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

[Norm3333]

It is easier to shape shots with blades because a great many cavity backs are designed to get the ball into the air. Most of the club head weight is placed low in the club and out toward the toe, to help poorly executed swings have a reasonable result.

Blades' weight tends to be more evenly distributed since the designer's objective is not to just get the ball into the air since a common blade user tends to have a more solid swing with enough club-head speed that can get the ball in the air without any problems.

[Zeph]

Why don't we make a poll out of this topic? With options something like this:

- I have switched to blades and they improved my game
- I have switched to blades, but my game stayed the same
- I have switched to blades and my game got worse
- Always played blades
- Never played blades

There are so many opinions around this, some hard facts might be useful.

[Norm3333]

Why don't we make a poll out of this topic? With options something like this:

Good idea.

[wachesawgolfer]

I always say the same thing. Buy a component blade, say a 6 iron head, get fitted and play with this club or use it at the range. You will quickly see, it will not bite you but plays just like a golf club. But, it lets you know if hits are off and really hums when you catch one well. The big edge is chipping around the greens, very easy to learn the feel to find the holes into makable range.

Years ago there were only blade irons, thats all anybody could buy. No money in that so the manufacturers keep tweaking irons to make them sell each year. Bigger heads, stronger lofts, longer clubs and thin faces, todays 7 iron is yesterdays 5 iron and in some the 4 iron. We have not gotten better we only rebadge our irons and change the color inserts on the back to feel better.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Why don't we make a poll out of this topic? With options something like this:

Do we have a volunteer? Good idea though.

I always say the same thing. Buy a component blade, say a 6 iron head, get fitted and play with this club or use it at the range. You will quickly see, it will not bite you but plays just like a golf club. But, it lets you know if hits are off and really hums when you catch one well. The big edge is chipping around the greens, very easy to learn the feel to find the holes into makable range.

I agree with this idea. Maybe buy a 6 and PW blade to improve your ballstriking and see if you like them. Blades IMO are a great training aid for ballstriking. I just don't think that many people who use them (on the course) can actually reap the benefits IMO.

As for the hammer/frying pan analogy, I'm not sure how true it actually is. I'll try to find out or maybe someone here knows.

[Zeph]

The hammer and the frying pan theory depends on what kind of weight you have behind the club at different places on the face. A hammer obviously will hit a nail better than a frying pan, but if the frying pan is more like 10 hammers taped together, the difference would be smaller. I'm just guessing here, so anyone please feel free to correct me.

The factors in play on how far you'll get the nail down is the weight and consistency of the hammer and the speed. The speed is related to the design, handle and weight. Like the clubhead, shaft and your hands. I picture the blade as a triangle, or a pyramid. Take a pyramid, lift it off the ground and attach it to a shaft. The bottom of the pyramid will be the face of the club. Hitting it dead center will give the most mass a chance to more through the ball, which will result in the furthest shot. Should you hit it slightly off centre, less weight will travel directly through the ball and it will travel a shorter distance. Hitting it on the edge, like the toe of a club, will not feel good. The middle of the pyramid will try to move swiftly through, but the ball is in the way. There is not enough mass to move it any considerable distance. This will result in the pyramid turning, as in an open clubface, or just pushing the ball through, but much shorter. That was the blade. Now, picture a coned cylinder. Somewhat like a pyramid, but the top is flat, coning downwards to the bottom. So you've got a shape that has the same amount of mass over a larger space than the pyramid of the blade. A direct hit in the middle will shoot the ball nicely into the air with all the available mass. A mishit, slightly in any direction will still have the same amount of mass passing through the ball, but it won't be in balance, the cube will try to move past the ball with the centre. As before, this can open the clubface or create a shorter shot, but with the large amount of mass, it will still hit it better than with the pyramid. Comparing to hammers and a sledge is a bit hard, but let's put it easy. The smaller the hammer, the better control you have. This is mostly due to the weight, but I think also because you don't have any excess mass that travels. Think of the pyramid again, the perfect spot to hit it is dead centre, it's the sweet spot, when traveling it will stay very stable on the direction this mass is moving. With the cube you've got more mass on the sides, this is harder to control, harder to hit perfect. And when you do, you won't have hit it as well due to the excess mass pulling in other directions. With the pyramid the centre will always be the heaviest part and will be leading. With the cube, a larger area can dominate the travel, giving you less control. This is probably way off, but it's an interesting topic. If anyone had some accurate information on this subject, please write it down. Just now I thought of The Maltby Playability factor. His ranking of clubs is based on exactly this stuff. First time I visited his site I just wanted the numbers, but I'll look up his work tomorrow, it's probably an interesting read. Maybe understanding how the golf clubs work can help on understanding how to enable them best. Edit: Quickly found some stuff here about moment of intertia, I'm not way off. http://www.ralphmaltby.com/29 Here's an interesting quote:

Let’s take two different clubhead designs. One is a traditional shape muscle back iron with much of its weight placed near the middle of the clubhead. The other is a modern longer blade length cavity back iron with more of its weight distributed in the toe and heel areas. The MOI’s of these two irons will be different. The muscle back would probably have an MOI reading some 25% or more lower than the cavity back which causes the muscle back to rotate open or closed more easily on off center hits. More specifically, what this means to the golfer is that a shot hit the same amount off center on both irons would produce two different results.

Testing a blade 6 iron may be interesting, but it would be even more interesting to test it side by side with a state of the art cavity back iron. Preferably of the same brand, I think a lot of these differences are due to different design, not just the existance of the cavity back.

[GaijinGolfer]

The theory behind blades is that to hit them well, you will have to focus on making a better swing and that, in turn, will make you better. Some also say that you get better feedback with blades. They say that when you mishit the ball, it stings in your hands a little bit.
Personally, I think all that is a bunch of nonsense.
IMO, the desire to hit blades is all about ego. People think that you are a better player if you hit blades, so they aspire to elevate their game to a level where they could hit blades well.
Also, IMO, the notion that you can shape your shots better with blades is a bunch on nonsense. Plenty of tour pros are hitting cavity-backs nowdays and shape their shots as good as anyone.
I love the looks of blades as much as anyone, but to me it makes absolutely no sense why you would want clubs that make this game harder than it already is.

[Norm3333]

Zeph makes a lot of good points. For me though, all I know is when I was at the range last week, my mx-23 6 iron went about 15 yards shorter than my Nike VR blade 6 iron. Same swing. Same crappy range ball. And this was repeated over and over.

One reason could be that I have hit sooooooo many balls with my mx-23s. I am a range rat.

Does anyone know if you lose distance on a forged club over the years?

I will also say that the zero offset in my blades and lack of trampoline effect gives me a more predictable accuracy and distance over the GI irons I demoed recently.

[Zeph]

You got better forgiveness in a cavity back, and I have no problem accepting that a blade with feel like a worse shot of the toe than a cavity back. Still, it doesn't matter as much, if you didn't hit centre you'll know any way. That you can shape shots better is something I don't understand. If you can hit the ball equally far with both clubs, why should one be easier to create spin with than the other, granted that the grooves are the same?

The reason I find reasonable is that you are forced to find the sweet spot with a blade, and once you find it, every shot will feel better. Still, if you find that spot and hit it every time with a CB, I dont' see why you shouldn't hit it as far and be able to shape it as good.

Norm3333: Could it be that you hit the Nike blade closer to the sweet spot than the cavity back? Could also have to do with the shaft, lie, angle. Maybe the CB is a bit heavier and will during the downswing come at a steeper angle, making the angle you hit the ball slightly higher. Did you take any notice on the height of your shots? Were they somewhat equal?

[denver_nuggs_15]

The theory behind blades is that to hit them well, you will have to focus on making a better swing and that, in turn, will make you better. Some also say that you get better feedback with blades. They say that when you mishit the ball, it stings in your hands a little bit.

Have you hit blades? I have a lone blade (Mizuno 6i) that I use for ballstriking. I found out that I'm a pretty good ballstriker, but not great. My PINGs cover very slight misses up feel wise. The Mizzuno lets me know where I missed because the sweetspot is so small.

IMO, the desire to hit blades is all about ego. People think that you are a better player if you hit blades, so they aspire to elevate their game to a level where they could hit blades well.

Wrong can of worms to open.

I love the looks of blades as much as anyone, but to me it makes absolutely no sense why you would want clubs that make this game harder than it already is.

This is exactly what I think. You should play the clubs that work for you... that you would benefit most from...that would be best for scores. For some, blades are best for their scores. They are good ballstrikers, can control their shots very well, and get better control from a blade. For some (like me right now) cavities are better for me albeit a smaller cavity. Large cavities don't fit my game (too high and zero control IMO), but I don't need the control of a blade and I want some forgiveness. Therefore, smaller cavity it is.

[tjy355]

Playing blades vs cavities is like driving an BMW M5 with a 6 speed vs driving a Toyota Camry automatic.

You know, that's a really good analogy.

The BMW will be in the shop more often, requiring more expense and frequent tune-ups to maintain the optimal performance, while the Toyota will just keep running and running - just put in gas and it gets you from point a to point b with a minimum of hassle.

[iacas]

Yet another of these discussions again, huh? I'll be brief.

The theory behind blades is that to hit them well, you will have to focus on making a better swing and that, in turn, will make you better. Some also say that you get better feedback with blades. They say that when you mishit the ball, it stings in your hands a little bit.

So you've deduced that what everyone (who plays blades) says about their own games, swings, results, and so on is nonsense? That everyone who plays blades is simply a dumb egotistical whatever who's throwing away shots?

Wow... and to think, all this time I've been playing blades (or clubs that provide a LOT of feel) because, though my scores drop slightly when I switch to a more forgiving club initially, they eventually climb and my swing gets loose. Since I miss the feedback I need, it's tougher to figure out where I'm striking the ball. All this time I should have been listening to a 20-handicapper...[/sarcasm] You're entitled to your opinion, but try to stick to what you know. I doubt many people will appreciate being called egotistical people who are lying to themselves with nonsense.

Also, IMO, the notion that you can shape your shots better with blades is a bunch on nonsense. Plenty of tour pros are hitting cavity-backs nowdays and shape their shots as good as anyone.

Funny - isn't all the rage these days about how the game at that level has become a boring, "hit it high and straight" sort of game? Yes. The rare exceptions - the guys that truly work the ball - seem to prefer blades. They're in the minority, but they're out there, and the big one is still Tiger Woods. He's the most competitive guy on the planet - surely he has reasons for sticking with his blades.

The simple physics are that a blade is generally easier to work, in all directions, than a cavity-back club. And we've not even touched on other reasons to use a blade over a cavity-back club: smaller clubheads, more appealing looks (topline), and so on.

That you can shape shots better is something I don't understand. If you can hit the ball equally far with both clubs, why should one be easier to create spin with than the other, granted that the grooves are the same?

Center of gravity is one reason (tends to be higher and closer to the ball in blades, deeper, lower, and further from the ball in cavity backs). Sole shape, clubhead size, and some other things can also matter.

You should play the clubs that work for you... that you would benefit most from...that would be best for scores. For some, blades are best for their scores. They are good ballstrikers, can control their shots very well, and get better control from a blade. For some (like me right now) cavities are better for me albeit a smaller cavity. Large cavities don't fit my game (too high and zero control IMO), but I don't need the control of a blade and I want some forgiveness. Therefore, smaller cavity it is.

Smartest thing I recall ever seeing denver_nuggs say.

And his point about choosing a smaller cavity back brings up an interesting point. If TitleistWI or whomever want to suggest we should all play cavity backs, then clearly we should all be playing the super-large cavity backs. No, the truth is there's no "one size fits all" golf club. For some the best fit's a blade. For others it's a smaller cavity back or something like the AP2. For others, it's full-on Callaway Big Bertha Wide Sole irons. In other words, if you reject the premise that there's ONE club that should work for everyone (or even every amateur), then you reject the premise that a cavity back works better than a blade for everyone. P.S. Yeah, that was brief for me on this topic.

[lazebone]

The theory behind blades is that to hit them well, you will have to focus on making a better swing and that, in turn, will make you better.

Nice theory. We'd have to have a scientific test to prove its authenticy or not. I tend to believe it actually, seeing as how I started off with blades.


Some also say that you get better feedback with blades. They say that when you mishit the ball, it stings in your hands a little bit.
Personally, I think all that is a bunch of nonsense.

Absolutely not! I can feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the ball with a blade. With a cavity back, my shot is much more consistent. Straight and "x" amount of yards. However, it is muuuuuuch muuuuuch more difficult to play a pitching wedge cavity back to say 134, 126, 118, 141 yards than to play a blade to those precise yardages.

Think about it like this- to a skilled hand, a blade can offer as much more control over a cavity-back as to an unskilled hand a blade can offer no control at all.



IMO, the desire to hit blades is all about ego. People think that you are a better player if you hit blades, so they aspire to elevate their game to a level where they could hit blades well.

I would say that in a majority of the cases you are correct here. Blades are not for everyone.

Also, IMO, the notion that you can shape your shots better with blades is a bunch on nonsense. Plenty of tour pros are hitting cavity-backs nowdays and shape their shots as good as anyone.

While tour pros can shape their shots with a broom-stick, science will prove you wrong on the nonsense avenue, bud.

I love the looks of blades as much as anyone, but to me it makes absolutely no sense why you would want clubs that make this game harder than it already is.

From 150 yards and in, my distance control suffers greatly with a cavity backed club. Of course with practice, I'm sure I could figure it out, but I prefer my feel with the blades. My mishits may suffer worse than with a cavity-back, but my best hits prvoide a feedback that a cavity-back will only numb.

[TMO]

My biggest reason for going to blades was workability. However, when forged CBs started coming out I was able to shape the ball without any problem. It's all about precision though in my opinion.

[denver_nuggs_15]

The hammer and the frying pan theory depends on what kind of weight you have behind the club at different places on the face. A hammer obviously will hit a nail better than a frying pan, but if the frying pan is more like 10 hammers taped together, the difference would be smaller. I'm just guessing here, so anyone please feel free to correct me.

I was just told that assuming that COR, mass, velocity, and time of impulse are the same, force transferred will be the same. Thus, a hammer and a frying pan should have the same effect on a nail. This also assumes that air resistance is 0. So, if both clubs have the same COR, head weight, velocity at impact, time of impulse, and launch angle, then the acceleration and speed in the positive direction should be the same (assuming spin is the same...I'll get to that in a bit). Basically, they should go the same distance.

(Obviously, there are more factors such as MOI, etc. However, with a simplified analogy of a hammer and frying pan, this is what should happen.)

Comparing to hammers and a sledge is a bit hard, but let's put it easy. The smaller the hammer, the better control you have. This is mostly due to the weight, but I think also because you don't have any excess mass that travels.

Isn't it harder to control because of length. Think swingweight: length of the shaft (handle of a hammer) affects swingweight moreso than headweight. Same analogy here I think.

That you can shape shots better is something I don't understand. If you can hit the ball equally far with both clubs, why should one be easier to create spin with than the other, granted that the grooves are the same?

Assuming that the blade is forged and possibly milled, its face should be flatter than that of a cast club. The flatter the face, the more ball-to-face (woops!) shared area you get when you hit (and compress) a ball. That means more spin on the ball assuming that the coefficent of friction is the same on both clubs.

Smartest thing I recall ever seeing denver_nuggs say.

That one made me laugh! I guess I'm moving up in the world.

[beachbreak]

When I started playing many years ago, there were no cavity backs. My first set of irons were Wilson Staff forged blades. As with any clubs, if you put a decent swing on them the shot was good. If not, a bad shot was the result. Nothing felt sweeter than one on the sweet spot.

I feel the same about oversized cavity backs as I do about hybrids. They don't suite my eye. I really don't like an iron where I can see the back of the soleplate protruding when I address the ball.

I have been playing MacGregor 1025C forged irons for 5 years or so. They have a bit of perimeter weighting but a thin topline and wonderful grind. I will play them until they are absolutely worn out. My kind of iron.

My buddy has a set of Calloways and they feel very chunky to me. Forged blades or similar clubs feel like well balanced tools. To me it's the difference between operating with a scapel (blades) and a bowie knife.

[tjy355]

Assuming that the blade is forged and possibly milled, its face should be flatter than that of a cast club.

Why should it be?

Which forged irons have milled faces?

[Shorty]

My biggest reason for going to blades was workability. However, when forged CBs started coming out I was able to shape the ball without any problem. It's all about precision though in my opinion.

That may well be so, but it is not because they are forged.