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

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Quote:

Originally Posted by dak4n6

Originally Posted by newtogolf

cav·i·ty/ˈkavitē/ - An empty space within a solid object

If there's a space it's not a muscle back or blade.  There no reason to change the definition of blade when the one for cavity back is accurate.

OK, how about the Ping s59? It has a big muscle bulge right underneath the shallowest of cavities.  Actually the whole Ping s line has some variation of this. And someone pointed out the Calloway x forged. Or how about the W/S FG tour V2.  There is actually an abundance of these shallow blade-like CBs.  How about putters being called blade putters?  There are no real blade MB putters except maybe for the one Lefty used to use 10 years ago.

I was just suggesting that maybe the definition for the term 'blade' could use some loosening up, but I guess too many here are stuck and fearful of change..

I think over time the generally accepted definition will loosen up to include players cavities.  Probably has already started to loosen up.

Of course it has loosened up. There are guys shooting high 70s on 70 rated courses calling themselves scratch and guys playing off 9.9 calling themselves single digit so why not?!? Whatever brings more posers players to the game, eh?

[The Tin Man]

Now were debating how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

Here's the missing link. The top line is as thin as any 1950's club. Shovels these are not - I should have kept them .

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by The Tin Man

Now were debating how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

Here's the missing link. The top line is as thin as any 1950's club.

Okay, so how does the term "perimeter weighted" sit with the general population? Is it more palatable than cavity backs? Clearly those are both perimeter weighted and cavity backs, so just pick a term and go with it, as long as you're trying to convince anyone that those are in fact blades.

[mosnas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Agreed - blade like is not blade.  They may appear to be blade-like, but in terms of playability they aren't.  A Ping S56 is considered a GI iron with 552 MPF compared to a true blade, the Mizuno MP-69 which is considered a "Conventional" iron with a 403 MPF

Thats why I always get mixed up because whenever I consider what is blade and what is not I always think back to shape.  If it Is a thin topline and thin sole then I think it is a blade.  But I never consider the playability of it.  Please don't jump all over me for this guys that's just the way I think about it.

[The Tin Man]

There not blades, there the missing link. For those caught sitting on the MB CB fence.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I think he's stating blades higher center of gravity requires more lag and hitting down on the ball to get the max distance.

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Not unable to get the ball up neccessarily, but a ball struck low on the face of a cavity back should fly longer than a ball struck low on the face of a blade.

Okay, that's interesting.  That may be the place where my inconsistent swing playing with blades has a practical impact.  I'm basically obsessed with distance control right now and I've noticed at the range that 2 of every 10 hits with the same club goes about 5-8 yards further than the others.  I'll keep my eye on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tin Man

What MB's offer is more distance control. The face is not 'hot' - no surprises. Now add a ball that's not hot off the face and you gain consistency.

[newtogolf]

No reason to jump on you, ultimately you can play any club you want and call it what you like.  The point Sean was making is that many people think or want others to think they are playing blades when in fact they aren't.  Blades have the stigma of being very unforgiving and tough to play well except by the very best.  A S56 might look like a blade but it doesn't play like one.  However that impacts your decision to play it is strictly up to you.

Originally Posted by mosnas

Thats why I always get mixed up because whenever I consider what is blade and what is not I always think back to shape.  If it Is a thin topline and thin sole then I think it is a blade.  But I never consider the playability of it.  Please don't jump all over me for this guys that's just the way I think about it.

[The Tin Man]

"Measure Hot Face Surprise?"

Easy to measure. Any club with a wide dispensation pattern when hit with a machine.

It's information they bury, not advertise.

[x129]

I have seen respected people (I think it was Tom Wishon) say there is no difference in addition the ones that say it makes a huge difference. I have never seen a really detailed study where someone take a top player's cavity back (mp-59) and compares it to a top blade (mp-69) and puts out numbers.

I think the scor golf (or any combo set) probably have it right. Get 8-lw focused on accuracy and then get clubs with as much forgiveness as you need.

Quote:

I'd say the biggest concrete benefit to blades is on dead center contact they have a tighter dispersion pattern than cavity backs.  I've read articles where people used "Iron Byron" hitting machines to test this.  If someone consistently strikes the ball on the sweet spot and has solid swing dynamics (decent shaft lean at impact) I could see the advantage of playing a blade.  I think you would have to be so consistently good with your ball striking though that the dispersion on perfect cavity back shots, outweighed the missed sweet spot shots with your blades.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by x129

I think the scor golf (or any combo set) probably have it right. Get 8-lw focused on accuracy and then get clubs with as much forgiveness as you need.

But what about brand/model *****s like myself who want to play the same set throughout because it looks so clean and cool?

[iacas]

Here's my next set of irons. They're real butter knives.

But seriously, here, what are these:

Musclebacks? Yes, I'd say so. Cavity backs? No. Blades? Nope.

(Still a great set of irons: http://thesandtrap.com/b/clubs/taylormade_rac_mb_tp_irons_review .)

[Bullitt5339]

My buddy called his Callaway X-Forged "Blades" all the time.  I laughed and said "Those aren't blades" and he was actually a bit offended.  Then, as luck would have it, we met up with a guy on the 10th tee that was playing MP-14's and I had to point them out.

This is also the guy that rolls every ball, even the ones in the fairway to get a good lie.  And then is happy when he beats me by 2 strokes........

I've asked him a few times what my MP-57's are if his X-Forged are blades, and show him where they say "cut muscle" on them.

[x129]

Easy. Get blades in the high clubs. And a shit load of hybrids til you get to the 3 wood. Everything matches At some point you have to decide what is more important. Playing well or looking cool. Either one can be a lot of fun.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

But what about brand/model *****s like myself who want to play the same set throughout because it looks so clean and cool?

[moparman426]

Originally Posted by x129

At some point you have to decide what is more important. Playing well or looking cool. Either one can be a lot of fun.

Not allowed to have both?

[The Tin Man]

Right now I have Mizuno JPX-800 Pros, and MP-67's in my bag - full sets.

[x129]

Well it depends on your definition of cool. If cool is things like irons must match (even Tiger has played with a cavity back as his lowest iron), top line width is more important than shot location, and you will not use a hybrid because it looks funky, then yeah you have to decide what is more important to you.   If cool to you is knowing that every club in your bag has a purpose and fits your game perfectly, then you don't have to decide.

Originally Posted by moparman426

Not allowed to have both?

[Golfingdad]

I just hit a forged muscleback for the first time today (Callaway Razr X MB) which I would think qualify as a blade.  I really liked them and noticed very little difference on mis-hits between those and my current irons (15 yr old DCI 981 cavity backs).  However, to be fair, I did not hit any off the toe today which I imagine is where I'd get hurt the most.  Everything today was thin.

[mosnas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

No reason to jump on you, ultimately you can play any club you want and call it what you like.  The point Sean was making is that many people think or want others to think they are playing blades when in fact they aren't.  Blades have the stigma of being very unforgiving and tough to play well except by the very best.  A S56 might look like a blade but it doesn't play like one.  However that impacts your decision to play it is strictly up to you.

Oh ya I agree with you there, I think the reason some classifications get blown out of proportion is because some people like to brag up their clubs saying "hey look I'm playing blades." In all honesty I don't care what category my clubs are in I hit them and they work thats all that matters to me.

I realized after reading your post the category I was thinking would be a club with "similar properties of a blade" without being a blade.