Why not blades?

[motteler621]

mickelson doesn't play a full blade. it's like an X muscle back/blade.

yea what he said,

[Shanks A Million]

I blade with forged blades for the first time today and have never hit better, the feedback was amazing and I just couldn't miss. Everyone always says "oooh blades those are hard to play"

Honeymoon periods are always fun.

Atleast four of the current worlds top ten are using cavity backs; Westwood, Stenson, Furyk and harrington, I know casey has played with the Nike cavitys instead of blades in a few tournaments, thats the worlds best ten players, and some use cavity backs.

A look at the current top 10 reveals even more of a trend. Westwood, Stricker, Furyk, Poulter, Casey, and Kim all use CBs somewhere in their set. Mickelson has a hybrid in play.

actually the pros play what are called players irons which are a sort of cross betwee blade and CB

Players irons are no such thing, they are a general category of irons. The other general categories are game improvement and super game improvement. Players irons can be blades or cavity backs.

you can say pros are playng c.b but the most dominant play blades,.

Again, totally false. 7 of the top 10 use CBs or hybrids.

as far as all the pros playing cb's all the best players to play the game play/played blades woods,mickleson,nicklaus etc

The best of all time are probably not the best to try and match to a 20 handicap.

the only person i know of is kenny perry playing r7 but his are special built with no offset its a game improvement iron with 0 offset.

Taylormade's tour issue clubs are quite a bit different than their retail ones. The have the "B" models on tour.

[Shankapotomus]

Mickelson has a hybrid in play.

At Colonial, Mickelson dumped the hybrid in favor of a Callaway X Forged 2-iron.. maybe this is one of the reasons he missed the cut.

[Shanks A Million]

At Colonial, Mickelson dumped the hybrid in favor of a Callaway X Forged 2-iron.. maybe this is one of the reasons he missed the cut.

He missed pretty much every fairway he went for with it. Doubt if forgiveness was the problem though, Mickelson's average smash factor is 1.48, not great (T-79th on tour), but not bad. He's also T-22 for approaches from >200 yards. He's 12th in hitting par 5s in 2, and his average distance to the pin when he reaches in 2 is 20.3 feet, 2nd only to Davis Love III on tour. It's driving accuracy that kills him... 186th on tour.

[laconic517]

i tend to hit cavity backs really low. I hit my muscle backs much higher so I dont think ill ever go back to CB's

[laconic517]

I think you guys are forgetting about muscle backs. Those are in between cavity and blades and I'm willing to bet those who do not play blades on the tour play muscle backs, with only a small few playing cavity backs.

I dont think ive even seen an "blade" made in the past 10 years then. All of them have some sort of muscle back. If you want "blades" youll have to go back to early mid 90's stuff and it feels like garbage now (probably because theyve deteriorated over time) When ive hit some old Titleist blades it felt like i was hitting a chunk of metal even if I flushed it. There was no soft feeling when you hit the absolute center.

[sean_miller]

i tend to hit cavity backs really low. I hit my muscle backs much higher so I dont think ill ever go back to CB's

I dont think ive even seen an "blade" made in the past 10 years then. All of them have some sort of muscle back. If you want "blades" youll have to go back to early mid 90's stuff and it feels like garbage now (probably because theyve deteriorated over time) When ive hit some old Titleist blades it felt like i was hitting a chunk of metal even if I flushed it. There was no soft feeling when you hit the absolute center.

There are a few reasons why a blade (let's be serious - early 90 Mizunos and current MB irons from Titleist are blades - nobody's played a true blade since the 1940s) could send the ball higher than a CB. Centre of gravity, the shaft kickpoint, the offset,

loft , and even the quality of contact are all factors. Typically CB irons have a lower centre of gravity, but that's not carved in stone. Some early Titleist did feel a bit hard - but they're also very honest and consistent. If you want to compare CB irons to older blades, make sure they have proper grips, shafts, and try to find something forged in Japan or Texas.

[laconic517]

Oh i completely understand why i hit blades (muscle backs) higher than CB's. CBs have far too much perimiter waiting, specifically at the top of the face so there CG is much higher and doesnt sit nearly as low behind the ball as a muscle back. Its why if you ever hit the top of the face on a blade or near the toe the ball goes absolutely nowhere. Theres no weight there. I just dont how see people can hit CBs high at all, granted i havent played CBs in several years and my CBs were Cleveland TA7's which are probably about 9 years old now.

I was just addressing what some people were saying when they said "no one plays true blades nowadays they all play muscle backs" Well ya like you said its obvious, no one has played them for quite some time.

Personally, I think Cavity backs are absolute junk unless they are in longer irons. They mask problems so you never will really improve your ball-striking. I have a friend who just got some blades and hes probably like a 25 handicap and its helped his ball striking immensely.

I can understand why tour pros use cavity backs for long irons since you dont want to risk mishitting a blade with the tournament on the line and having it come up several yards short with the longer clubs.

[iacas]

Oh i completely understand why i hit blades (muscle backs) higher than CB's. CBs have far too much perimiter waiting, specifically at the top of the face so there CG is much higher and doesnt sit nearly as low behind the ball as a muscle back.

You're exactly backwards. Cavity backs - almost 100% - have a lower CG than a muscleback. Part of the "game improvement" that a CB offers is to launch the ball higher.

[ET-Taylor]

KJ Choi uses SGI irons (ping G15s) and he is amazing

[James_Black]

KJ Choi uses SGI irons (ping G15s) and he is amazing

I don't think he's playing with the actual G15's though.

I'd say he's got the offset removed and has the lofts tweaked

[laconic517]

You're exactly backwards. Cavity backs - almost 100% - have a lower CG than a muscleback. Part of the "game improvement" that a CB offers is to launch the ball higher.

they say they have a lower CG but if you look at the design it doesnt seem true at all. I know they say they have a lower CG but that makes no sense. They put more weight at the top and the sides of the club to increase forgiveness. I know they SAY they help launch the ball higher, but from personal experience its exactly opposite. Muscle backs seem to have much more weight directly below the center of the club face and make the ball go higher. Cavity back also almost always have much taller faces so it seems very difficult to actually hit the ball above the CG on the face.

[James_Black]

they say they have a lower CG but if you look at the design it doesnt seem true at all. I know they say they have a lower CG but that makes no sense. They put more weight at the top and the sides of the club to increase forgiveness. I know they SAY they help launch the ball higher, but from personal experience its exactly opposite. Muscle backs seem to have much more weight directly below the center of the club face and make the ball go higher. Cavity back also almost always have much taller faces so it seems very difficult to actually hit the ball above the CG on the face.

Are you arguing with iacas on clubs?

He knows his stuff. I can see where your coming from but iacas is right.

[iacas]

Are you arguing with iacas on clubs?

Thanks James.

And laconic, I know what you're saying and I can see how it seems the way you're saying it is, but it's not. Take the Titleist AP2s. They have a top cavity, but they have a LOT of weight low. Heck, the put a tungsten weight down there to add to the weight without adding to the sole. A lot of the GI clubs have weight low but it's thinner and spreads up higher on the back of the face. A lot of cavity back clubs have weight at the top but have a LOT of weight low (and with thicker soles). The CG on virtually every cavity back club is lower than virtually every muscleback club. Case in point:

[laconic517]

Thanks James.

but what about them having significantly taller faces? Id completely buy the fact that theyd have a lower CG if they were similar sizes but since blades stand SOOOOOO much shorter than game improvement clubs it seems like unless the ball is teed up or the ball is sitting up in rough the muscle back would go much higher since you could actually hit the ball above the cg. Quite often when I hit cavity backs it feels as if im hitting them thin whereas I can flush blades time after time. It seems like the same exact reason that lower profile fairway woods are still in play over taller faced fairway woods. It also seems like the same reason that driver off the deck was a much more realistic option with the smaller driver heads because you could actually get some weight under the ball

[James_Black]

but what about them having significantly taller faces? Id completely buy the fact that theyd have a lower CG if they were similar sizes but since blades stand SOOOOOO much shorter than game improvement clubs it seems like unless the ball is teed up or the ball is sitting up in rough the muscle back would go much higher since you could actually hit the ball above the sweet spot.

CB's have very thin faces though. My FP's are thin near the top, fatter at the base.

[iacas]

but what about them having significantly taller faces?

a) they're not "significantly" taller

b) the "tallness" doesn't make up for the thickness (or thin-ness) of the face c) they have a HUGE amount of weight low in the sole - and MUCH thicker soles - compared to musclebacks. Again, I know that what you keep saying you believe, but you're wrong. The CG on almost every cavity back is lower than almost every muscleback. That's why their lofts are stronger too - they launch the ball higher given the same loft.

It seems like the same exact reason that lower profile fairway woods are still in play over taller faced fairway woods.

Most pros and good players and better players prefer the taller, deeper fairway metals, right?

It also seems like the same reason that driver off the deck was a much more realistic option with the smaller driver heads because you could actually get some weight under the ball

That's true. But it also has to do with how DEEP in the club the CG is located.

With a driver, the CG can move centimeters back. Expressed square to the loft of the clubface, that's higher on the clubface than the old 190cc drivers. And drivers have little to do with irons. I'll say it one more time, and I hope you finally realize it's a simple fact: the CG on almost every cavity back is lower than almost every muscleback.

[gatorfan]

I play the vr blades and they are the nicest clubs i have ever hit. I love the feel for them, it is very easy for me to work the ball every way. But, everyone has a different feel when it comes to their golf swing. You might be able to play a split cavity just as well. Blades are known more for working the ball, but now the new split cavities and some full cavities can work the ball just as well and you do not have to worry about hitting the ball in the exact center every shot. That is my opinion, play what you can hit the best and what feels the best to you.