays PXG 0311T Gen 4, which are sort of blades. Spieth plays AP2, which are not blades. These guys were 1 and 2 this weekend.

[BHI 99]

Maybe a bit more “blade” than cavity back, at least in the traditional sense anyway. I don’t think anyone was carrying Murfields 🤣

[WillieT]

6 hours ago, BHI 99 said:

There’s a reason tour pros play blades a reason 25HC’s don’t. 

That is pretty blanket for “today’s environment”, but for my father-in-law in the 60’s-early 70’s, that was not the case. Cavity backs were not an option as all who played from 30HC thru the pro’s played blades of one iteration or another.  I like bringing the blades my father-in-law used out from time to time as they are fun to hit and are the clubs I remember taking my first real swings on the course with.  The revival of this thread has me looking new grips for the blades and taking them to the course for some fun.  

[The Flush]

How does a player know when they should move up to blades?

I ask because my son (18 years old, 3 years experience, 5-6 hdcp) seems to think he should consider it.  He was fitted for Wilson C300s 3 years ago. He hits them well. I could be wrong, but I think his 6 iron is his 200+ yard club and that 7 iron is in the 190s.  He practices with a Mevo into a net a lot and should know his distances well because of that (assuming Mevo is accurate). But sometimes on the course even sometimes with the Mevo into the net he gets what he considers a flyer from a fairway lie that goes 10-15 yards farther than expected and ends up causing him to scramble to save par. In a recent round he had about 145 on a par 3 and chose gap wedge over wedge because a short miss is safer than a long miss and still air mailed the green and ended with bogey.

I tend to think the inconsistency is just due to inexperience and actual changes in his stroke from swing to swing. He thinks it might be due to the clubs. When should he consider getting fitted again vs just learning to swing more consistently?

 

 

[BHI 99]

It’s like anything else, if you make a change and see improvement, then the change was worth it. 

Its just golf. 

[Alx]

I always thought there was something going on with the whole "forgiveness" scam...

Ive hit clubs at multiple demos and always asked the rep to give me the tiniest blade and the biggest shovel they had. Mishitting with a tiny blade always felt like I barely hit the face but looking at the performance it really wasnt doing that bad. Mishits with the more "forgiving" clubs had a much duller feel and the results were often unpredictable. For me seeing this data pretty much confirms what I was feeling and seeing wasnt my mind playing tricks on me.

[tomvk77]

These days there is a lot in between shovels and blades. I game the Mizuno JPX 921 Forged Irons and I think they are great, on my off center strikes mainly I get less distance loss and basically the ball goes straighter as well, and I'm still using a forged iron so I still have great feel and workability.

[Shindig]

This thread popped up on my feed today (I don't think I had read it before).  Now I want to take out my Mizuno MP-57s and hit a few times.  And I am somewhat tempted to see if I can get an i-series 6-iron with what is otherwise in my G-400s (shaft + grip) to consider at practice.

Considering my SG:A is typically under the 10 hcp marker and sometimes under the 5 hcp marker, maybe ... well, it'll be a few years before my next set of irons, so I won't be finishing that sentence today.

[Vinsk]

I think it could depend on the level of player or at least swing speed when it comes to blades vs forgiving irons. I own both PXG 0211 DC irons and Titleist 612MBs and there is absolutely no doubt I hit the PXGs longer and more consistently than the MBs. Even when I flush the MB’s as they feel amazing, it’s a 10-15yd shorter and lower ball flight. 
 

I have a friend who’s probably around a +1 who swings it at tour speed. Watching him hit my MB’s was awesome as much as it was depressing..lol. Seeing how these irons are supposed to perform was impressive. But I imagine if he hit my 0211’s he’d have a hard time with the increased trajectory and distance dialing. I dunno. But as much as the MB’s feel great they punish me severely on mis-hits but this may be due in large part to my pathetic swing speed.

[saevel25]

For me, it is controlling ball flight. It is hard for me to hit irons low when they have game improvement elements to them. 

[Wade Patton]

Late to the part, maybe my first post here but I couldn't just skip over the topic as lots of folks talk about.  Personally I just never have hit a GI iron that felt good (but then I've only tried old school Pings) compared to the Hogan Radials that were my first full set of clubs back in that day. Those were stolen and I replaced them with Wilson Staff Tour Blades. I learned to really work a shot with the tour blades and I've -never- wanted a different type of club. I just bought a set of Hogan Apex PC's to try because I wanted some back then, and just now I'm getting back into golf.

But on the other hand I converted immediately from wooden drivers to steel, and of course now I've updated to Titanium. And I putt with a vintage Ping.  I think I'm going to collect a few sets of vintage blades to compare. But I knew I was odd before I got here.

up and down

[SullyGolf]

Hey guys this is a very interesting read as someone who was recently going through all of this to buy new irons. I'm not a super frequent player, when I did play a lot I was able to get under 90 a decent amount of the time. Now I am playing less but I still shoot low-mid 90s when I get out. My iron ability is definitely what keeps me in this range when comparatively my putting, chipping and tee box shots get me into a fair amount of trouble. So I guess I would have to say I'm in the 18-22 handicap range (haven't turned in enough rounds this year).

I spent some time on the launch monitor before purchasing and I swung a mix of GI, SGI and Players Distance/GI irons. What immediately jumped out at me while hitting a mix of clubs was that one of the most "player" marketed sets I hit, the Mavrik Pro were by far the best for me in terms of consistency, reducing fat shots and dispersion. I found with the SGI clubs I hit way more fat shots and was more like the pull a shot way off to the left.

Honestly I can't stand the look at address of the SGI and UGI irons behind the ball and I don't feel like they do much for me in terms of actual results. So my question to you guys is do you think the "Forgiving Players Irons" are sort of pushed too far towards better players in terms of what handicap they get recommended too?

The guy helping me was pretty adamant that despite the clear best results coming from as he called them "blades" (I know these aren't blades) that he would still suggest I go for the SGI type club. I went back and hit the Pros again just to confirm that my  numbers looked good again another day and they did so I pulled the trigger on them from CPO. To me it feels like these clubs remind me of my old A7 in feel and look in the high irons and and I still find those irons a joy to hit. But I can't help but wonder where this push for SGI on everyone above say 10 handicap has come from?

Edited August 19, 2022 by SullyGolf

[ChetlovesMer]

20 minutes ago, SullyGolf said:

But I can't help but wonder where this push for SGI on everyone above say 10 handicap has come from?

My honest opinion, is it comes from reading too many golf magazines. 

Today's irons are so cross pollinated that fitting anything other than the most extreme irons into a category is a waste of time. The fact is lots of folks make really good irons these days, and they make them for all kinds of different players. 

You should play what you like the look of and what brings you the most confidence. Yeah, a company can increase some MOI here and move some weight there. But it still all comes down to that thing wrapped around the grip hitting the ball someplace near the sweet-spot. 

My advice. (I'm no Alfred Einstein but...) Ignore the categories. Ignore the Maltby playability factor. Those things all assume that everyone of a given handicap has similar misses and similar needs. They don't. 

If you like your irons, you are the one paying for them. 

Only two suggestions. 

• Hit them on grass as soon as you can. If you still like them, you are off and rolling. 
• Try the longest and shortest irons. Sometimes the long irons "feel" or behave differently than the short irons. You may need either to drop a long iron and add a hybrid, or add in another wedge at the low end. But only you will know that and you'll find out right away. 

BTW - I like the Mavrik Pro's a lot. I think you made a great choice. IMO the standard Mavriks (considered more game improvement-ish) are too strong lofted. The Mavrik Pros are still a little strong at the low end for my taste, but much closer to what I'd prefer. 

GOOD LUCK AND ENJOY YOUR NEW STICKS! 👍😁👍

[Shindig]

8 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

My advice. (I'm no Alfred Einstein but...) Ignore the categories. Ignore the Maltby playability factor. Those things all assume that everyone of a given handicap has similar misses and similar needs. They don't. 

Similar misses, no, but how many people really have a glaring weakness compared to their handicap?  The mythical great ball strikers who stink at putting or short game wizards who can't hit a green are few and far between.  There's a reason we don't see more people like Boo Weekley or Stan Utley, or their comparable at various handicap levels, all that often.

That having been said, choosing irons based on where they're marketed -- the categories you reference -- is absolutely folly.  

[SullyGolf]

19 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

My honest opinion, is it comes from reading too many golf magazines. 

Today's irons are so cross pollinated that fitting anything other than the most extreme irons into a category is a waste of time. The fact is lots of folks make really good irons these days, and they make them for all kinds of different players. 

You should play what you like the look of and what brings you the most confidence. Yeah, a company can increase some MOI here and move some weight there. But it still all comes down to that thing wrapped around the grip hitting the ball someplace near the sweet-spot. 

My advice. (I'm no Alfred Einstein but...) Ignore the categories. Ignore the Maltby playability factor. Those things all assume that everyone of a given handicap has similar misses and similar needs. They don't. 

If you like your irons, you are the one paying for them. 

Only two suggestions. 

• Hit them on grass as soon as you can. If you still like them, you are off and rolling. 
• Try the longest and shortest irons. Sometimes the long irons "feel" or behave differently than the short irons. You may need either to drop a long iron and add a hybrid, or add in another wedge at the low end. But only you will know that and you'll find out right away. 

BTW - I like the Mavrik Pro's a lot. I think you made a great choice. IMO the standard Mavriks (considered more game improvement-ish) are too strong lofted. The Mavrik Pros are still a little strong at the low end for my taste, but much closer to what I'd prefer. 

GOOD LUCK AND ENJOY YOUR NEW STICKS! 👍😁👍

Yeah the grass thing is part of the reason I went CPO official, just in case I wind up hating them. The lofts also played a big factor I think too a 26* 7 iron seems insane to me. But even with these I think the 4i is stronger than my current 3i haha.

Will report back after some field testing.

[SullyGolf]

36 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Similar misses, no, but how many people really have a glaring weakness compared to their handicap?  The mythical great ball strikers who stink at putting or short game wizards who can't hit a green are few and far between.  There's a reason we don't see more people like Boo Weekley or Stan Utley, or their comparable at various handicap levels, all that often.

That having been said, choosing irons based on where they're marketed -- the categories you reference -- is absolutely folly.  

I don't think I'm some great ball striker but I think my iron play is the best part of my game and my driver / putting is the worst. I don't think it's crazy to have a strong part of your game. Kinda human nature too to play to your perceived strengths.

I just thought it was weird when I picked up a players iron and noticed the big cavity back and moderate offset. Thought "this looks like a gi from a 9 years ago". As someone who doesn't stay up for on this stuff I was surprised to see how far the push for "SGI ultra boom sauce never miss!" Marketing had gone and how lots of GI features were prominent on this "players iron".

Edited August 19, 2022 by SullyGolf

[ChetlovesMer]

4 minutes ago, Shindig said:

but how many people really have a glaring weakness compared to their handicap?  The mythical great ball strikers who stink at putting or short game wizards who can't hit a green are few and far between. 

Not what I mean. 

I didn't mean how often you miss. I mean "how" you miss. or why you miss. 
What you need or even what you prefer. 

I play with a bunch of guys that all have about the same handicap. We all hit roughly 20-30% of our greens in regulation. Which is about where we should be for our handicaps. I prefer semi-traditional lofts. Other guys prefer very traditional. Other guys prefer strong lofts. Some guys need wide soles because of their attack angle, others don't. Some want lightweight shafts, others don't. 

The categories of irons, such as they are, give you an idea how much help you are getting, but not if its the "right" help. 

IMO - The Maltby playability factor is an even bigger waste of time and print space. It typically just takes into account the dimensions and weight of the 6-iron head and makes determinations on whether a "good" player can hit it. Total waste of time. Maybe back 30 years ago when every 6 iron was the same loft and every six iron was made from only one material it may have had "some" validity. But today with multi-materials and lofts varying from literally 23 to 32 degrees it doesn't make any sense anymore. Plus it doesn't take into account how you are going to miss it. If you miss on the toe you need one kind of help, if you miss on the heel you may need another. Is your miss a top or is your miss a casted floater. Maltbly takes none of that into account. 

Obviously if you hit the center of the club face every time, you can play just about any iron and have success. 
 

For the rest of us, just know that there is an iron out there that "can" help mitigate your misses. But only you and maybe your swing coach or a really good fitter, will be able to know what that is. What I as a 15 hcp find easy to hit another 15 hcp may find impossible, and of course visa-versa. 

 

That was a big long winded way to say that the categories may be an okay place to start, but that's about it. 

 

[Shindig]

3 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

IMO - The Maltby playability factor is an even bigger waste of time and print space. It typically just takes into account the dimensions and weight of the 6-iron head and makes determinations on whether a "good" player can hit it. Total waste of time. Maybe back 30 years ago when every 6 iron was the same loft and every six iron was made from only one material it may have had "some" validity. But today with multi-materials and lofts varying from literally 23 to 32 degrees it doesn't make any sense anymore. Plus it doesn't take into account how you are going to miss it. If you miss on the toe you need one kind of help, if you miss on the heel you may need another. Is your miss a top or is your miss a casted floater. Maltbly takes none of that into account. 

Obviously if you hit the center of the club face every time, you can play just about any iron and have success.

Oh, this is what you were talking about yesterday?  I hadn't heard this but it makes sense.  I'll give it some thought.  MPF might disappear from my future considerations entirely.

I grossly misinterpreted what you said yesterday.  Sorry about that, my response (which was genuine, given what I thought you were saying) probably looks sarcastic and condescending right now.  That wasn't my intention, sorry about that.