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

[cwcaesar]

If you can handle the blades, then go with them. I love the classic look. MP-67 would be a good choice.

[b-squared]

Since I'm a traditional player, I prefer muscleback blades, and I know how unforgiving they can be, but I turn that into a positive. Sure I may mishit from time to time since they're less forgiving, but I get to practice with the harder shot which will eventually help my control of the ball get better in time. I'm not satisfied with my handicap and I want to improve, and I feel blades will help me do that as long as I practice, and put my full effort towards my game, just my 2 cents ...

[ks8829]

The San Francisco City Champion played Taylor Made R7 tp cavity back irons and many pros use cavity back irons on tour. Logically you should play cavity back irons but the fact that you are bring this topic up makes me think you want to buy the blades.

Why not, life is short, you will know when you do not hit your blades well especially when its cold.

I happen to play mizuno mp33 blades and I personally love them and might someday consider cavity back irons but not now for me.

The mp33 blades are easy to hit and feel and look great, I will admit that they look good in the bag and it is a little ego thing also, but I am enjoying them and have been playing them for about 1 1/2 years. I have shot 3 under once, 2 over, 4 over on my home course.

I did hit the R7 irons and they felt great. My golf buddy who shot even the other day plays Callaway cavity back with graphite shafts and is very consistent, but I am not ready to give up my blades just yet.

I do play once a week and sometime twice. If you only play once a month or less I would seriously consider the cavity backs.

good luck and test both irons on the golf course.

by the way how about a combo set where you use the blades for PW - 7 irons and cavity back from 6 - 4 with some hybrids mixed in.

[CG031]

I grew up (started playing just a little over two years ago) with big cavity backs. I first started with Cleveland Launcer LP,and they were OK, but I was never good with them, but I was just starting of course. Then I went to the RAC OS, and I was KILLING them for about 6 months, just crushing them...dropped my handicap by at least 5 strokes once I got those. Then I become a much better ballstriker and the ball was ballooning into the air, and I noticed I was LOSING distance! So I went to the MP-57's this year, about two weeks ago, and I really love them. Are they less forgiving? Yeah, a little. But I haven't noticed that they are so unforgiving that no one should use them.

[clemsontiger]

If you have been playing with blades, stay with them. In the long run, they will serve you much better. I have MP-32's and love them. They really work for me.

[DaveLeeNC]

Way back somewhere in the deep recesses of Tom Wishon's Clubhead design forum is some data. From what I recall using Tom's clubs, a 1" off-center hit with his blades (550M's) was a loss of 12 yards. Using his "player's cavity backs" (550C's) it was 8 yards. Using his most forgiving heads (770CFE's) it was a loss of 5 yards.

dave

[gumpy]

Not sure if there ever will be a conclusive end to the forged vs cast arguement.

From my understanding of metals, the 8620 for instance cast well and forging doesn't change much of their properties. Therefore an identical club made from 8620 steel but one forged other cast will probably feel the same.

For 10XX steels, they dont' cast well... The defect rate for 10XX steel cast is huge and it is a type of steel that forging compresses the molecules closer together and thus creates a better head for THAT type of steel.

In the end the question is more likely to be are the 10XX series steel softer feeling than the 8620? I personally think so but that's just my opinion...

[ks8829]

Why should you play blades over cavity? maybe the article below will make you want to switch.

http://www.thewedgeguy.com/blades-ve...-club-epiphany

[titaniummd]

So, I made a permanent switch back to blade irons, my reasoning being that I will judge my rounds much more by the quality of my best shots than the acceptability of my worse ones.

My problem is that I don't hit the sweet spot each time. It would be encouraging if I did.

[winders]

The article is flawed. Today's cavity back irons are not any less consistent than blades. If they were as inconsistent as the article suggests, no Tour player would think of using them.

Based on the fact that so many Tour Pro's use cavity back irons, I see no good reason for any amateur to use them other than they desire to do so. A high quality player's cavity back is going to provide all the feedback and workability a good player needs to improve and work the ball.

S-

[b-squared]

That is a very interesting article, lots of good points in it as well.

[Cody]

I think playing blades is good IF you have perfect ball striking.

Cavity backs with a thin topline and not such a wide sole are just fine by me. I'll be able to tell when i made a bad shot just not as bad but not enough to shrug off.

[wichitapenguin]

tough call, one that i have been pondering lately.

i think if i could hit balls every day and play 4-5 times a week i would probably hit blades.

as it is though i think i will stick with my x-20's

sometimes winter can be pretty rough here, hate to have to try to hit balls in my basement just to keep my swing grooved for blades.

[GaijinGolfer]

I say hit whatever club you like the best and works best for you. IMO, blades are kind of like a status symbol in golf. As if playing blades makes you a superior golfer.
Personally, some days I have a hard enough time hitting my super forgiving game improvement cavity backs, so I feel that I have no business hitting blades at this time.

[Crafty]

The article is flawed. Today's cavity back irons are not any less consistent than blades. If they were as inconsistent as the article suggests, no Tour player would think of using them.

Tour players have irons that are specifically tested to make sure that there are no manufacturing inconsistencies. The ones that they play are different than the ones that sit on the rack at Golfsmith. Therefore, they would produce a smaller shot dispersion pattern than an average retail set.

[winders]

Tour players have irons that are specifically tested to make sure that there are no manufacturing inconsistencies. The ones that they play are different than the ones that sit on the rack at Golfsmith. Therefore, they would produce a smaller shot dispersion pattern than an average retail set.

No doubt that irons sets destined to be used by Pros are tested. But that does not mean that the retail sets are worse. Just not tested. The casting process used in irons now is very good at producing consistent castings with no voids. This means the irons sitting on the rack are going to be quite good.

S-

[Surefire]

No doubt that irons sets destined to be used by Pros are tested. But that does not mean that the retail sets are worse. Just not tested. The casting process used in irons now is very good at producing consistent castings with no voids. This means the irons sitting on the rack are going to be quite good.

I was going to make the same point.

I would also think even the clubs going to the retail racks must have to go through some QA process. Also how many people are seriously at the stage where inconsitency is affected more by the club rather than the eprson swinging it?

[winders]

Surefire,

Let me be clear. I am sure that all irons from name manufacturers go through some sort of QA to verify that meet certain standards. When I said "tested", I meant more stringent testing to match a set to a Pro.

While most players are inconsistent enough that inconsistent irons would not the major problem in their game, the irons we use should perform consistently when we do the right thing. In other words, if I hit my 8 iron 150 yards when I swing properly, my 8 iron shouldn't go 140 yards, on occasion, when I swing properly.

S-