Am I ready for players's irons?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

I don't accept the premise that feel is only about sound. I can DEFINITELY feel something really nice in my hands when I hit mizunos compared to other irons, off the shelf with no fancy shafts. Does the sound contribute, absolutely but its not only the sound. The vibration characteristics of the club are what influence the sound and undeniably would effect feel in your hand as well.

This isn't necessarily the thread for it, as it's been discussed at length elsewhere, but I think studies rank higher than "premises." The same clubhead shape (even with slightly different metals) created by forging or casting are indiscernible. In other studies they'd play a sound at impact and people would always guess the club they heard rather than the one they felt. People couldn't even tell the difference between balata and surlyn when different sounds were played.

But again, some of the other threads are probably a better place to discuss this.

[The Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

Another question, from a results perspective, what is the difference between a blade and muscle back?  Obviously the cavity back widens the sweet spot.  What does adding the mass behind the sweet spot do, compared to a simple blade?

Also, can someone describe to me what is the iron offset exactly and how does that effect performance.

thanks

Read this other thread on that: http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2076-Dont_Buy_Blade_Irons_Before_You_Read_This.html

If anyone has another source of info please share it. Rodger Malbly mentions the different styles of blades but doesn't go much further on it.

[Dewdman42]

That article discusses blades vs cavity backs, but I could not find anything which explains the purpose of "muscle backs".

[The Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

That article discusses blades vs cavity backs, but I could not find anything which explains the purpose of "muscle backs".

This is what Terry (Wedge Guy) wrote in the comments, in answer to a question.

<<< As you shop blades, look for the thickness of the clubhead right at the impact spot, and how much has been moved to the perimeter. What you want is a balance of the two that adds a little help while not compromising that center mass.>>>

That's a muscle back -  never played one myself. Since I need custom shafts (nobody makes blades with Graphite "A" flex)  I buy the older stuff dirt cheap and re-shaft.

[Dewdman42]

Sorry I'm still not getting it.  A blade is pretty much flat on back right?  A cavity back moves the mass away from the sweet spot.  I thought I read that a muscle back actually puts MORE mass behind the sweet spot then a pure blade.  WHY?

[WUTiger]

Quote:

...  It's the same old cliches - "butter", "penetrating ballflight", "feel". There is not a club known to man that isn't at least two of these when hit in the middle.  The one I am ruling out is the "penetrating ball flight one". That is a function of power and the right shaft. Not something which is attributable to a club...

Shaft characteristics (flex, kickpoint) and how much clubhead speed you generate (power) affect trajectory, as does the type of ball you play.

But, you can't omit clubhead design from the trajectory equation. Clubhead design does affect trajectory. A cavity-back design and a lower Vertical Center of Gravity will get the ball up higher, and a Player's design with a higher VCOG will tend to launch the ball lower.

[Dewdman42]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a larger offset also change the trajectory?  It seems to me that with less offset, in order to close the face square, while keeping the hands ahead, the club will be de-lofted more then it would be with offset.  I am thinking with offset the hands don't have to be as far ahead, and thus the club is not de-lofted as much, something like that.  Just thinking out loud here.

[The Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

Sorry I'm still not getting it.  A blade is pretty much flat on back right?  A cavity back moves the mass away from the sweet spot.  I thought I read that a muscle back actually puts MORE mass behind the sweet spot then a pure blade.  WHY?

Why?  I guess to find a way to combine the large forgiveness zone of a CB with the sweet feel of a well struck blade?

A muscle back (keep in mind that these definitions have different meanings to different marketing departments) removes mass from the club but leaves it around the sweet spot. Some do it with a X that crosses a deep cavity. (I never tried one like this.)

A 1959 Wilson Wedge that I have added  more steel in the form of an X on top of a flat back. (Easier to hit then a flat back Hogan of the same year.)

Hogan added mass to the sole (and not the top line or toe) with their Radial model. (I really like these, as easy to hit as my AP1's)  Bottom is GI, top is blade. But probably not considered a  "players" iron since they are too wierd.  Easy to find on E-bay - they must have made a lot of them.

On Offset - I grew up with it and all my clubs have it. The 50's irons with flat backs, sharp edges, and no offset are beyond my ability.

[Dewdman42]

ahhh.  So a muscleback is a cavity back + the muscle at the sweet spot?

[The Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

ahhh.  So a muscleback is a cavity back + the muscle at the sweet spot?

Yes, but according to Terry - too much of this stuff  defeats the purpose of a playing a blade to begin with.

[Dewdman42]

and what is the purpose to begin with?

[Danattherock]

Apparently, just to make different sounds

[BugDude]

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

ahhh.  So a muscleback is a cavity back + the muscle at the sweet spot?

Not really, but the term has been used by modern club companies as such.  Back in the day, blades were considered to be straight down the back with a little thicker sole than top line.  The term "muscle back" came about when they put a hump on the back of the blade in the lower portion towards the sole.  Then cavity backs had perimeter weighting with a hollow area on the back of the head generally around the entire back of the club.  With the myriad of cavity shapes and designs over the years, the term muscle back has been used to describe clubs with a cavity of sorts with material in the hitting area, but that really wasn't the original sense of the term in its purest intent.  What it means now is essentially up to whatever any marketing department wants to call it.

[BugDude]

Originally Posted by Danattherock

Man, you got a great sense of humor

I don't need to read a 1,191 post thread to know that my Miura's feel great.

I could tell the first time I took them to the range.

Must have been the sound. The sound of butter??

In your Miura review, you mentioned the feel in your hands. I can see where sound matters a good bit, but like you, a lot of what I perceive as feel is also in my hands. The combination of tactile and auditory = feel? Yep, I can buy into that. Great review by the way. I had read that a while back when searching online for info about Miura in general. That is also when I found out Tiger and others have Miura irons with their sponsors (Nike, Titleist, etc..) logo on them.

I agree with you that there is more to feel than just sound.  Forging creates more density and consistency of density and grain than casting and the difference in feel (the sensation that travels through the contact with the head, through the shaft, through the grip, and into your hands) is discernable to me.  Sound influences one's perception, but your ears aren't touching the club...your hands are.  I have a forged sand wedge (Wilson) and a cast sand wedge (Titleist Vokey) both with the same loft and lie and when chipping the exact same golf ball with both (Pro V1) there is a distinct difference in feel (the sensation of the club grabbing the ball, almost how much time the ball is in contact with the club face) and the sound is the same.  Perhaps it is just me, and all in my head.  There's no science, studies, spreadsheets, lasers, monitors, computers, or anything else backing up my feelings on the matter.  It is hard for a computer to measure feel as it is an individual thing.  What "feels" a certain way to one may not to another.

[inthehole]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

To be blunt, since I think we're on that path with this detour, what would benefit the majority of high handicappers is a reality check and some lessons (or perhaps a new hobby), but we know that ain't gonna happen.

Quote:

Some of the arrogant comments from some of the folks on this thread are astounding.  Suggesting that high handicappers should find a new hobby is utter arrogance.  I'm dissapointed to see that kind of suggestion here.  Golf is for anyone and everyone that enjoys to wack the ball around the course, including ultra high handicappers.  And ultra high handicappers can use any clubs they bloody well please for any reason they prefer.

Sean is a good guy & one that's never afraid to say what he feels.     As a high hadicapper - you have to develop a thick skin when surrounded by any group of far better players - no different than on a real golf course (I often respond to the condescending comments which I find offensive, but in the end realize that this place is a tremendous learning resource for us trying to improve our game, and it's wise to take the high road in such company) ...

[The Tin Man]

Originally Posted by BugDude

Not really, but the term has been used by modern club companies as such.  Back in the day, blades were considered to be straight down the back with a little thicker sole than top line.  The term "muscle back" came about when they put a hump on the back of the blade in the lower portion towards the sole.  Then cavity backs had perimeter weighting with a hollow area on the back of the head generally around the entire back of the club.  With the myriad of cavity shapes and designs over the years, the term muscle back has been used to describe clubs with a cavity of sorts with material in the hitting area, but that really wasn't the original sense of the term in its purest intent.  What it means now is essentially up to whatever any marketing department wants to call it.

It sounds like Hogan Radials are Muscle Backs? If so I have been playing Muscle Backs thinking I never tried one.

[Dewdman42]

So is it fair to say that most modern day "blades" are in fact muscle backs, due to the beefing up that manufacturers have made to them in terms of trying to put just a bit more weight under the ball without carving out a cavity?

[BugDude]

I think so.  I have some examples of each in my garage.  I'll take a picture of all three.  A vast majority of modern blades are indeed MBs.  Terminology and labels really don't mean much anymore.  I look at some irons today (not to mention putters) and really don't know what to call them.  Ugly is usually the first word that comes to mind.  There are still companies that make some traditional looking irons that are beautiful regardless of what you call them.

Originally Posted by Dewdman42

So is it fair to say that most modern day "blades" are in fact muscle backs, due to the beefing up that manufacturers have made to them in terms of trying to put just a bit more weight under the ball without carving out a cavity?