why blades?

[denver_nuggs_15]

I don't play blades, but do play what could be considered a player's cavity. It's true that you could improve your ball striking with blades or a less forgiving club. I had to in order to hit my PINGs well.

However, I would never consider playing blades at my level. What's the big deal if our misses are covered up by a more forgiving club? Why should we not take advantage of technology? We are taking advantage of technology by using graphite shafts, sand wedges, carry/stand bags, and steel headed woods. I hope that no "serious" golfer is still playing with a wooden wood, or without a sand wedge, or whatever. What's the issue that people have with forgiving clubs?

Over the past year, I have tried to get over how clubs look. I read that tour pros don't care as long as the club works. It makes total sense to me. If the club works, who cares what the heck it looks like?

The feel of a blade is a lot better. That's a fact. The control with a blade is better than an SGI. That's a fact. However, these two things are not necessary to play golf. I love the feel of my i10s. I can control the flight pretty easily. I just don't think that I'd ever want or need the amount of control that a blade offers.

I would like to purchase a set of blades for practice in ballstriking. On the course though, I don't think that I'll ever play a true blade.

[dmas]

I've always been extremely torn on this issue. Some will argue that a player's cavity back offers nearly the same workability as a blade with more forgiveness. This is completely valid. Some will argue and say that player's cb's lack the feedback of a traditional muscle back. This is also valid.

great point. before I played MP-33's. I played Mizzi Pro-II's. Those clubs had a lower trajectory and were less forgiving relative to my MP-33's IMO. They also were cavity back clubs. Todays muscle backs are not the blades I remember as a kid that is for sure.

[Jenks465]

I completely agree with crafty! I've just gone back to blades using the latest model from macgregor (Pro M) after using a set of MP30's for the last 6 years and the forgiveness of the blade is actually greater! Add this to the better feel off the face (just buttery like my old Nicklaus Muirfields used to be), the greater control of my ball flight in the wind (man you can hit these things low!) and the better view with the thinner topline and it's a hands down win for the blade!

[wachesawgolfer]

isn't the answer kinda ovbious? i mean the mojority of golfers that play blades shouldn't, and the only reason they do is so they can try and look macho stepping up to the first tee, with blade irons.

Did you know it was not so many years ago that everyone played with blade irons, men, woman and chidren because that was all there was and you know what, they were for the most part better ball strickers than today. Not opinion just pure fact.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Did you know it was not so many years ago that everyone played with blade irons, men, woman and chidren because that was all there was and you know what, they were for the most part better ball strickers than today. Not opinion just pure fact.

Did you know that people did calculus with an abacus, or that a modern car has more computers in it than the Apollo 11, etc?

Technology has changed. Blades are obsolete for the great majority of golfers. It's that simple. And I'm calling you out on the better ball strikers thing. I need proof about that one. It sounds like an educated guess. (I'm not trying to insult you here, I just want to see some proof.)

[willman611]

i play blades because i like a challenge but also because i love the feel and feedback from them. i switched from my dads old blades and ping cavity backs all the time because everytime i would play the pings for a while i would find my ball striking getting worse. i usually have really good ball striking but i hit so porely in a tournament that iwent back to the old blades and i finally started to get the good feel back. and now i have brand new blades and after a few months of not playing( off season) i shot pretty good considering i didnt have the feel back from not playing and hitting absolutely horrible on th range. school golf is startin and im the top player so im hopin that ill be alot more consistant than i have been in the past.

[Wannabe Paper Tiger]

I used to play the tm 300s (player's iron, but full cavity) but switched to the mp-67s. Why? honestly it didn't make that much of a difference. I just like the look better. my shot shaping skills didn't get any better, I simply do not like hitting what I consider to be irons that look like shovels (game improvement and super game improvement). I also like the fact that I can ALWAYS tell what I did wrong based on feedback. I hit the x-20s and every shot felt the same. Maybe not the most logical reasons but then again I do play golf which is a horribly maddening game at times.

[Eeryck]

Did you know that people did calculus with an abacus

I am really not sure how you could calculate the sum of an infinate series using a finite system such as an abacus.

If you are stating that an abacus is obsolete like blades are I would also have to disagree. The abacus is still the fastest method to calculate addition and subtraction of very large numbers. Faster than even the modern caluculator if you are proficient. Too often we believe in todays society that technology makes something better. Also, looking at the fact that the current technology has dropped the average golfers handicap only two strokes in recent history (as stated by the folks at golf digest), I can't say that has made blades obsolete for most players. In the end blades, players irons, GI or SGI is all a personal preference. My next iron set will be a full set of blades because they fit my eye and personality better. If this means I am leaving a shot or two on the course because of technology so be it. I am sure I am gaining a shot or two because of the confindent feel I have at address and the constant exact feedback I recieve. -E

[Spackler-esque]

Did you know that people did calculus with an abacus

First of all, the appropriate comparison here to help your point would've been a slide rule. I'm pretty sure you have no clue what that is. I started to learn to use one for fun when I was little and they were already obsolete.

The abacus on the other hand... very useful, very cool, very applicable today.

Technology has changed. Blades are obsolete for the great majority of golfers. It's that simple.

Obsolete: (From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) 1 a: no longer in use or no longer useful b: of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned

Let's see... Blades are still in use and many people still find them very useful. Strike one. Blades are still stylish and still manufactured. They are sometimes considered "old-school," but the styling is hardly "old-fashioned." There's that darn technology thing again. Strike two. If people want to, they can learn to hit blades. They can, I promise. It just takes some work. (sarcasm)Oh, that's right. We're in the age of entitlement. No one works for anything anymore. Oops.(/sarcasm) Strike three. Blades are, by definition, not obsolete. They may not be appropriate for many players, but that's a whole different argument.

And I'm calling you out on the better ball strikers thing. I need proof about that one. It sounds like an educated guess. (I'm not trying to insult you here, I just want to see some proof.)

Look, before you call him out for this comment, come up with the proof that pshizz either couldn't or wouldn't provide us to back up his statement that:

the mojority of golfers that play blades shouldn't, and the only reason they do is so they can try and look macho stepping up to the first tee, with blade irons.

pshizz is working on pure speculation that stems from reading and misinterpreting Freud or something like that (not being a psych major I couldn't tell you what mojority is, but it sounds like something Freud would be into).

wachesawgolfer is working on the mountains of anecdotal evidence that has been put forth by people who say that blades help their ball striking. I don't remember if it was in this thread, but I've read about individuals practicing with blades and playing with cavity backs several times on this site. Their reason? Practicing with blades improves their ball striking. There is no hard statistical evidence to back either of these claims. There never will be unless someone undertakes a massive, long-term survey. One group would have to practice with blades and play with blades. A second would have to practice with blades and play with cavity backs. A third would have to practice and play with cavity backs. And that wouldn't even give you a decent answer. That being said, whether he's right or not, wachesawgolfer does have anecdotal evidence on his side. And I tend to agree: Either just practicing with or practicing and playing with blades tends to improve ball striking if all other variables are constant .

[kafka01]

I got blades after 3 months of playing golf - yeah i guess it was kind of a ego thing, and yes they looked nice and i thought they would help me get better faster.

They brought me a big deal of pain - physically and mentally. While having some problems with my swing last year during midseason i learned that the last thing you should touch during such a phase are difficult clubs like blades. All the mediocre shots i hit while struggling where just exaggregated by my irons. During that time, they did quite some harm to my confidence and my tempo&rhythm; and instead of swinging slower i tried to hit harder making up for lost distance, which is total nonsense.

I still belive, that playing blades helps my ball striking - but as far as ego goes, i couldnt care less - i´ll take the pain on the range with these clubs for practice purposes but when i get out on the course this year, its time for some nice cavity back irons that are easy to play, cuz in the end, its all about the score, nothing else matters.

[Laxplayer201092]

Heres some food for thought, My dad, who pushes around a 17 handi, plays burner XD irons, 4-AW. i play Mizzy MP-32 2-pw. While at the range, he is hitting a variety of shots with his xd's, all over the place. i hand him my 5 iron, and say, "Hit this 7 iron" He pures 3 great shots. I tell him, "dad, thats my 5 iron" and he shanks a few of em. Another topic, a buddy of mine are at the range, he is a 20 handi, and is carrying a 6-pw set. i hand him my 3 iron, telling him its a 6 iron, and he pounds it. I tell him what it is, and the same situation. shanks the next few.

What am i getting at? its all mental. people dont play blades because of ego.. Do they look nice in the bag?





Sure do :) But theres more to them than that. GI clubs feel clunky to me..and honestly, i tryed playing my dads SGI Burner XD's, and i played horribly.. fired an 86..whereas my blades are not even close to that.

REally it depends on your mis hits tho.. if you catch the ball fat.. im not sure on what clubs are gonna save your ass there..maybe some UFI's or S9's.. or if you catch it way on the toe, still what club is gonna save you? My misses are generally not close to that.. so i can play blades. But if you are hitting the above two shots, you should not be playing blades. its that simple.

Another perk- Lofts are decent! i dont need a friggen Gap wedge with my blades..why should i buy more clubs just because my PW is really a 9 iron?

Lets play a game.. name these clubs.

left to right Mizzy MP-32. Nickent 3DX Hybrid Irons. Titleist 755. Ping S59

Sorry :)

[denver_nuggs_15]

First of all, the appropriate comparison here to help your point would've been a slide rule. I'm pretty sure you have no clue what that is. I started to learn to use one for fun when I was little and they were already obsolete.

Why don't you play with wooden shafts, wooden woods, a one piece ball, a 30 pound bag, and no sand wedge? Because they are obsolete because technology has found better replacements. For the average golfer (and many good ones too), blades are obsolete...because technology has found a better alternative. My irons can hit the ball straight, left, right, give me any ball flight I want...while it covers up my lackluster swings. Blades can't do that last part.

When you have a calculator, abacuses are obsolete. At least for my purposes they are. They are a thing of the past. I know they can add numbers very fast, but they cannot do other necessary operations that I need to do. Again, technology has made a better replacement. My calculator can add and subtract just fine, but it can also differentiate a function. pshyzz does have a valid point. And saying that it does not make sense is dumb. While he did group blade players into one single group, his statement is true for many.

I am really not sure how you could calculate the sum of an infinate series using a finite system such as an abacus. If you are stating that an abacus is obsolete like blades are I would also have to disagree. The abacus is still the fastest method to calculate addition and subtraction of very large numbers. Faster than even the modern caluculator if you are proficient. Too often we believe in todays society that technology makes something better. Also, looking at the fact that the current technology has dropped the average golfers handicap only two strokes in recent history (as stated by the folks at golf digest), I can't say that has made blades obsolete for most players.

I'm positive I could evaluate any definate integral with an abacus. It's the fundamental theorem my man. Anti-derivatives and then F(b)-F(a). I could find area under a curve, length of a curve, volume of a solid, etc. with an abacus. It's quite simple really. I'm not sure if I could evaluate an infinate sum, but I'm sure it's possible.

Technology makes things better. That's what technology's purpose is. I honestly cannot think of one case where technology has not made something better or more efficient. Every other piece of golf innovation/technology has made golfing easier. Steel shafts, graphite shafts, multipieced balls, metal woods, etc. are all pieces of technology that made golfing more fun for the average guy. Who still plays a wooden driver? That makes you really work on your ballstriking, but it is obsolete because of technology. Cavities have made blades obsolete. Cavities can help cover up misses and hit the ball farther. Therefore, blades are not as good in that regard. Forged cavities can almost replicate the feel. Look is personal judgement, but many cavities look strikingly similar to blades. By playing blades, you are giving up forgiveness. I think it's personal preference how much forgiveness you want to give up. It all matters how much control and feel you need or think you need.

[birdiemachine]

asthetics play a large role in the appeal of the blade, also nothing in the world feels better (seriously) than puring a blade. In my experience, more forgiving clubs are much harder to work a ball with too. They are designed to not work the ball. I still like calculators though.

[Spackler-esque]

Why don't you play with wooden shafts, wooden woods, a one piece ball, a 30 pound bag, and no sand wedge? Because they are obsolete because technology has found better replacements.

Yes, wooden shafts and clubs

are obsolete. However, blades are not. If you didn't notice, I did mention, subtly I admit, that new blades are new technology and are, therefore, not obsolete. Seriously, kid, pay attention to definitions. It'll serve you well because, hey, the definition of the word obsolete kinda kills your argument. Sorry. Play again.

pshyzz does have a valid point. And saying that it does not make sense is dumb. While he did group blade players into one single group, his statement is true for many.

Taking a page out of your book... Show me the numbers. Prove to me that his argument is correct. After all, every stitch of anecdotal evidence I have seen shows me that he is wrong and that he is pretending to interpret Freud and wants this to be a compensation issue.

Look is personal judgement, but many cavities look strikingly similar to blades.

Annnnnnd... you just killed your own arguments. It is personal preference. And I disagree that many cavity backs look similar to blades. Almost none, if any, do IMO. There's that catch again, my opinion. Damn...

Therefore unless you can quantify anything you've said, piss off. The vast majority of the evidence supports the following: Modern blades are made with modern technology and are therefore not obsolete. It is personal preference whether or not an individual hits blades or something else. However, there is substantial anecdotal evidence suggesting that hitting blades improves ball striking. Now, if you can actually refute any of these statements, please do. You have not, to this point, actually addressed them at all.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Yes, wooden shafts and clubs

You know how easy it is to prove pshyzz's statement. I need to find ONE person who has blades to look macho. I played with a guy that has blades for that purpose. He was not good at all, but cared way too much about how others saw him on the course. I was considering blades in my short for a time because I thought it made me look manly. Turns out, it would have made me look like an idiot.

The goal of golf for the majority is to hit the ball long, straight, and high. That's exactly what a cavity back does. Cavitity backs hit the ball longer than a blade of the same loft. (That's physics and studies have been done to prove this.) Cavity backs hit the ball straighter for the majority of golfers. If you can hit a blade straight, you can hit a cavity straight. Do we need a test on this? Cavities also hit the ball higher. Again, physics and studies prove this. Therefore, cavities are better for the majority of golfers. Longer, straighter, and higher=better (assuming everything else is held constant). And Merriam-Webster is not the best dictionary at all. We are "forbidden" to use it for my senior paper. My teacher reasons that its definitions are not the best and becasue of that we should not use it. My teacher has a degree in English, so he kinda knows what he's talking about. His dictionary of choice comes in 26 volumes. M-W has some bad definitions.

[Laxplayer201092]

And when someone wants to hit the ball lower, and not straight, then what should i be playing Mr Denver Nuggets?

[Spackler-esque]

You know how easy it is to prove pshyzz's statement. I need to find ONE person who has blades to look macho. I played with a guy that has blades for that purpose. He was not good at all, but cared way too much about how others saw him on the course. I was considering blades in my short for a time because I thought it made me look manly. Turns out, it would have made me look like an idiot.

Obviously you don't know squat about proving a rule... pshizz's statement was that the MAJORITY of people playing blades do it to be macho. Finding one person doesn't do anything to prove his point, especially with the number of people on this board who have stated much different opinions. You would have to do ask a representative sample of golfers playing blades and hope that you got over 50% to say, "yes, I'm frightened of what others might think of me if I played anything other than blades" for it to mean anything. When the question is about a majority, one person does not prove anything with any legitimacy. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz, try again.

The goal of golf for the majority is to hit the ball long, straight, and high. That's exactly what a cavity back does. Cavitity backs hit the ball longer than a blade of the same loft. (That's physics and studies have been done to prove this.) Cavity backs hit the ball straighter for the majority of golfers. If you can hit a blade straight, you can hit a cavity straight. Do we need a test on this? Cavities also hit the ball higher. Again, physics and studies prove this.

This is not what's in dispute. What's in dispute are the points that I laid down in my last post. This is just discussing opinion again, and that is irrelevant at this point in the conversation. I have acknowledged that what you play is personal preference even if you refuse to acknowledge that there might be legitimate reasons that a person would play blades even if they are not the strongest ball striker. You aren't on the debate team, are you? Or are you from the Sarah Palin school of debating? Answer what you want and don't be constrained by the questions? Thought so.

Dispute the following: New blades are new technology and are, therefore, not obsolete. Hitting blades versus cavity backs is personal preference and there are many legitimate reasons to hit blades even if they don't get the most distance possible for an individual. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that says hitting blades improves your ball striking.

And Merriam-Webster is not the best dictionary at all. We are "forbidden" to use it for my senior paper. My teacher reasons that its definitions are not the best and becasue of that we should not use it. My teacher has a degree in English, so he kinda knows what he's talking about. His dictionary of choice comes in 26 volumes. M-W has some bad definitions.

That's funny. I have a degree in English, too. With a publishing emphasis, even. Though my preferred dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary (yes, I am a word/literature nerd) I lost my online access to that when I graduated from college. However, the copy editing course I took while there, which was taught by a person still working in industry, used the same things she used: Merriam-Webster and the Chicago Manual of Style. (For the record, I like working with Oxford style better than the CMS.) Now, if you want to get into an argument about dictionaries and their "correctness," let's. But not here. Somewhere else that's appropriate.

Suffice it to say, you are "forbidden" to use it because of personal preference just like high handicap golfers are "forbidden" to use blades. It's a load of crap.

[Eeryck]

Technology makes things better. That's what technology's purpose is. I honestly cannot think of one case where technology has not made something better or more efficient.

Are you familiar with a Rube Goldberg machine?

The reason that these are so entertaining is that often there is a margin of "Rube Goldberg" in most new technologies. -E