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

[Golfingdad]

Yes, it can be from 1 chunk of metal. But I think forged basically means pounded and shaped. Casted means the metal was liquefied and then poured into a mold. What they probably do is heat the steel to high temps to make it workable. Then they put the titanium inside and bend half of the metal over, then pound it so it becomes a club. This way the Titanium is inside the metal. So basically the steel is folded over the titanium.

Hmmmm, fascinating.  Can't possibly be as impressive as the Murano glass guys sculpting a horse in about 60 seconds, though.

[Maddog10]

Hmmmm, fascinating.  Can't possibly be as impressive as the Murano glass guys sculpting a horse in about 60 seconds, though.

[jscomp]

The face of blades:

The face of cavity backs:

/thread

[bplewis24]

Yeah, not quite.

[Jakester23]

How many players have won majors in the last 4 years that played cavity backs?

[LuciusWooding]

From 2010 to the present, Mcdowell, Rose used half a set, Mickelson used X forged which are not a muscle back, Dufner, Watson, Bradley, Kaymer, and Oosthuizen.

So basically at least half of the winners. But they don't play blades so obviously they must suck.

I will admit I loved the MP4 blades though; I love them but can't afford them and they still wouldn't help my game. Cavity is an advantage for everybody.

/thread

[Jakester23]

Im not saying they suck at all I just was wondering.

[k-troop]

How many players have won majors in the last 4 years that played cavity backs?

From 2010 to the present, Mcdowell, Rose used half a set, Mickelson used X forged which are not a muscle back, Dufner, Watson, Bradley, Kaymer, and Oosthuizen.

So basically at least half of the winners. But they don't play blades so obviously they must suck.

I will admit I loved the MP4 blades though; I love them but can't afford them and they still wouldn't help my game. Cavity is an advantage for everybody.

/thread

GMac even carries multiple hybrids.  WHAT A HACK!!

Tiger uses (or has used at various times over the last two years) VR Pro Cavity 2 & 3 irons.  Phil's set is more blade than anything else.  But yes, there are plenty of elite professionals playing player's cavities, GI, and even SGI irons.  It's not just major winners (BTW you forgot Cabrera):  look at the entire Ping family, which includes Mahan & Westy.

[Jakester23]

Im surprised more guys haven't switched to a GI seeing how good they preform. Im sure some of it is being macho about it but if it might save you a stroke or 2 I don't see why you wouldn't switch.

[LuciusWooding]

GMac even carries multiple hybrids.  WHAT A HACK!!

Tiger uses (or has used at various times over the last two years) VR Pro Cavity 2 & 3 irons.  Phil's set is more blade than anything else.  But yes, there are plenty of elite professionals playing player's cavities, GI, and even SGI irons.  It's not just major winners (BTW you forgot Cabrera):  look at the entire Ping family, which includes Mahan & Westy.

I didn't forget Cabrera, I only included 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. There are plenty more to be had if you go back a couple more years though.

[David L Yskes]

While I didnt read the whole thread...I was kinda in the same situation.... I started with a set of wilson deep red irons last summer.... then bought a set of adams tight lies... which I really liked....and then I snagged a set of Titleist 735cm's and love them... I kind of went back n forth between the 735s and adams and a set of r7s... and I finally was like f-it and got rid of everything but the 735s... I personally love the look of the 735s and they do give you plenty of feed back on your hits too....

[Jakester23]

So for the guys playing forged irons how much better do they feel than a high end cast club? For example a mizuno mp vs a ping i20 or 25.

[LuciusWooding]

They are each really nice in their own way when hit properly. The MP blades are possibly the most tempting clubs in the world though. Maybe I will be getting one to practice with at some point because they felt better than anything else that I've hit when I didn't miss. That said, my forged cavities are still very soft feeling and they are much more forgiving than the blades. Of all the GI irons I hit this year, I didn't mind the AP1s and I loved the Callaway Apex pros, but was extremely disappointed in the adams and TM slotted irons. I really wanted to like the Adams irons but they felt what I can only describe as artificially crisp. What I currently have is working too well to consider replacing, however. I'd never consider playing something that would cost me strokes but I do like the blades slightly better in terms of feel and trajectory.

[WUTiger]

Originally posted by WUTiger

You have to understand the structure and intended use of the Maltby Playability Factor ratings. The GolfWorks team calculates the MPF using a six-variable math equation. It takes into account such things as vertical center of gravity (VCOG), rearward center of gravity (RCOG), and moment of inertia (MOI).

The MPF ratings divide clubs into six categories, from Ultra Game Improvement down through Players Classic. There's even a 7th no-go category for clubs - mostly historical - that have a negative MPF. The MPF measures the user-friendliness of clubheads. Even developer Ralph Maltby cautions that MPF tells only about clubheads, and does not factor in what type of shaft the club has.

The MPF ratings serve as a rough sorting guide, so that you can try out seven iron models you like rather than 60. ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrayCat

So what does it all mean in terms of score?  How many strokes between a players club and a GI club, or a SGI club?  2?  5?  10?  I see posts on here all the time where someone will say "with your index, you can't hit a blade".  Why can't they hit a blade?  I hit blades for 25 years and my iron game was the best part of my game and my handicap never got to single digits.

I ask you WU because you're one of the tech guys on here and if you can't quantify the differences then I'll continue to believe that anyone can hit any club if they're willing to work on their swing mechanics.

Your game is bought at the practice range, not at Golfsmith.

Again, the MPF helps you find iron-heads designs within a given playability range. Go check the earlier posts for how I "quantify the differences."

Anyone can hit any club... not really. Just for fun, I tried to hit some Callaway X Prototypes (Ernie Els favorite) with a PX 6.0 shaft. Between the fact the shaft was way too stiff, and the head has a fairly high vertical center of gravity, I couldn't generate enough power to get the ball airborne. I need an R.flex shaft and a lower VCOG such as found in the GI range heads.

Also, if you miss to the left all the time, you might do better to make the sole tape test and find out you need the club 2* flatter on lie. That's a lot more efficient than trying to manipulate more flatness into your swing.

Your game is bought at the practice range if you get clubs at Golfsmith that are reasonable for your game.

On value of MPF rating system.

I think it's quite possible to understand it and still find it pointless or useless.

You're a pro now, arrange visits to Titleist HQ, and are more familiar with different club models than the average 'Trapper. Many of us who work non-golf jobs find the MPF useful. Again, it's about trying seven iron models rather than 60.

[saevel25]

You're a pro now, arrange visits to Titleist HQ, and are more familiar with different club models than the average 'Trapper. Many of us who work non-golf jobs find the MPF useful. Again, it's about trying seven iron models rather than 60.

Actually it doesn't, because it does little to explain the rating. One club in the same area might perform completely different than another for that golfer. It's best just to get fitted trying out different clubs. That way it's for you. Some clubs that were rated as GI by the club maker were rated as conventional by the MPF. It's a flawed system.

[WUTiger]

Some clubs that were rated as GI by the club maker were rated as conventional by the MPF. It's a flawed system.

You're right saevel. Basically we've got two parallel systems, MPF and Golf Digest Hot List; it's a similar problem to there being no industry standard for Regular or Stiff flex shafts.

• The MPF has six categories, from Ultra Game Improvement (G10, RazrX HL) down to Player's Classic (King Cobra II oversized). Most irons made today score Conventional or higher. Clubs get their category after the model's 6i characteristics are analyzed using a 6-variable algebraic equation.
• The Golf Digest Hot List categories are Super Game Improvement, Game Improvement, and Player's. Clubs get their category by perceived market niche.

Below is rendering I made of the 2005 MFP grid (see Spoiler ). I e-mailed GD twice asking how their categories match up with the MPF, and never got a reply.

I suspect that the GD captures UGI and top half of SGI with their Super GI , lower SGI and GI with their GI , and the other three MPF categories with Players .

[saevel25]

This is what I am telling you, his underlying method is wrong. His method produces clubs ranked in the wrong area.

Honestly with new technology the lines are even more blurred.

Also its a dangerous concept because what if a person picks a category, eliminating a whole set a clubs that might be the best fit for them?

I played Taylormade Burner irons (circa 2010). MPF has them ranked as "Classic". They are cavity back irons with a high MOI and they are ranked, "CLASSIC". I play MP 59 now and MPF said my Taylormades were for better players than my muscle back MP-59. It is totally absurd really. What if a player comes along and see, "Ohh that is a classic iron, don't want to play those."

[WUTiger]

... I played Taylormade Burner irons (circa 2010). MPF has them ranked as "Classic". They are cavity back irons with a high MOI and they are ranked, "CLASSIC". I play MP 59 now and MPF said my Taylormades were for better players than my muscle back MP-59. It is totally absurd really. What if a player comes along and see, "Ohh that is a classic iron, don't want to play those."

The Burner irons had interesting data: High MOI 15.--- and a pronounced cavity back, both of which help get the ball up. / Rearward Center of Gravity 0.530", about average for GDigest GI class irons vs. SGI irons / 6i loft of 27* and Vertical Center of Gravity of  .911", things that would keep ball flight down (low points on user-friendliness)..

Most VCOG for GI irons - not SGI - were about 0.78".

I'd say low loft and very high VCOG depressed the MPF rating. That would be my guess. What's being missed, however, is the Burner shaft. TM has some pretty helpful shafts in its clubs. (Ralph Maltby cautions that MPF does not address the shaft in the club.)

Going the other way, my X20 Tours have an MPF of 716 (Maltby's SGI), while the X22 Tours had an MPF of 594 (Maltby's GI). Main difference is lower VCOG with X20 Tours.

MPF set the stage for a science-based classification of clubhead designs, Then, the Golf Digest Hot List came along, with three market niche-based classifications. The Hot List Three are a rough sorting method that's easier to understand for the average person than the MPF.