why blades?

[denver_nuggs_15]

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.

Hey, if you want to call names, we can do that. Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz is new one to me. But they have nothing to do with the debate, do they? I didn't call you any names and I intend not to.

I didn't actually read pshzz's statement. What I was proving was his modified statement that people who do play blades often just do it to look macho. My mistake and appologies. My modified statement has been proven. I still don't think that blades will make you a good ballstriker. They can help and be used as a tool for a better player. How many people support the "anecdotal evidence"? There needs to be a study conducted to prove or disprove that notion. It may have been the practice that did it instead and not the blades. Everyone brought up the better ballstrikers thing, but what if being a good ballstriker doesn't matter? I mean, what if you can be an alright ballstriker, play cavities, and shoot good scores? That's why I think blades are obsolete. Cavitites make it so that you can have a flawed swing, miss the sweet spot, and still get a good result. What's wrong with that? Most players have flawed swings, miss the sweet spot, but still want to see a good shot. If you want to be punished heavily for your misses then play older drivers too. And blade putters...none of those mallets or anser styles. And play some balatas too. That way, if you catch it thin, you'll have a real issue. Maybe take the sand wedge out of the bag. If you're in the sand, you have to use a PW instead. Let's make the game as hard as possible. There's like 200 guys on the PGA Tour. They make mistakes. That means that every one of us makes even more. Why not play equipment that can help to cover it up? Blades don't do that. I understand that you had to use blades because they were the only thing around. Now, there not. And for every player on the planet, cavitities will be more forgiving than a blade. If scores are the only thing that matter, why would you play a club that gives you the hardest time? And to the Rube Goldberg guy, you didn't disprove anything I said. Rube Goldberg machines are fun and are intended to be entertaining and silly. What does that have to do with technology?

[Jenks465]

If we're talking about scores being lower with cavities, how come the guys with the lowest stroke aves in the world play blades? Tiger (Nike), Sergio (TM MBs), Furyk (Srixon Pro 100), Vijay (Cleveland CG tours), Mickelson (Cally Protos, not pure blade but close enough), A. Kim (Nike).

[Spackler-esque]

First of all, denver_nuggs_15, you might want to read the thread

Does anybody else ever play with their old persimmon woods and blades? It has the feel of something that you would call heresy.

Hey, if you want to call names, we can do that. Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz is new one to me. But they have nothing to do with the debate, do they? I didn't call you any names and I intend not to.

How sad. I forget that Rocky and Bullwinkle hasn't survived the test of time. Because I won't do it justice, I'll just provide you with a

link to the Wikipedia article about him. It just made sense because you're straying so far off topic that it's like you're looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

I didn't actually read pshzz's statement.

That explains a lot...

What I was proving was his modified statement that people who do play blades often just do it to look macho. My mistake and appologies. My modified statement has been proven.

In that case, you were trying to prove your own statement. And you still have not proven that people who play blades often do so just to look macho. You have one case. Read through this thread and you'll have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Everything else you've had to say doesn't do anything to dispute what I laid out in my previous two responses: 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 and logical (that part's new!) evidence that says hitting blades improves your ball striking. Here's the logic. Do with it what you will... Using a club that requires you to create a good, repeatable swing improves consistency. Improved consistency leads to better ball striking. Simple. Your point about "what if ball striking doesn't matter?" disturbed me a bit. After all, what you're saying is, basically, that everyone has a swing that sucks and we should all use cavity backs. Personal preference. I'll say it again. Personal preference. I can't hit my Cobra FPs worth a damn. But I can hit Mizuno 67s fairly well. By your logic, I should be using the clubs that I can't hit. That doesn't make any sense. Also, why would you sell yourself short? Ball striking is a fundamental of golf. I always like to improve my fundamentals to the highest level I can in any sport. You're to ball striking what John Calipari has traditionally been to free throws. I think we all know how that worked out for him in the NCAAs last year...

And to the Rube Goldberg guy, you didn't disprove anything I said. Rube Goldberg machines are fun and are intended to be entertaining and silly. What does that have to do with technology?

You really do not understand what technology is/means, do you? I'm sorry. Our education system has failed you.

[wedge player]

You really do not understand what technology is/means, do you? I'm sorry. Our education system has failed you.[/QUOTE]

thats a lil uncalled for dont ya think i know settle it with golf :) after all your older and smarter surely you can beat a 15 yr old no stroks givin to anybody

[pshizz]

If we're talking about scores being lower with cavities, how come the guys with the lowest stroke aves in the world play blades? Tiger (Nike), Sergio (TM MBs), Furyk (Srixon Pro 100), Vijay (Cleveland CG tours), Mickelson (Cally Protos, not pure blade but close enough), A. Kim (Nike).

sergio actually plays tour preferred irons. Padraig harrington who is 3rd in the world plays players cb, as does adam scott, ben curtis, camilo, zach johnson, and many others. If you count the top 30, more players play cb irons than blades. Also kenny perry playes game improvement irons(r7).

[whip_it_out]

Like i saw some others say, I just want to.
the weighting is better feeling to me anyway. The head of a blade is noticeably lighter, and the shaft is heavier, so the club feels the same at the head as on the grip. that just feels better in my hands.

and yeah, they look sweet. And looking good inspires confidence, and confidence inspires good play

And for the people who have Players cavities, and refuse to play blades because they're sweet spot and amount of forgiveness is larger, think. Most blades are around 5 inches long, give or take. The center of gravity cant be lowered that much . The sweet spot can't be increased by that much . I'm not saying go out and buy blades, but don't ignore them completely. If you're a decent player who wants players irons, they're worth a look. Especially if you're a junior, who is decent and on a track to being better. I got mine, and then immediately got worse, then worked for a few months, and now playing the most consistent golf of my life. You'll always find a set of blades in the used section for under $300, so go ahead and give them a look.

[Spackler-esque]

thats a lil uncalled for dont ya think i know settle it with golf :) after all your older and smarter surely you can beat a 15 yr old no stroks givin to anybody

I'd agree if he hadn't already tried to lecture me about dictionaries based on opinions not his own. If he doesn't understand how technology and Rube Goldberg are intertwined, no, he does not understand what technology really means. And yes, it is a failure of the education system that he doesn't. Or his own curiosity. Either way, thanks for getting me way off topic.

Older and smarter has no correlation with golfing prowess. I've learned that lesson. Save the smart ass suggestions for someone else. And learn to write.

[wedge player]

I'd agree if he hadn't already tried to lecture me about dictionaries based on opinions not his own. If he doesn't understand how technology and Rube Goldberg are intertwined, no, he does not understand what technology really means. And yes, it is a failure of the education system that he doesn't. Or his own curiosity. Either way, thanks for getting me way off topic.

i can y waste my time doin it to make some1 happy??

[denver_nuggs_15]

How sad. I forget that Rocky and Bullwinkle hasn't survived the test of time. Because I won't do it justice, I'll just provide you with a

Ok. What about the Palin comment. There are others. If you want to insult me, go for it.

In that case, you were trying to prove your own statement. And you still have not proven that people who play blades often do so just to look macho. You have one case. Read through this thread and you'll have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I'm pretty sure I said that many players play blades to look macho. I'm pretty sure by citing two examples out of seven people that I know that play blades, I have proven my point. Most players that I play with are very good golfers. Low single digit to scratch to two kids who are a pros (on a mini-tour). Very few of them play true blades; most play forged cavities like the mp-57.

Here's the logic. Do with it what you will... Using a club that requires you to create a good, repeatable swing improves consistency. Improved consistency leads to better ball striking. Simple.

I feel that you are missing a step in there. The practice part of it. If you practice, you will become a better golfer regardless of what club you are using. While using blades, you will feel the off center hits more clearly. That does not mean that you will become a better ball striker for that reason alone. Again, do an experiment.

Do you know how many things make sense and follow logic, but don't actually occur or aren't true? Logic tells us that Albert Camus was an existentialist because of his writings. He has said that he wants to be like L'etranger's Meursault. However, he completely hates the term 'existentialist' and did not feel himself to be one. Don't tell me your education failed to bring you this tidbit of info. Economics, physics, black holes, etc. all defy logic. Why can't a friggen golf club?

Your point about "what if ball striking doesn't matter?" disturbed me a bit. After all, what you're saying is, basically, that everyone has a swing that sucks and we should all use cavity backs. Personal preference. I'll say it again. Personal preference. I can't hit my Cobra FPs worth a damn. But I can hit Mizuno 67s fairly well. By your logic, I should be using the clubs that I can't hit. That doesn't make any sense. Also, why would you sell yourself short? Ball striking is a fundamental of golf. I always like to improve my fundamentals to the highest level I can in any sport. You're to ball striking what John Calipari has traditionally been to free throws. I think we all know how that worked out for him in the NCAAs last year...

I'm pretty sure I never said that everyone's swing sucks. I'm pretty sure I said that most golfers have a flawed swing. I'm pretty sure that's true. You are going to tell me that you have a 100% perfect swing and make no mistakes?

Maybe you should find forgiving clubs you can hit. I never said use a club that you can't hit. If you can't hit the FPs, try the forged CBs by Cobra. Or PING i10s. I have no problem using a blade as a training tool. I would never use it on the course.

You really do not understand what technology is/means, do you? I'm sorry. Our education system has failed you.

First off, New Jersey has one of the best public education systems in the country. Second off, Rube Goldberg machines are not technology. They are actually complex devices that perform simple operations. They are so complex, that the task becomes inefficient by utilising one. I have made a few for school projects. It was fun, entertaining, and silly.

If we're talking about scores being lower with cavities, how come the guys with the lowest stroke aves in the world play blades? Tiger (Nike), Sergio (TM MBs), Furyk (Srixon Pro 100), Vijay (Cleveland CG tours), Mickelson (Cally Protos, not pure blade but close enough), A. Kim (Nike).

They are the best players in the world. They can play whatever club they want and still post the same scores. Why? Because their swings are exact repetitions every single time. For us mere mortals, not so much.

P.S. - Oh and correcting wedge player was pretty ridiculous. I can't stand bad grammar myself, but it is unethical to correct one's bad grammar in public unless he or she asks. I don't know if you care, but you should.

[Crafty]

sergio actually plays tour preferred irons. Padraig harrington who is 3rd in the world plays players cb, as does adam scott, ben curtis, camilo, zach johnson, and many others. If you count the top 30, more players play cb irons than blades. Also kenny perry playes game improvement irons(r7).

Sorry, but your facts are a bit incorrect. Sergio actually plays a B (Blade) version of the Taylormade Tour Preferred that does not have the undercut cavity like the retail version. The same goes for Justin Rose, Retief Goosen, and a couple of other prominent Taylormade staffers. If you post on Golf WRX, there are numerous threads about this topic.

In the top ten in the world, seven of them play blades (Woods, Garcia, Mickelson, Singh, Karlsson, Ogilvy, and Kim). Out of the top thirty in the world, either sixteen or seventeen of them play blades (KJ Choi goes back and forth). So blades are certainly not outnumbered by cb's in the top 30.

[ks8829]

their simple a cut above any other golf clubs.

[Spackler-esque]

Where to start, where to start... Hmm... How about the post script!

P.S. - Oh and correcting wedge player was pretty ridiculous. I can't stand bad grammar myself, but it is unethical to correct one's bad grammar in public unless he or she asks. I don't know if you care, but you should.

It may be impolite, but it is not unethical. Seriously, haven't you learned anything about definitions from our discussions so far? In fact, I would say that trying to express your ideas in "text speak" or whatever it's called is impolite, not to mention ineffective.

Also...

i can y waste my time doin it to make some1 happy??

Why? Because your clarity suffers and it makes you seem ignorant. But I guess ignorance is trendy. Thank god I missed out on that trend!

Ok. What about the Palin comment. There are others. If you want to insult me, go for it.

Have you actually taken the time to address the three points that I put out there for discussion yet? No. That is impolite. It is also avoidance. Palin said in the VP debate "I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear..." (NYTimes transcript) continuing to say that she was going to speak straight to the American people about her record. That's essentially what you're doing. You're dodging my questions and speaking your mind.

Both of the comparisons I've made between you and a name have been apt. Stop whining.

I'm pretty sure I said that many players play blades to look macho. I'm pretty sure by citing two examples out of seven people that I know that play blades, I have proven my point.

There is no rigor to your statement. Have you done as I asked and read the rest of this thread? If not, stop arguing until you do.

As for your comments about practice... Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. We'll return to the concept of practice later when you contradict yourself. Look. Please actually read what you're responding to and the thread that you're responding to it in. It would make life a lot easier.

Do you know how many things make sense and follow logic, but don't actually occur or aren't true? Logic tells us that Albert Camus was an existentialist because of his writings. He has said that he wants to be like L'etranger's Meursault. However, he completely hates the term 'existentialist' and did not feel himself to be one. Don't tell me your education failed to bring you this tidbit of info.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's also true that labels applied to literature are, by nature, inaccurate because they are based on time periods instead of content, for the most part. Stop regurgitating what your precious English teacher told you. And stop going off topic. You still haven't responded to my assertions. Besides, I preferred Classical and Medieval literature. That and eschatology. Much more fun.

Economics, physics, black holes, etc. all defy logic. Why can't a friggen golf club?

Economics is fairly logical. Physics is, too, to be quite honest. Black holes are surprisingly logical. If they weren't then they couldn't be accurately modeled. They can be. Again, stay on topic, little one.

I'm pretty sure I never said that everyone's swing sucks. I'm pretty sure I said that most golfers have a flawed swing. I'm pretty sure that's true. You are going to tell me that you have a 100% perfect swing and make no mistakes?

Silly child. My swing is ugly. It has flaws. It probably sucks. That's irrelevant to this discussion, however.

Maybe you should find forgiving clubs you can hit. I never said use a club that you can't hit. If you can't hit the FPs, try the forged CBs by Cobra. Or PING i10s.

Tried to. Most of'm feel too clunky. Don't like the feel of the CBs. The i10s are hideous, in my opinion. Mizuno MX-200s are nicer than hybrids for 3-4 and the 52s are nice for middle clubs and 67s are great for the low end. If you'd paid any attention to this thread you'd know that that is what I am aiming to have as my set. Please, read the thread before you reply again.

I have no problem using a blade as a training tool. I would never use it on the course.

You're finally starting to get into the spirit of discussion! Congratulations!

Now, let me ask you something: Why would you use blades as a training tool if they did not improve something about your game? And if they are obsolete, as you have claimed and failed to prove or even discuss again, why would you use them at all? You're full of contradictions.

First off, New Jersey has one of the best public education systems in the country.

Irrelevant to this discussion. Though I'm sorry to see that it's wasted on you.

Second off, Rube Goldberg machines are not technology. They are actually complex devices that perform simple operations. They are so complex, that the task becomes inefficient by utilising one. I have made a few for school projects. It was fun, entertaining, and silly.

Technology is, vaguely speaking, the application of knowledge in order to perform a task. This can be as simple as a spoon or as elaborate as a Rube Goldberg machine. They are both technology. Definitions. Please. Learn some.

Now, I ask you again, please respond to my debate points. It's getting tiresome being the only one trying to stay on topic here. Again, they are: 1) New blades are new technology and are, therefore, not obsolete, contrary to your un-backed claim. 2) 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. 3) There is substantial anecdotal and logical evidence that says hitting blades improves your ball striking. This includes your statement above saying that you would practice with them. After all, as I said above, why would you practice with something that did not help your game? That would be silly! You tried to address #3 but ended up contradicting yourself so I'm going to be polite and give you a do-over. Please stay on topic this time.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Where to start, where to start... Hmm... How about the post script!

Well, sorry to stray off topic, but economics and black holes don't make sense at all. There are many ideas in economics that defy logic. Who's willing to wait longer in line at a store: a rich person or a poor person? How can light be a wave and a particle? Seriously, I doubt you've studied economics or black holes. I have, and logically many ideas don't make sense, but they work. Enough said.

To address number 3, what if the only thing that improves your ball striking is practice...regardless of what you practice with? What if I find cavity backs that are just as good as a blade when it comes to feel, so I can get the same benefit from practicing with them? That would make a blade obsolete. Even if you practice with a blade to feel the ball a bit more, why, then, would you go out and play with a club that is so exacting? Why not play with a cavity? And what if ballstriking doesn't matter? (Oh man, I said it again). If you can play with a cavity and be an OK ballstriker, then what's the difference. I understand fundamentals and their importance, but being an OK/good ballstriker and using forgiving clubs may have a very similar effect on scoring to being a great ballstriker and using blades. Obviously, if you have cavitities and are a great ballstriker, that would be ideal. There are more reasons to play with cavitities. Forgiveness is a great thing. Cavitites also give a nice transition when entering the game. There's no reason to play blades when you are just starting out. It would be like doing Calc 2 without doing Calc 1. Everyone misses a shot. With blades, the result will not be good. With cavities, it will be alright. And why would I use blades for practice: because they offer a better feel than my cavitites to help me determine where exactly I am missing. I'm thinking impact tape would do the trick too. I have no intention of losing forgiveness on the course. Maybe as a training aid, they are useful. However, on the course, there are better things. Forgiveness and distance are advantages to cavitites. That, to many golfers, means a better club for the most part. If you can have very similar control and hit the ball farther and get more forgiveness, how is that not better?

[Spackler-esque]

I'm going to splice your argument some (I really wish you would address all my comments and do so in order). So...

1)

What if I find cavity backs that are just as good as a blade when it comes to feel, so I can get the same benefit from practicing with them? That would make a blade obsolete.

First of all, CBs that feel like blades don't exist. There are too many physical differences for that to happen and the forgiveness will always mean that control is sacrificed. Secondly, as long as blades are made of new technology, advancing side by side with their shovel brethren, they will not be obsolete. As I have said several times, they may not be the best option for all (or even most) players, but, again, that falls into the area of personal preference.

You still have not addressed whether or not blades using new technology are obsolete or not. Stop skirting the topic. 2)

There are more reasons to play with cavitities. Forgiveness is a great thing. Cavitites also give a nice transition when entering the game. There's no reason to play blades when you are just starting out. It would be like doing Calc 2 without doing Calc 1.

There may be more reasons to play cavitites (that just sounds dirty, by the way), but there are not necessarily more reasons to play CBs than blades. Again, it's personal preference. Forgiveness sacrifices control, and yadda yadda yadda.

You're failing to recognize free will. I never said that everyone should start off with blades (though if they are athletic and coordinated enough I don't see a problem with it). It is not like doing Calc 2 before Calc 1 (trust me, I basically did that in high school. It wasn't the smartest thing in the world). Hitting blades before hitting CBs is way easier. Please stop with the ineffective comparisons and lying. Did you ever stop and think that maybe someone wants to be punished for a bad shot (that also sounds kinky, I realize, but at least it's a real fetish as opposed to cavitites)? Maybe score isn't the be-all, end-all. Maybe some people enjoy the search for their swing just as much. Personal preference. It's something you continually disregard and in doing so you fail to answer the points I presented.

If you can have very similar control and hit the ball farther and get more forgiveness, how is that not better?

You don't get similar control. That is fact. You sacrifice control for forgiveness.

You hit the ball farther if the club suits your swing. You get more forgiveness if you can hit the thing. It's not better for some people because they might want more control, want a club that doesn't look like a shovel, or they want traditionally lofted clubs. Personal preference. Stop ignoring it. 3)

To address number 3, what if the only thing that improves your ball striking is practice...regardless of what you practice with?

Finally you tell me what you're talking about instead of me having to infer it. Thank you.

Umm... Duh? Practicing, regardless of what you use, improves ball striking if you're practicing a good swing. A blade is more likely to direct you to a good swing, it seems, because it is so "exacting" and requires more consistency than a CB.

Even if you practice with a blade to feel the ball a bit more, why, then, would you go out and play with a club that is so exacting? Why not play with a cavity?

Because I like to play with what I practice with. It's a comfort issue. Again, personal preference.

At the same time, would you practice with a woman's/youth basketball and then go out and play with a NBA regulation ball? See how stupid these comparisons are? At least this is a sports comparison, unlike bringing up calculus.

And what if ballstriking doesn't matter? (Oh man, I said it again). If you can play with a cavity and be an OK ballstriker, then what's the difference. I understand fundamentals and their importance, but being an OK/good ballstriker and using forgiving clubs may have a very similar effect on scoring to being a great ballstriker and using blades. Obviously, if you have cavitities and are a great ballstriker, that would be ideal.

You're obviously forgetting that I called that situation a "personal problem" and "selling yourself short." Personal preference. While you may want to play with a shovel that can't miss the ball, I enjoy the challenge of trying to make my ball striking the best it can be. I can't do that with a shovel.

Personal preference.

And why would I use blades for practice: because they offer a better feel than my cavitites to help me determine where exactly I am missing. I'm thinking impact tape would do the trick too. I have no intention of losing forgiveness on the course.

Contradict much?

Impact tape only does part of the job. Do you admit that practicing with blades is beneficial? If so, please stop arguing #3. If you don't believe it is, and there are now several quotes that suggest otherwise, then please, in a concise and organized fashion, recant and lay out your argument.

Maybe as a training aid, they are useful. However, on the course, there are better things. Forgiveness and distance are advantages to cavitites. That, to many golfers, means a better club for the most part. If you can have very similar control and hit the ball farther and get more forgiveness, how is that not better?

There you go with those cavitites again.

CBs do not have very similar control to blades. Fact. Forgiveness can be seen as an advantage. Or not. Control is sacrificed. Look is often sacrificed. Look inspires confidence if it's good, doubt if it's bad. Personal preference. Distance is mostly attained in modern clubs that aren't blades by strengthening the lofts and widening the sole to move the CoG back, as far as I can tell. I don't find those method of gaining distance to be advantageous. Personal preference. Good ball striking improves accuracy and distance. Fact. But I guess there's no advantage to improving that, huh, Calipari? CBs are different. That doesn't mean they're better. It's all personal preference. You are still arguing opinions instead of responding to my questions. Stop failing at reading comprehension and try again. I'll make it easy and turn this into a True-or-False section: 1) New blades are new technology (fact) and are, therefore, not obsolete (by definition). True or False? 2) 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. True or False? 3) There is substantial anecdotal and logical evidence that says hitting blades improves your ball striking. This includes your statements saying that you would practice with them and why you would practice with them. True or False?

[denver_nuggs_15]

I'm going to splice your argument some (I really wish you would address all my comments and do so in order). So...

You really don't think that there is a CB with a similar feel and similar control? Try the MP-57s. They're pretty close to the same control. A couple Miura CB's as well. I said similar control...not same control.

Control is not the number one factor in golf. Hitting it straight (or however you intend to) is the purpose of golf. Cavitities give you more leeway with that than blades do. If you can find a forgiving set of clubs that offers control, why not play that? A cavity back with the same loft as a blade swung at the same swing speed will produce more distance. That's the physics of golf at work. Golf Magazine did a study on this. The NBA/WNBA situation is the complete opposite of my statement. If you want to criticize my camparison, you better do a good job. If you practice with blades, but play with cavities, that would be similar to practicing with an NBA or oversized ball and playing with a WNBA or regular sized ball. We did it in practice a lot. We would shoot with a big ball so the regular ball felt small. If you practice with a blade with a small sweetspot and play with a club with a larger sweet spot, that would be very similar. That is where I feel blades would be beneficial. I was taught to make practice more difficult than the game, NOT the same. What you said would make practice easier and be like playing blades while practicing with CBs. I'm not entirely sure, but there is way more technology in a cavity than in a blade. I forget who said it (maybe Ralph Maltby), but basically blades have gone through zero major technological advances. He said it, not me. Cavity tech keeps changing to make clubs better. Inserts in the cavities were considered a major advance. Progressive offset in all irons was a major advance. There are a few more that are cavity specific. Cite a few technological advances that apply just to a blade. The personal preference thing can't be debated. Obviously it's personal preference. That's what equipment is. It doesn't mean it's the best equip for a person. Playing a 1950s driver is person preference, too. It doesn't mean it's the best club or that it should be played. While I do see the advantages of a blade when played (feel and control), I don't think that these outweigh forgiveness. Looks are completely up in the air. I asked my dad a while ago if he liked his G2 or my i10s more in terms of looks. He surprisingly said he liked the larger irons. Again, I contend that ballstriking may not matter much. I would only practice with blades to make my practice more exacting than my playing. If I can be a good ballstriker with CBs, that would be better than being an OK ballstriker with CBs. However, what if great ballstriking with blades has the same effect on score as good ballstriking with CBs?

[Spackler-esque]

denver_nuggs_15... Stop. Stalling.

You have still not addressed my questions. Stop failing at reading comprehension and try again. I'll make it easy and turn this into a True-or-False section with a limit of five characters (maximum) per answer:
1) New blades are new technology (fact) and are, therefore, not obsolete (by definition). True or False?
2) 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. True or False?
3) There is substantial anecdotal and logical evidence that says hitting blades improves your ball striking. This includes your statements saying that you would practice with them and why you would practice with them. True or False?

Nickent claims to have new technology in their ARC Blades. New methods of forging/casting are new technology. New grooves are new technology. Hosel design... It goes on and on...

Other than that, I'm not going to waste any more time refuting your arguments until you have the courtesy to actually address my questions instead of dodging them.

[denver_nuggs_15]

denver_nuggs_15... Stop. Stalling.

I answered every one of your questions in order. This time I'll number them.

1. With the evidence you provided, it does not look like blades have changed much at all. So, false. I asked for blade-specific tech. CBs are better IMO because of their tech, thus making blades obsolete. 2. True. Ego is a reason too. If you play blades due to personal preference, does that mean it's the best club for you? Not at all. There are several disadvantages to blades. 3. Hitting/practicing with blades can improve your ballstriking, so true. Playing with blades may not necessarily improve your ballstriking. See my practice section that you skipped over. If you intelligently read my last post, it refutes all of these points.

[Spackler-esque]

I answered every one of your questions in order. This time I'll number them.

Now we're getting somewhere! Good job!

1) So I guess Nickent ARC Blades with "Accelerated Rebound Core (ARC) technology, which creates an internal cavity that allows the club to have the effect of perimeter weighting. It works like a corked bat. This results in an iron with the look and feel of a true muscle back with the playability and ease of use of a modern cavity back," aren't new technology (quote from their website). My bad. How about the Mizuno "cut-muscle" design? Or are MP-67s not blades? Are you saying that technology that is applicable in CBs can't be applied to blades at all? That's just stupid and revisionist in that it denies that any advancement in blade technology has occurred. I could actually do some real research, but I know those two off the top of my head. 2) Glad you understand. However, there are also advantages to hitting blades. Basically it's the converse of the advantages of blades. There's always compromise. Stop being so narrow minded. I have gone over the advantages of blades time and again in this thread as have several fellow forum members. I hope you've read the rest of the thread because I'm not going to expand on them again. 3) Glad you agree. However, I will ask you this: Unless in competition, can playing not be viewed as practice? Also, if practicing, strictly speaking, with blades improves your ball striking, as you have acknowledged, how would playing with them not? Same swing. Same clubs. It's just a variable lie, which is what you really need to practice on, anyway.