Baldes are forgiving

[bIGwIRE]

I would define a "pure blade" as any blade without a cavity at all. Think Mizuno MP 14s, 29, 33s, Nike blades, old Wilsons, CG1s etc. If you can clean the club with one smooth wipe on the back, it's a blade for sure. From there, you have the smallest cut muscle mizunos to the largest cavity back Callaways.

CG1's are a muscle back, notice the muscle like bulge right behind the ball.

[Zeph]

I stumbled upon a website where they ranked clubs on the scale Laxplayer explained, but have forgotten the name of it. Can someone help me out?

[Harry Longshanks]

Can someone please weigh in from a science and engineering story on why "cut muscle" is not considered a blade? I was definitely under the impression it was a blade, and that the only real distinction was between blade vs. cavity back, with their being varieties among the cavity backs (e.g. bigger cavity to smaller cavity).

Hammy-

I'm not sure I can answer the science and engineering question, but the reason that a muscle back is not a true "blade" (i.e., shaped like a knife blade, hence the name) is because a portion of the of the weight in the club head is shifted and consolidated near the sole of the club on the back of the head in order to make it easier to get the ball up and in the air. (That's bump is the "muscle" in the muscle back.) However, there is nothing wrong with referring to muscle back clubs as "blades". The term is so pervasive that it has come to mean any club that is not a cavity back. Even the manufacturers are seizing on the romance of the term "blade", which connotes images of unforgiving clubs only for the best players in the world (e.g., Nike's muscle back offering is named the "Forged Blade"). If you say "blade" everyone will know what you are talking about. I was just discussing the technical definitions. Some "cut muscle" designs ("cut muscle" is really a Mizuno marketing term, not an industry accepted definition) are perimeter-weighted, others are not. For example, look at Mizuno's MP-60: The MP-32 has some top and bottom weighting, but not toe, so the weighting does not extend around the entire perimeter. Also, the weighting extends into the center of the back of the clubhead, so it isn't limited to the perimeter. The MP-67, on the other hand uses a traditional muscle back design that "cuts" the muscle, but does so only at the bottom of the club. Personally, I think the MP-60 is technically a cavity back design (despite the attempt by Mizuno to insinuate that it is a muscle back), while the MP-67 is a muscle back design. But again, this is all semantics. "Blades" has come to mean a club with a thin top line, narrow sole, small head, little-to-no offset, and no distinct cavity-back with perimeter weighting. That is, a true player's club. But, then again, I'm not in the industry. So maybe what I have been told and come to understand is not the same as the industry definition. I do know, however, that my pro, who is on Titleist's national staff, corrected me when I referred to the ZM as a blade. And that's what got me looking into this whole thing in the first place.

[Stacey_E]

I stumbled upon a website where they ranked clubs on the scale Laxplayer explained, but have forgotten the name of it. Can someone help me out?

One source is the Maltby Playability Factor. It ranks clubs by their forgiviness or playability if you will. I believe it is updated regularly to reference new model irons. The book form is (or was) available for purchase, but I once saw a free online version. Try googling Maltby Playability Factor.

[Zeph]

You're right, Malty is the one I was looking for.

I might be getting custom fitted Titleist irons, Maltby could give a good indication of what suits me best.

AP1: Super Game Improvement
AP2: Game Improvement
Z.B.: Conventional
Z.M.: Classic

With a handicap of 20 I'm probably best suited with AP2 or Z.B.

Does Maltby have his own explanations for the playability factors he uses? It's a lot easier to use his charts if you know what he means by those factors.

[iacas]

AP1: Super Game Improvement

Disagree. AP2 aren't really game improvement. Might look like it, but they don't play like it. AP1 aren't "

super game improvement" by any stretch either.

[Harry Longshanks]

Disagree. AP2 aren't really game improvement. Might look like it, but they don't play like it. AP1 aren't "

Agreed. I think the AP1 would be considered game improvement, and the AP2s would be player's clubs (deceivingly small head, only about 1/100th of an inch offset more than the ZBs, and the same loft as ZBs and ZMs).

EDIT: Or, duh, I could have just posted this link: http://www.titleist.com/golfclubs/ir...ure#Comparison

[Stacey_E]

Does Maltby have his own explanations for the playability factors he uses? It's a lot easier to use his charts if you know what he means by those factors.

He very well may, but I never went that far into it. As best I remember a higher number means more forgiveness and a low number means less. If I had to take a shot in the dark, I would think there must be some robotic testing involved where balls are struck across the entire face and dispersions of shots are measured. Otherwise you would introduce the human error variable. But I never read that anywhere. I'm sure if you bought his books they go more in depth on the club analysis procedure.

[rebby]

He very well may, but I never went that far into it. As best I remember a higher number means more forgiveness and a low number means less. If I had to take a shot in the dark, I would think there must be some robotic testing involved where balls are struck across the entire face and dispersions of shots are measured. Otherwise you would introduce the human error variable. But I never read that anywhere. I'm sure if you bought his books they go more in depth on the club analysis procedure.

From what I read about the ratings they are based pretty heavily on face balance, center of gravity, shape, size and factors like that. I'm guessing that those values are directly/indicretly related to "forgiveness" and "playability". Personally I think that my ZM's are perfectly playable and they got a low score. What's up w/that?

[Young Golf Prodigy]

Alright, pure blade vs cut muscle? Some examples? I just got a set of

Blades are way better than cavity back for sure. By the way, rebby, I envy your bag man, I want your clubs, but I am broke!

[rebby]

By the way, rebby, I envy your bag man, I want your clubs, but I am broke!

Thanks. I've been working on my bag pretty hard this fall. I'll be adding 3 Vokey wedges and a new putter before 09. I'm really looking forward to having a good year next summer.

[GolferDot]

I know this "marketing" thing is thrashed but here is what my personal opinion is ...

Playability = What I can personally hit most consistant where I want it to go.

So I don't care what catagory my clubs fall into, it is what I like to hit and the only way to find out is to demo different types.

My Bag :-

King Cobra Small headed 12 degree Driver
3 Wood = 15 degree
5 Wood = 19 degree

3I-SW = King Cobra from about 12 years ago
Gap Wedge = King Cobra from 11 years ago

All my clubs are regular shafts, 1/4inch shortend ( I first got them when I was 13) I am now 6' tall.

I hit my driver 240-260 meters (264-286 yards)
and have some great accuracy with my irons.
So I don't really think it matters what you have as long as you like/know how to play with them.

[RichF]

Blades are fine if you have a solid but more importantly, reliable & repetitive swing - and you play often.

I'm 37 and I've been playing golf seriously for a year (that is, 3x a week in summer, 1-2x a week in winter, 3x a week on the range etc), and started off with Mizuno MX-19 cavity-backs but around Christmas last year, I added some individual blade irons (3, 6, 7, 8) to my set and start practising with these at the range, which eventually found their way into my bag around February this year.

This weekend, I just bought and got fitted for a brand new set of Titleist 695.MB irons and I have no problem hitting any of these when I'm on the course. I'm just getting more into fade/draw and trajectories and the only issue is maybe 5-10 yeards distance-loss cos the Mizuno CBs had 2° more loft on every iron!

In fact, my 'go-to' club off the tee now is the 3-iron.

[MrBirdie]

first of all, I would like to add that cut muscle irons are in fact blades but not the truest of the defined blade . However a blade is anything without a cavity back so I dont agree that MP-60s or titleist 695 cb are blades or any of the Ping 's' series.

A true blade is the Ben Hogan Apex; no cut muscle at all or anything, straight up forged. Its hard to fine a true old blade, MacGregor and Wilson were famously known for their beautiful forged blade irons and I believe theyre coming out with some new technology in a blade type iron which is sweet.