why blades?

[denver_nuggs_15]

I'm kind of surprised this topic has received so much attention, given the topic. I don't think it makes sense to get so far into MOI and all the other jargon, when at the end of the day, if you like what you see when you look down and what you feel when you make a good swing, then I'm not sure the other means of measuring success are relevant. If you were to test out several different types and brands of club, you are not necessarily going to hit the one with the highest MOI or whatever else, the best. If that is true, then there can't be any one single means of determining what is best for an individual. I believe golf is more mental than physical. I believe that when I go out to play with the right attitude I can play any shot and any course. I also believe that when I talk myself out of something or have a crappy attitude there isn't a golf club invented that can save me from myself.

Good point.

But how did they get to be better golfers? Lots of practice. I know that's your argument. As I've said before, practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Practicing with blades is better practice than practicing with a shovel. Playing a practice or casual round of golf is still practice. Why not use blades then? And once you get into a more serious round, why not play with what you're comfortable with? A player practices with blades. They are comfortable with the clubs they practice with. They play with what they're comfortable with. Therefore, they play with blades.

Practicing with a big ball in basketball is the same as practicing with a blade. (The analogy is similar anyway). It makes it more demanding to make the shot, thus making your shooting better. Then you use a regular ball and it feels like everything will drop. It's very similar to practicing with blades but playing with a (player's) cavity back. The game becomes much easier when compared to your practice. That's what makes people better at any sport. Practice is harder than the game, so the game seems easy. That's why I think it's beneficial to play with cavity (however small it is), but to practice with a cavity.

It's not a matter of believing in physics. It's believing your claim. You have presented no real information to back it up and, to be honest, I trust iacas much more than I trust you.

I believe physics and a physicist more than I believe iacas. What I said in my previous post is the easiest way to "dumb it down."

So... Hitting a CB on the sweet spot will send it farther than hitting a blade on the sweet spot because... ? You still don't give an real information to prove your statement. You can claim anything you want, but until you show proof all that amounts to is a bunch of conjectures that have no rigor and that aren't sound. Show your work.

Because there would be less negative angular acceleration on the clubhead decreasing the overall energy and force transferred to the ball. (If the clubhead is moving forward at 10 m/s before it hits the ball, but loses 2 m/s when it hits the ball due to negative ang. accel.)

MOI is a resistance to twisting. Since an object in motion (clubhead) will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force (ball), F=mass*acceleration. Force would be greater, mass is constant, and acceleration on the ball would increase. Negative accleleration due to gravity is always constant assuming no massive elevation change (like a mile). Greater net acceleration means a greater distance. distance=initial velocity(time)+.5acceleration(time squared). Assuming the initial velocity is the same (which may not be true because don't forged clubs have a lower COR than cast ones-idk) and that time is the same (may not be true because a ball with a higher apex will have to be in the air longer), the ball with greater accleration will go farther. Does that suffice? (That was all with respect to the shaft axis.)

Let's change the word we're using for feel here. Change it to feedback, because that's what feel is in a golf club. Feedback is not in the eye of the beholder. You get more feedback with a blade than a CB. That's why a lot of people don't like them.

I did mean feedback instead of feel. I couldn't think of the word. Appologies. However, I still think that the feel that you get when you strike the ball on the sweetspot is in the eye of the beholder. I know people who like the feel of cavities over the feel of blades. I have hit cavities that feel better than blades. Odd as that may seem, it's true. Feedback is a different story.

Is there anything wrong with striving to be consistent enough to be able to fully take advantage of blades? But, how do you get there and how would you know if you are if you don't use them? Conundrum.

There's nothing wrong with striving to be consistent enough to be able to fully take advantage of blades. (There's nothing wrong with trying to completely understand general relativity and the math behind it. However, only like 20 people actually can.) However, how realistic is it? If pros can't do it 100% of the time, what chances do regular guys have to even come close? It may be more beneficial to play with a more forgiving club. Score wise it may make sense. While I agree that scores are not everything, in a serious match, scores are everything.

[Spackler-esque]

I believe physics and a physicist more than I believe iacas. What I said in my previous post is the easiest way to "dumb it down."

Then stop doing that. It only hurts your argument.

Because there would be less negative angular acceleration on the clubhead decreasing the overall energy and force transferred to the ball. (If the clubhead is moving forward at 10 m/s before it hits the ball, but loses 2 m/s when it hits the ball due to negative ang. accel.)

No, it doesn't.

You're forgetting to include launch angle, spin rate and a few other variables, I'm sure. This is a heavily modified ballistics problem, I would think. I want to see the work because you're not including very basic principles of golf-ball flight.

However, how realistic is it? If pros can't do it 100% of the time, what chances do regular guys have to even come close? It may be more beneficial to play with a more forgiving club. Score wise it may make sense. While I agree that scores are not everything, in a serious match, scores are everything.

If pros can't, than who says you have to be able to do it 100% of the time? Score-wise it doesn't necessarily make sense. You play with what you're comfortable with. Most of the time a player will score best with what they're comfortable with. If that's a blade, what's it to you?

[iacas]

Well, sorry to stray off topic, but economics and black holes don't make sense at all.

Yes, they do. They may not make sense to you because you lack understanding, but they make sense to people who study them.

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.

You're really not gonna win any points there. I've studied economics and black holes. Something tells me you don't have Ph.D's in physics or economics (or certainly not both), and unless you do, that's an awfully silly statement to make.

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

That's not the only thing that improves my ball-striking. Feedback - of which you get more from a blade than a cavity-back club - also helps to improve my ball-striking.

Blades are also more easily worked because it's easier to overcome the "sole-heavy, get the ball in the air at all costs" design found in many cavity-back clubs.

What if I find cavity backs that are just as good as a blade when it comes to feel

Then I would suggest your sense of feel - like your understanding of physics and economics - is not as highly attuned as my sense of feel or the senses of many others.

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?

a) More difficult to work the ball with a CB, particularly in the vertical direction.

b) Why play with something different than you practice with? Even if performance was exactly the same (it won't be), they'll look different, and that's not cool. c) Feel on a good shot is often better with a blade than a cavity-back. A bit of an aside, but why are you arguing so much? What's it matter to you whether people use CBs or blades? Use what you want and forget everyone else. It's that opinion that kept me out of this debate for so long, until you persisted in misleading people and arguing up a storm.

Yeah they won't necessarily go further but when talking 'physics' the cavity clubs should launch the ball higher than a blade since there is more weight towards the sole of the club.

No, not necessarily. Loft, spin, ball speed, etc. all affect distance. Titleist had their 695.MB and 695.CB, the latter of which was two degrees stronger but launched higher, and they were "mixable" at every point in the set. Weaken the CB 7-iron two degrees to make it match the MB and it'll fly shorter.

So no, not necessarily, and most often no - higher launch will result in less distance.

Due to the increased MOI, deeper and lower CG, and some other term I forget, a cavity back will hit the ball farther assuming everything else is help constant.

Still wrong.

If you want to argue physics because it doesn't make sense to you, we can do that. Physics isn't wrong.

Didn't you just finish saying it "didn't make any sense"?

The physics are this: there's absolutely nothing about a CB that will result in "longer" ball flight over a similarly built MB.

Cavities are longer according to physics.

Another thing you seem to believe that isn't actually true is this: "the more you repeat something, the truer it gets." Also wrong.

Maybe it's in your head or something, but if you hit a cavity and a blade the same exact way, the cavity will go farther. Fact.

Still wrong...

If you can be an OK ballstriker and play cavities or be a good ballstriker with blades, and the effect on score is the same, what's the difference?

Shotmaking ability. Versatility. Enjoyment. Consistency. Like it or not, someone who hits their 7-iron 150 yards every time is probably going to beat someone who hits their 7-iron 150 to 165 yards randomly because they're making contact all over the face.

And I don't buy that you can be an "OK" ballstriker and play CBs to succeed. The "OK" ballstriker is going to have a heck of a time getting below a certain handicap regardless of the clubs in his bag.

I don't think that many people on the planet actually need that increased control.

Who are you to say whether we "need" it or not? Aren't I likely the better judge of what I need than you?

Higher MOI and lowered CG only come into effect when you make an off center hit.

Yep. Among other reasons, this is one why your statements are wrong.

What's wrong with a little (or a lot of) forgiveness to a bad golfer?

Goalpost shifting. Since when have we been discussing ONLY the "bad golfer"?

Higher MOI=more distance on a good hit.

Too many things wrong about this to even bother starting...

The club exerts a force on the ball just as the ball exerts a force on the club (Newton's Law).

That is not Newton's law, of which there were several, not just one. I can only imagine you're trying to pervert "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." That's not the same thing as the ball exerting "force" on the club.

However, there will still be rotation about the shaft.

Again, too many things wrong to really get into it here.

Furthermore, CBs tend to be larger, so if you believe what you've said about rotating about the axis of the shaft, then the ball contact-to-shaft radius is greater in most CBs than most MBs, which would result in the opposite of what you're saying being true.

How many people can actually make consistent enough contact with consistent enough release to benefit from control over forgiveness?

/me raises hand

My guess is that many people make slightly bad contact every once in a while.

Wow, way to narrow that down...

Simply put, the benefits of blades - for me - more than offset the downsides. Tiger Woods doesn't strike the ball perfectly every time. No doubt he feels the same way as what I've just said. "Nobody makes perfect contact every time" is in no way supportive of your position.

Practicing with a big ball in basketball is the same as practicing with a blade. (The analogy is similar anyway).

No it's not. I think you'd be better off using the same ball and a smaller hoop. I can think of a number of reasons why using a ball weighing a different amount or of a different size would be a horrible way to practice.

I believe physics and a physicist more than I believe iacas.

Unfortunately, I'm using physics that actually makes sense, as well as real-world observations when relevant. Face it: you believe something and you're making sweeping generalizations about everyone else, except the occasional PGA Tour pro, that fit your point. When you're not making sweeping generalizations, you're flat out making stuff up and attributing it to physics.

Since an object in motion (clubhead) will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force (ball),

The ball is not a force. The rest of your "physics" is equally poor. And the biggest problem is simple: you're basing it on a poor foundation.

If I assume that 2+2=5 I could show you all sorts of interesting things...

[iacas]

Some may take what I'll type here (below) as rude. That's not my intent at all. Just trying to share my experience in the hopes that it'll help ol' denver out a little bit.

--------

You're 18, you're a 14.1 handicap, and you're one person. Absolutely none of those things qualifies you to discuss the types of things you're trying to discuss here.

Your age precludes you from having the experience and education many others are likely to have. Unless you're an über-genius, it also indicates that you've probably not got a degree in physics.

Your handicap precludes you from really discussing what a good player can do with a blade or what they might gain from playing with a blade that a CB doesn't offer them.

And the fact that you're one person with limited experience (as we all are) precludes you from making sweeping generalizations about what's good for everyone else.

---------

Again, I say this as a guy who really likes a good debate and doesn't back down, either: know when you're beat. Give up. I'd have said "quit while you're ahead" but you're not.

While I won't back down, I also don't enter debates or discussions when I lack a necessary level of understanding. I rarely post about politics. Why? I don't know politics. It's not my thing. And I'm generally smart enough to recognize that I don't know things.

You'd be better off asking questions rather than making statements. Enhance your understanding rather than diminish the quality of the discussion by pushing stuff out there which comes from your small knowledge base.

Or, if you feel the need to make a statement, tell us what you feel works for you and leave it at that. You're uniquely qualified to talk about YOUR opinions and YOUR experience, but when you start to try to line up phony physics and make generalizations about everyone else, you're well into "don't have a clue" territory.

[denver_nuggs_15]

a) More difficult to work the ball with a CB, particularly in the vertical direction. b) Why play with something different than you practice with? Even if performance was exactly the same (it won't be), they'll look different, and that's not cool. c) Feel on a good shot is often better with a blade than a cavity-back.

a is obviously true. In response to b, the look factor shouldn't matter. A difference in offset would matter, but many pros don't even care how their clubs look. c is in the eye of the beholder.

A bit of an aside, but why are you arguing so much? What's it matter to you whether people use CBs or blades? Use what you want and forget everyone else. It's that opinion that kept me out of this debate for so long, until you persisted in misleading people and arguing up a storm.

Fair enough.

No, not necessarily. Loft, spin, ball speed, etc. all affect distance. Titleist had their 695.MB and 695.CB, the latter of which was two degrees stronger but launched higher, and they were "mixable" at every point in the set. Weaken the CB 7-iron two degrees to make it match the MB and it'll fly shorter. So no, not necessarily, and most often no - higher launch will result in less distance. Still wrong.

I asked a physicist. I researched the physics behind MOI. The results said the same thing. A cavity (under the same circumstances) will hit the ball farther. If you don't believe a friggen physicist about physics, well then, I really don't know what to say.

Still wrong...

I forgot that physicist don't know crap. The guy is a physicist. Come on now. I don't care if you say you don't get how it works or that you would like some explanation, but don't say that they guy is wrong. I'm pretty sure he's one of the most qualified people I know or have talked to on the subject of physics.

Shotmaking ability. Versatility. Enjoyment. Consistency. Like it or not, someone who hits their 7-iron 150 yards every time is probably going to beat someone who hits their 7-iron 150 to 165 yards randomly because they're making contact all over the face.

That's true and I hadn't thought of that.

Yep. Among other reasons, this is one why your statements are wrong.

MOI doesn't come into play when you make a dead center hit? Really? The MOI that has been discussed heavily by companies as of late relates to hitting the club off center. That is, you make bad contact that is not directly in front of the center of gravity. Another type of MOI deals with hitting the ball in general. It's how your clubhead resists twisting. It's how it would exert a larger percentange of its energy on the ball.

That is not Newton's law, of which there were several, not just one. I can only imagine you're trying to pervert "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." That's not the same thing as the ball exerting "force" on the club.

I forgot that a ball sitting on a tee or on the ground doesn't abide by Newton's laws. Net force=mass*acceleration. The ball has a mass and gravity's acceleration is -9.8 m/s^2. So the ball does have a force; it's called weight. And it is the same thing as saying the ball exerts a force on the club. The equal and opposite thing is same thing as saying a force is exerted. When you sit on your chair, a force of your weight is exerted downward on the chair. The chair is exerting the same exact force upward. It's the same principle.

No it's not. I think you'd be better off using the same ball and a smaller hoop. I can think of a number of reasons why using a ball weighing a different amount or of a different size would be a horrible way to practice.

The ball was actually the same exact weight as a regular ball. It was just larger. The problem with getting a smaller rim is that none of us can reach 10 feet for that long to put a small rim over the larger one. They wouldn't let us use latter for "insurance reasons" and the janitor's would not be bothered.

Your age precludes you from having the experience and education many others are likely to have.

I forgot that education is a direct function of age. Silly me. While I agree about the experience issue, knowledge of physics that has been proven by others is not experience.

I rarely post about politics. Why? I don't know politics. It's not my thing. And I'm generally smart enough to recognize that I don't know things.

Then why do you talk about physics? You are going against a physicist and physics theory. I honestly don't care if you don't understand physics. Just don't call other people wrong because you don't fully understand it. I will say again: I talked to a physicist about this and I researched the physics behind golf multiple times. I'm pretty sure that I'm right about the physics of a golf swing. Whether I'm right about people using blades has nothing to do with that, but I damn sure know the physics of a golf swing.

[iacas]

In response to b, the look factor shouldn't matter. A difference in offset would matter, but many pros don't even care how their clubs look.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And who are you to speak for what pros care about? Everything I've read about them says they care VERY MUCH about how their clubs look. Everything I've heard them say, and witnessed in person says this. And everything people who know a helluva lot more than you - Bob Vokey, for one - says they care very much how things look.

Pros are, as a rule, incredibly picky about not only the look of the club but the exact characteristics: weight, launch angle, spin, etc. They're the tools of their trade. You'll almost never find a good craftsman who doesn't care for every little detail of their tools and know them inside and out. I've got three degrees. Do you know what they're in? No. Do you have a degree in physics? I had hoped my last post would help you to get the hint, but that - like what everyone else is telling you - seems to have gone right over your head. You keep citing your own "knowledge" of physics while continuing to demonstrate a complete lack thereof. At this point, we don't know exactly what you asked "your dad's friend," what his area of expertise is, or even whether he exists at all. Quite frankly, given how readily the guy agrees with you and the completely wrong and/or silly statements you've made involving physics, I think it's far more likely you made this guy up. You're the same guy, after all, who wanted to argue with the dictionary, are you not?

It's how your clubhead resists twisting.

Re: your theory about the MOI about the shaft axis: cavity backs are no better at this, and in fact, are often worse. They're larger and their center of gravity is farther from the shaft than in a blade. Even the added offset found in CB clubs adds to that distance.

This is directly opposite to what you keep claiming. CBs are gonna twist more. Do you even know how much the shaft twists in a typical golf shot? Or how much less that twisting is when the ball's struck in the sweet spot? And how much that translates into loss of distance? I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say "nope."

And it is the same thing as saying the ball exerts a force on the club.

No, it's not. Not at all. One thing about physicists is that we're incredibly precise with not only the math, but the language we use to describe things.

When you sit on your chair, a force of your weight is exerted downward on the chair. The chair is exerting the same exact force upward. It's the same principle.

Since when do we hit the ball by swinging straight up through the ground in direct opposition to the force of gravity?

I forgot that education is a direct function of age.

Have you graduated from college with a degree in physics?

I'm pretty sure that I'm right about the physics of a golf swing.

Unfortunately, you're not.

Whether I'm right about people using blades has nothing to do with that, but I damn sure know the physics of a golf swing.

Clearly, you don't.

Enjoy the time out in the penalty box. It's for your own good. You're getting slammed with negative rep and you can't seem to withdraw your thinking parts from your derriere long enough to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

[iacas]

I'm closing the thread, btw.

I think d_n_15 killed it. If anyone would like to see it re-opened, PM me. But we've had this discussion before, and with far less nonsense than d_n_15 provided here, so I encourage you to find one of those threads and post there.