Blades to improve ball-striking

[iacas]

Got a link to it?

No. I'm simply backing deron's comment that he read an article that said something like what he said: that sound is an incredibly important component of feel. The article, IIRC, was pretty surprising.

It is, too, which is why almost every review I've ever written for this site contains a section on how something sounds, whether it's a fairway wood, putter, or a golf ball. If I have the time to look for it, I will, but in a 10-second attempt, Google searches for "golf feel sound" or "how does audio feedback affect feel?" didn't seem to turn up much. I believe it was published in Golf Magazine or Golf Digest. P.S. I also know, having talked to quite a few equipment designers, how much effort they get to make the club SOUND good. A club that has great performance characteristics but which sounds awful won't get used. A club with nearly as good performance which sounds better will be used far more often.

[shredfit]

No. I'm simply backing deron's comment that he read an article that said something like what he said: that sound is an incredibly important component of feel. The article, IIRC, was pretty surprising.

While I can cerainly agree that sound plays a factor in choosing a club... I see sound as being purely auditory. "Feel" however, is tactile and is demonstrated on how the club reacts in your hands upon ball contact.

I realize that both are happening in the same time... deron is saying that they are the same thing sound/feel:

Yeah, I've used a couple sets of blades in my life and a couple sets of cavity backs. I really don't see much difference except for the

I disagree.

[iacas]

While I can cerainly agree that sound plays a factor in choosing a club... I see sound as being purely auditory. "Feel" however, is tactile and is demonstrated on how the club reacts in your hands upon ball contact.

Look, we're going to keep going around in circles until we find the article. It was pretty convincing and it specifically said that without sound, feel is diminished greatly - to the point where people couldn't tell the difference between a balata and a Top-Flite, or something like that.

In other words, the way I remember the article, it directly refuted what you're saying. If it helps you find it, I think it may have been mentioned in a thread here about listening to your iPod when you practice. I never do because sound is an important component of feel. In other words, the article said that sound was to feel as smell is to taste: you'd think they're different, but they're not, and in fact sound (like smell) is the largest component in feel (or taste). And FWIW, my own experiences back that up (for both taste and feel).

[deronsizemore]

Though I think deron may have taken things a teeny bit too far, I'd urge you to look up the article he's referring to before you say too much. The results, IIRC, were fairly surprising (and quite clear).

I think I took it just a hair to far too after thinking about what I wrote.

The original article if I remember correctly was about players not being able to tell what ball they were hitting (top flight level ball vs. pro v1 level ball) when they couldn't hear the sound at impact. Although the article related to golf balls, clubs would basically be the same. Here's the only article that I could find on the subject: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_n14707632 It's not the original article and some of the tests aren't exactly the same as I remember them but for all intents and purposes it's a similar study.

[iacas]

Here's the only article that I could find on the subject:

That article's consistent with the one I've seen.

[shredfit]

OK, I've read the article and still cannot buy what they are saying.

The results were again amazingly consistent, only this time the players guessed incorrectly 100 percent of the time. <---From article

How is this possible? How can they draw a conclusion if they were wrong 100% of the time? Couldn't a better conclusion, like say, there MUST be other varibles at work here other than sound or they wouldn't be wrong 100% of the time?

Just because someone took the time to write something down and put it in an article doesn't make it so... At least that is my take on it.

[NM Golf]

My natural iron ball flight has always been a draw to straight. I could never hit a fade with my CB irons by using typical methods... open stance/outside in/high finish etc etc... (it always resulted in a pull... or straight). That is, until I started using blades... I can hit a slight fade now, perhaps because blades don't have the forgiveness of perimeter weighting? Not sure, but it's easier for me to work the ball with them.

You realize there may be more to this than CB or blade. Blades have little or no offset. Depending on which set of cavity backs you were hitting they could have had offset that caused you to be unable to hit a fade. There are many sets of cavity back irons available that are very workable. Again a majority of the players on the PGA Tour used a cavity back iron. If cavity back irons were so difficult to work then why do so many of the best players in the world choose to use them?

Have you tried this? Blade back to back w/a cavity? Having recently switched from cavity backs (PING i3 blades, a true cavity back despite the name) to Titleist ZM's, I can say, unequivocally, that it's easier to work the ball

Like I said above both those Ping sets have offset which is making it more difficult to work the ball. You guys are blaming the cavity back for what the offset is causing. A players cavity back iron with the same offset of your baldes will be just as easy to work the ball with.

I have blades and love them, but I think average golfers should stay clear of them as they will not be good enough to reep their benefits and their games will actually suffer because they need the added forgiveness.

[deronsizemore]

You realize there may be more to this than CB or blade. Blades have little or no offset. Depending on which set of cavity backs you were hitting they could have had offset that caused you to be unable to hit a fade.

That's a good point. Obviously had tunnel vision on the whole cavity back topic earlier.

How is this possible? How can they draw a conclusion if they were wrong 100% of the time? Couldn't a better conclusion, like say, there MUST be other varibles at work here other than sound or they wouldn't be wrong 100% of the time?

I think you misunderstood that section of the article? Before wearing the headphones which played the impact sound of the opposite ball they were hitting, they guessed correctly 100% of the time as to what ball they were hitting. Once they switched up the impact sounds using the headphones, the players guessed at what ball they were using incorrectly 100% of the time. A simple switch in sound completely removed the players sense of "feel."

[shredfit]

I think you misunderstood that section of the article? Before wearing the headphones which played the impact sound of the opposite ball they were hitting, they guessed correctly 100% of the time as to what ball they were hitting. Once they switched up the impact sounds using the headphones, the players guessed at what ball they were using incorrectly 100% of the time. A simple switch in sound completely removed the players sense of "feel."

I understood it... I just don't buy it without knowing the methodologies used for collecting the data. Guessing, even randomly should statistically produce at least some correct ball picks while wearing headphones.

Furthermore, if the testers did a significant round of reps... or tests... This would make it even MORE unlikely that they guessed incorrectly 100% of the time. Heck, have someone flip a coin... you guess before they do it... for 100 times... tally each time you are correct... if your correct zero times(highly unlikely) then you would have guessed incorrectly 100% of the time.

[shredfit]

You realize there may be more to this than CB or blade. Blades have little or no offset. Depending on which set of cavity backs you were hitting they could have had offset that caused you to be unable to hit a fade. There are many sets of cavity back irons available that are very workable. Again a majority of the players on the PGA Tour used a cavity back iron. If cavity back irons were so difficult to work then why do so many of the best players in the world choose to use them?

You are correct, My CB's do have a slight offset.

[iacas]

How is this possible? How can they draw a conclusion if they were wrong 100% of the time?

I don't know about your background, but scientifically, getting something 100% of the time tends to make it pretty easy to draw a conclusion.

Just because someone took the time to write something down and put it in an article doesn't make it so... At least that is my take on it.

No, but that article is probably worth a bit more merit than you saying otherwise.

Guessing, even randomly should statistically produce at least some correct ball picks while wearing headphones.

They weren't guessing. They were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball.

Heck, have someone flip a coin... you guess before they do it... for 100 times... tally each time you are correct... if your correct zero times(highly unlikely) then you would have guessed incorrectly 100% of the time.

You don't seem to have understood how the test worked. It has nothing to do with guessing, nor random chance like flipping a coin.

[shredfit]

I don't know about your background, but scientifically, getting something 100% of the time tends to make it pretty easy to draw a conclusion.

Actually, I majored in science (Biology w/a minor in Chem). Scientifically, getting something 100% of the time is exceedingly rare an unlikely. Typically, a trend is established and conclusions can be drawn from the trend. This is what sent up red flags about the validity of the article/study.

No, but that article is probably worth a bit more merit than you saying otherwise.

The article has little merit, I'll point out why...

They weren't guessing. They were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball.

If they were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball... They MUST be basing this on something... another variable besides sound(they are wearing headphones). Therefore, this variable must be taken into account... or the distribution wouldn't be 100%. What is the varible? Is it tactile? If so, it merely points to misinterpretation of the said variable... Which is about the only conclusion one could draw for the given trend(ie 100% wrong).

You don't seem to have understood how the test worked. It has nothing to do with guessing, nor random chance like flipping a coin.

That is my point, If the test doesn't involve anything random... They MUST be basing their choice(wrong ball or right ball) on something other than sound... or there would be a more random distribution of the trend... This would show that the testers really didn't know what ball they were hitting and they were guessing(which you say they are not)... but it wouldn't be anything near 100%.

[Zeph]

Isn't the sound a part of the feel in your swing? Golf is 90% a mental game, hearing the right thing may be just as important as a good club.

[iacas]

Scientifically, getting something 100% of the time is exceedingly rare an unlikely.

There are entire branches of science (chemistry being one of them) where that's not true. We wouldn't have chemical equations if things only happened some of the time. Science can be awfully precise.

If they were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball... They MUST be basing this on something...

Like... what they heard?

another variable besides sound(they are wearing headphones). Therefore, this variable must be taken into account... or the distribution wouldn't be 100%. What is the varible?

Why are you inventing a mystery variable. It seems pretty clear to me there is none, and the progression was:

1) Hit balls normally. Correct 100%. 2) Hit balls with headphone playing proper sound impact. Correct 100%. 3) Hit balls with headphone playing wrong sound impact. Incorrect 100%. 100% of the time, the person said that they'd hit the ball that corresponded to the sound played through their headphones. What they actually felt was irrelevant or so small a factor that it couldn't over-rule what they heard. There is no mystery variable that they forgot to mention.

If so, it merely points to misinterpretation of the said variable... Which is about the only conclusion one could draw for the given trend(ie 100% wrong).

That makes absolutely no sense.

And they were 100% right in picking the ball they heard throughout the entire test. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this 100% thing as if that proves that there "MUST" be something wrong with the test.

That is my point, If the test doesn't involve anything random... They MUST be basing their choice(wrong ball or right ball) on something other than sound... or there would be a more random distribution of the trend...

Uhm, or the sound is a key component of "feel" and is thus tricking them into thinking they've hit the ball they hear, not the one they feel.

I find it incredibly difficult to discuss something with someone that makes no sense. You can't just invent mystery variables. My conclusion is the same as it was before: sound is the key component of feel.

[shredfit]

There are entire branches of science (chemistry being one of them) where that's not true. We wouldn't have chemical equations if things only happened some of the time. Science can be awfully precise.

Actually, chemical equations are representations of what is happening MOST of the time(certainly not 100%). If broken down to the quantum realm, probabilities come into play.

Like... what they heard?

If they heard the wrong ball via headphones this make the experiment even less valid due to the methodology(more on this later).

Why are you inventing a mystery variable. It seems pretty clear to me there is none, and the progression was:

If the testers used the methodlogy you just described (ie 1,2, and 3). This is a classic example of a conditioned response(Pavlov). In other words, the testers are basing their results(of which balls they hit) on the pre-determined condition(the sound). Thus, the experiment became more of a psychology study of the participates.

That makes absolutely no sense.

It also makes no sense to condition(or fool) the tester by feeding them a wrong or incorrect sound. Again, I'm questioning the methodologies.

Uhm, or the sound is a key component of "feel" and is thus tricking them into thinking they've hit the ball they hear, not the one they feel.

If they are "tricking" them via sound this is again conditioned. They could choose a methodology to test feel as a tactile response.

My conclustsion is also that same as before... The test is not valid.

[iacas]

If they are "tricking" them via sound this is again conditioned. They could choose a methodology to test feel as a tactile response.

It's not a conditioned response at all, and I don't care for your goalpost shifting. First there was a missing variable, now they're being "conditioned" (they're not).

Furthermore, you seem to be defining "feel" solely as the tactile non-auditory vibrations felt by the hands, arms, etc. That would obviously preclude using any sort of auditory clues. The point of the study is to show that "feel" as a whole is not limited to tactile, non-auditory vibrations (just as taste is not limited to taste buds but also includes smell). You're missing the point of the study and shifting the goalposts because you're unwilling to accept that "feel" is not strictly limited to tactile non-auditory vibrations. Respond if you'd like, but I'm done here.

[rebby]

Like I said above both those Ping sets have offset which is making it more difficult to work the ball. You guys are blaming the cavity back for what the offset is causing. A players cavity back iron with the same offset of your baldes will be just as easy to work the ball with.

The offset on my i3 blade's (a "players cavity back" if you ask me) are as follows ->

2 - .260" 3 - .200" 4 - .160" 5 - .120" 6 - .100" 7 - .070" 8 - .050" 9 - .040" P - .040" The offset on my ZM's are as follows -> 3 - .125" 4 - .120" 5 - .115" 6 - .110" 7 - .100" 8 - .090" 9 - .080" P - .075" Look at the numbers. I don't think that I'm blaming offset. If I were, my experience would be just the opposite for all but the longest of my irons.

[shredfit]

The point of the study is to show that "feel" as a whole is

I'm not really shifting goalposts... The variable I'm refering to is or should be feel/or tactile related like "non-auditory vibrations"(there could be others as well).

How can one test this using their methods? It's like saying taste is not limited taste buds but also to smell... but only using smell as a testing variable. The only conclusion one could draw from the study is that sound plays a factor in golf ball impact identification independent of feel. After all, you rarely hear someone pulling your finger(unless) I'm done too... it has been fun... thanks for the debate iacas