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

[JYB]

ya know, i would go get fitted for some AP2s or something similar but, i have these CG1 black pearls and i just would hate to drop another grand on clubs. The ones i have are the best of the best and hardest of the hardest and if i can get these down, i think i can use anything.

[hansol04]

Hey all,

New to this site, and this is my first post, so it probably doesn't count for much but figured I would chime in anyway.

After having golfed as a junior with cavity-backs for years, I stopped playing weekly when I became an "adult" (the green fees got too expensive.) But recently I moved out to a small coastal-town on the west coast, where they have a very nice course, and best of all the green fees are very cheap, and I can play every day if I wish. So I picked up my old clubs and started playing again. I started shooting in the 90s, but slowly the scores are starting to come down after each round, and the other day shot an 86. I then decided it was time for new clubs, as my "Pro Select" set seems a little outdated, and I wanted something that I can feel confident using.

So I started looking on the internet, learned a little bit about clubs and designs and stuff, and this thing called a "blade" kept showing up. I had no idea what the hell it was, so looked into it. And what I learned was that blades were apparently an 8-headed monster that will bend you over and destroy you 14 different ways, 11 of which are illegal in 28 countries. But one thing that kept coming up when I was reading this stuff was how you can instantly tell via "feedback" if you had a decent swing/shot or not when you use a blade design.

Now call me crazy, but to me, the whole reason I play golf is to not just score low, but to be able to have consistency in my game. And the way I figure it, if you want to be able to hit these "monsters" called blades, you had better be fairly consistent. So to me, having a club that instantly tells you what you did wrong is kinda like having a swing coach right there in your bag. What isn't to like about that?

To me, it seems that a blade is a "total-game improvement" club. If you swing these well, it means you are doing things right. With a cavity-back, one could say that it is a "shot-improvement" club. No matter what you do (within reason) your shot will be perfect-ish, regardless of the actual imperfections in your swing. Now this may or may not matter to some people (golf is frustrating enough without handicapping yourself via club selection). And, in the end, the scorecard speaks for itself. But I for one like to know when I am doing something wrong. "Masking" my faults, but still doing well on the scorecard doesn't make me feel good about myself at the end of the day. Maybe it is my stint in the army kicking in, but "if you are going to do something, do it right" was what was drilled into our heads. Don't let pretty colours and big words cover up faults. Fix them at the source.

So that being said, I just ordered a brand new set of Tommy Armour musclebacks off ebay. I'm quite sure I will get a lot of looks at the course, not to mention a lot of laughs at all the screw-ups and rediculous shots I'm sure to have. And my scorecard will most likely be rediculous as well. But I'm confident that slowly my swing will improve, become more consistent, and I will become a better all-around golfer because of it. I mean, if a guy can hit blades well, he can probably hit the cavity-backs well too. Switch those two around, and it might not be the case.

For what it's worth. Cheers -Cameron

[pcitygolfer]

I think this one is fairly easy. There has been an unbelievable improvement in technology in all clubs. That includes "players" clubs for low handicappers.

I can't think of one good reason for anyone (including pros) using blades any more. In fact, virtually nobody on tour plays blades anymore. This reminds me of a similar issue in tennis back in the 1970s. Borg, Connors and McEnroe all played traditional equipment - stating that graphite oversized frames were for novices. That stopped when they started getting their you know what kicked.

Look at golf now. I remember people use to say I prefer Persimmon woods because they have better "feel". I am a traditionalist by nature, but the new clubs today are way, way, way better. This applies at all levels. If you gave the top pros some of the old equipment, they would still shoot well, but they shoot higher scores.

I shot my lowest round ever with KZG forged blades. That was ten years ago. Forget blades and get forged cavity backs with low offsets. Your scores will be lower and your wrists, elbows and hands will thank you when you get older.

[iacas]

I can't think of one good reason for anyone (including pros) using blades any more. In fact, virtually nobody on tour plays blades anymore.

That's not quite true. It's ~ 20-25%, and often the better players have blades. They like the feel and control blades offer.

[egehoski]

That's not quite true. It's ~ 20-25%, and often the better players have blades. They like the feel and control blades offer.

You're correct. As a matter of fact, Leonard won St. Jude today playing blades.

My opinion, whatever works for you is what you should play. To each his own. God knows, there's choices out there nowadays. Myself, I play forged Mizuno MP-30's. In my opinion, they are a great combination of the two types. Prior to those, I played the 731 PM from Titleist. A "cast" combo set. Try a bunch. You can't put a price on fun. Well, maybe nowadays you have to I guess. But anyway, play whatever puts you closest to the flagstick. Forged, Cast, blade, giant ugly offset irons, whatever.

[SwinginCaveman]

I'm not sure what happened with my game, but I used to play a set of Nike CCi irons and switched to the blades that I have now and I actually feel a lot more confident in my golf game. I think a lot of it is mental and I think that improved confidence will lead to better scores. For some reason I couldn't hit my Nike's well so that played in my mind during the swing and led to some poor shots. I think you should play whatever gives you the most confidence. With the technology in golf nowadays, blades are becoming easier to hit for average players anyways.

[i-Guy]

Anyone check out the article in golf digest about blades vs cavity back..well sort of...anyway here is part of the article and I have bolded the statements that I think highlights what most have been discussing on this thread:

To compare performance, we hired Golf Laboratories Inc. in San Diego to test a Bridgestone J36 Blade 6-iron against a J36 Cavity Back 6-iron using a robot. With a 90-mile-per-hour swing, shots were hit on 10 spots on each clubface . For center hits, the blade carried the ball two yards farther , and its 3.4-gram heavier head launched the ball half a degree lower and with 300 more revolutions per minute of spin. But when we averaged the drop-off in carry distance of all nine off-center hits , the blade lost seven yards, and the cavity-back only lost three . So for players with typical launch conditions, a blade might be better, but only if they're very consistent ball-strikers. The data suggests the best miss with either club is on the heel. With most irons, the hosel weight tends to pull the center of gravity toward the heel, making this the hottest part of the face.

[SwinginCaveman]

Anyone check out the article in golf digest about blades vs cavity back..well sort of...anyway here is part of the article and I have bolded the statements that I think highlights what most have been discussing on this thread:

So on off-center hits, there was a net 4 yards difference between a cavity back and a muscle-back. Seems to support the notion that the gap between the two is closing. I'm willing to bet that if you took a blade from 15 years ago and tested it against a modern day cavity back then that margin would be near, or above, double digits.

[Megaman8]

This is kind of a beginner question, I know the appearnce difference, but is the shot difference between the cavity and muscleback?

[golf_junkie27]

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8507

See above. This should answer all your questions.

One of the mods should close this thread, too. It's repetitive.

[teal]

Casting anything is not a very good technique for forming metals that will impact things or are under some load.

I guess I am looking for clarification. Metals that take a lot of stress or under load?

Ruger has been casting their rifle actions forever. Weatherby and Lott designations. Heck the 257 WBY produces about 54,000 psi of chamber pressure. Ruger's cast actions handle many thousands of such firings and are regarded as one of the toughest actions of all time for large caliber boomers (and small). Cast. I doubt hitting a 7iron would exceed 54,000 psi. (ps - Ruger's Pine Tree Casting used to cast all of Callaway's Ti driver heads) Ruger Golf So to you mean casting technology as it's used in the golf industry outside of Ruger?

[The Wilderness]

I guess I am looking for clarification. Metals that take a lot of stress or under load?

maybe my initial statement was incorrect without clarification. I know many, many metals that we use everyday are cast and they can carry a load without failing. My statement was in regards to the metal used to make golf clubs. Very low carbon steels like the 1025 mild steel (.25 wt percent carbon) Mizuno uses are very difficult to cast and get the structure you would like to have, say a structure with fine grains of ferrite (BCC iron) that are oriented in the same crystallographic direction and some finely dispersed carbides. Casting mild steels makes it very difficult to control your final outcome and you could have non uniform cooling that could lead to phases and structures that are not desirable, inclusions, or voids in the material. All of these could significantly lower the strength of the club.

I do not know much about what metals are used for guns but I would guess that they use a martensitic steel which has been tempered for improved strength and toughness. It is easier to cast materials that you would like to be hard and strong. Steel for example: use a large amount of carbon and pour the liquid into a mold. let it solidify and heat it to its austinatizing temperature and instantly cool it (water quench). This will lock the carbon in the crystal lattice giving you a structure of plate matensite. To Summarize: 1) I am tired 2) my inital statement was too broad to be correct and the best forming technique varies with material and application. 3) I enjoy answering metallurgy related questions and don't be afraid to call me out, when i got your reply I slapped my head. Dan

[teal]

I wasn't calling you out - just curious. I know Ruger is considered THE experts when it comes to casting - investment style. It's been around since the Romans IIRC but Bill Ruger perfected it. They can hold some pretty amazing dimensions on a cast piece.

Thanks for the info.


As I see it - a company that wants to cast clubs has to pony up for the good steel?


(BTW - I am a gun nut - other kids had baseball cards, I had reloading manuals - most people don't even realize what Ruger does at Pine Tree outside of making actions and pistol frames)

[Imperitor]

My two cents,

As an engineer I can say that the type of material used is just important then the method of production. I'm not up to date on golf club materials but there are hundreds of types of steels alone, each one having slightly different strength and fatigue characteristics. Having said that, different methods of production can change these properties even further. Cast vs Forged is only a small part of the big picture in my mind. There are so many other factors that can change the feel and durability of a club.

As for comparing a golf club to a rifle, different materials, different use, different thicknesses. I could go on and on. I believe it's more cost effective to cast a gun then to forge it. Really the heat treatments, materials and quality of production are far more important.

The moral of the story is casting and forging are capable of the same products when done correctly. I believe that since it is much easier to make a low quality casting then it is to make a low quality forging, people give it a bad name.

Now go play some golf!

[teal]

As for comparing a golf club to a rifle, different materials, different use, different thicknesses. I could go on and on. I believe it's more cost effective to cast a gun then to forge it.

Ruger is the only mfg to cast their actions. There really isn't all that much thickness on a rifle action - particularly compared to a CB iron.

FYI - not meant to come off bad - just what it is, information.

[Imperitor]

Ruger is the only mfg to cast their actions. There really isn't all that much thickness on a rifle action - particularly compared to a CB iron.

I don't know a lot about rifle manufacturing so I assume you’re correct. My main point was that they’re for a completely different application, and should not be compared to a golf club.

[cwcaesar]

I can tell a huge difference between the Cleveland 588 cast wedges and the Mizuno MP-R forged wedges. The forged wedges are so much softer. When I hit the first ball at the store I hit it pretty thin, but I thought I had hit the sweet spot. When I did hit the sweet spot, it felt like butter! My Clevelands never came close to that feel. I bought a 52, 56, and 60 right then and there. I can't wait to get a set of forged irons. I am looking at the MP-32's.

[iacas]

I can tell a huge difference between the Cleveland 588 cast wedges and the Mizuno MP-R forged wedges.

Not sure I'm buying it. If Bob Vokey says you can't tell the difference, and his PGA Tour players say the same thing, I don't know that some 12 handicapper's gonna be able to tell. But there's also truth to the power of suggestion, so whatever.

Until we get a bunch of people to all hit the same clubheads made with two different processes (you didn't), we won't really know.