Why not oversize (mid-size) muscle-backs?

[Maverick]

I love the look of the muscle back "blade" iron. Unfortunately, the size of the head really makes my shudder.  I realize that by the time you reach this level where you can play a "blade", than the size issue is moot as you can probably pick the hairs off an ant's butt with your irons.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, why don't they (or have they?) create a mid-size/over-size TRUE muscle-back "blade" iron?  Wouldn't the sweet size be bigger as well?  Take, for example, the head-size of the MX-200.  It's a fairly big head (I'd say mid-size).  Why not make a comparable muscle back in this same head size?

Is it because the weight of the head would be too much? ..and if this is the case then, there are numerous shafts out now (both steel and graphite) that are so light that I'm sure could compensate for the head weight of this mid-size/oversize "blade"?

Is it the price factor..more forged steel involved?  I'm sure there are many who could easily afford it.  I, for one, would be very interested in trying out a mid-size/over-size "blade".

Just curious what you guys think or have heard..

[mvmac]

Still keep the topline thin, just make it bigger from toe to heel and maybe the face deeper?

[Maverick]

  mvmac said:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Still keep the topline thin, just make it bigger from toe to heel and maybe the face deeper?

Exactly what I was thinking!  ..keep the offset the same too.  hmmm...just curious what the naysayers have to say..or are we on to something here?  Mizuno can call it the MPX-33/37..lol

[iacas]

Two reasons that I can come up with:

1. More metal = heavier head.
2. Most people playing musclebacks like the look of a smaller head.

Simply: there isn't a market for a large blade.

[LuciusWooding]

It would be heavy as a brick, impossible to hit off the deck due to the CG being even higher, and the large size would penalize fat shots and hitting out of the rough so much more. Also, you'd need like a 150 gram shaft or it might be subject to strain from the large head twisting and the heavy head on the end stressing the shaft.

Part of the blade design is that the small head can be set up better on uneven lies and there's less head to grab the rough. Turf interaction comes at a premium in the player's iron market. I have 2 sand wedges; one is a blade with bounce and a small head, the other is from the 70s and it has a tremendously oversized head with a large cavity. The big one is fantastic off of mats and I can't mishit it, but it's so chunky you need to either pick the ball off the sand or swing it like Mjolnir, the hammer of Thor to escape bunkers. The smaller one is able to glide through the sand and rough, which makes up for the forgiveness due to the nature of wedges as versatile clubs. For most golfers their game is improved by a forgiving club that is ideal in a straight oriented shot off a good lie or tee. Professionals and better players are served by the versatility of a blade which can be set up myriad ways and hit better shots from bad lies.

This sort of idea could be applicable for a low trajectory driving iron, but a really oversize head wouldn't find a market. There are some blade or forged cavity irons that are extended in blade length, I believe the Nike blades are long from heel to toe compared to some.

[uttexas]

I have some in my bag, love them [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/242605/width/225/height/225[/IMG][/URL] [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/242607/width/225/height/225[/IMG][/URL]

[LuciusWooding]

  uttexas said:

Originally Posted by uttexas

I have some in my bag, love them

[URL][/URL]

[URL][/URL]

Nice clubs, but they're not blades. The giant cavity in the back is a dead giveaway, though it's higher on the club than some.

[uttexas]

How about the Adams MB2? [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/242627/width/225/height/225[/IMG][/URL] [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/242629/width/225/height/225[/IMG][/URL]

[sean_miller]

  mvmac said:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Still keep the topline thin, just make it bigger from toe to heel and maybe the face deeper?

Sounds good - now just distribute the weight more around the perimeter, then insert some more dense materials to really make that perimeter weighting efficient, and finally into the resulting cavity fasten some materials designed to dampen vibrations. Voila - the perfect oversized muscleback.

[sean_miller]

  Maverick said:

Originally Posted by Maverick

I love the look of the muscle back "blade" iron. Unfortunately, the size of the head really makes my shudder.  I realize that by the time you reach this level where you can play a "blade", than the size issue is moot as you can probably pick the hairs off an ant's butt with your irons.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, why don't they (or have they?) create a mid-size/over-size TRUE muscle-back "blade" iron?  Wouldn't the sweet size be bigger as well?  Take, for example, the head-size of the MX-200.  It's a fairly big head (I'd say mid-size).  Why not make a comparable muscle back in this same head size?

Is it because the weight of the head would be too much? ..and if this is the case then, there are numerous shafts out now (both steel and graphite) that are so light that I'm sure could compensate for the head weight of this mid-size/oversize "blade"?

Is it the price factor..more forged steel involved?  I'm sure there are many who could easily afford it.  I, for one, would be very interested in trying out a mid-size/over-size "blade".

Just curious what you guys think or have heard..

Those heavier heads and lighter shafts sounds like a dream - they'd basically swing themselves!!

[GaijinGolfer]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

Two reasons that I can come up with:

More metal = heavier head.

Most people playing musclebacks like the look of a smaller head.

Simply: there isn't a market for a large blade.

This.  People who play blades dont want bigger heads.

[The Tin Man]

I have re-shafted Hogan Radials with graphite shafts. Having long arms and short legs I went with shafts the same length as the original steel. That meant using light grips and lead tape to bring the swing weight back up.

I'm $300 into a set of blades that you can get off e-bay for $40 with steel shafts. I did it because blades usually come with S or  XS steel shafts and not "A" graphite. Buying used or last years wasn't possible, and a custom order would cost a lot more. Unless you really need graphite it's not cost effective.

Radials are probably the easiest to play blades ever made, with a wide rounded sole and more bounce then most. (The GI irons of their day.) The face has the same area as my cavity back Titelist AP1's but the Radials "forgiving" area is tiny in comparison.  For distance the AP1's are the best play and up tight the Radials.

One doesn't need a low handicap to play an 7,8.9,P blade and the transition into the wedges is a lot smoother.  (There wasn't any need to re-shaft 3,4,5,6.)  As stated before making the heads bigger would defeat the whole purpose. The advantage is the small head, especially on raised greens with deep rough.

[spearq8]

I think the problem would be weight.  You need to keep a certain swing weight configuration and the total weight shouldn't become too high.  In the meantime I have been trying the Maltby MB and they seem extremely large and forgiving for a blade.  I made a full set for my brother's kid (12 years old) and he chose them over his brand new R11 irons, and his last 3 rounds have been his lowest scoring rounds ever.  The idea that hitting blades is more difficult is a myth, and it is unfortunate because blades are simply much more accurate than CB's.  But with blades you really have to be fit properly with the correct shaft and your lie fitting should be perfect.  I have 5 sets of Mizuno blades and I liked the Maltby irons so much that I ordered a full set to build, they really play extremely well although they don't have the perfect finish of Mizunos, and the quality control in the finishing looks like it could use a lot of improvement, but the play on the irons is as good or better than the Mizunos.  I still am not sure what shafts I want to put on them and ordered a few more 6 iron heads to try X100, S300 (what I play with now), FST Pro 115 (am interested to see how a light shaft does on a blade), but there is a good chance that I might be giving up on the Mizuno's and moving to the Maltby MB's.

http://www.golfworks.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_MA0194_A_cn_E_2089

Why not order a fully assembled 8 iron or 6 iron and give it a try?  I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how easy they are to hit.

[Shorty]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

Two reasons that I can come up with:

More metal = heavier head.

Most people playing musclebacks like the look of a smaller head.

Exactly. It's a question of not being physically possible let alone  sensible.

I have yet to meet a player who likes sleek looking irons wanting a large head.

And...we are talking about "blades", not large clubs like those Macgregor things a few posts up.

Any maufacturer who thought it would be a good idea would be insane. The heads would have to be so thin to keep the weight down they would be impossible to hit.

People are trying to find a solutiuon to a problem thatb doesn't exist here.

You have a Porsche or you have a truck. Efforts to combine them are rarely satisfactory.

[uttexas]

spearq8 is onto something with the Maltby forged irons. I was looking at Maltby Playability Factor ratings today, and some of the Maltby forged "blade" looking irons had some of the highest "forged" ratings: Maltby MMB forged has a MPF of 722, which puts them in the super game improvement category [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/255764/width/640/height/480[/IMG][/URL]

[The Tin Man]

>>

I wonder why?

[LuciusWooding]

Maltby's rating system is based off a lot of stupid mathematical things. An iron can score pretty low on his scale, but still be pretty easy to hit for a human.

Strong lofts, a short hosel, low CG, long blade length, lots of offset, wide sole, and high MOI are some of the components of the scale, but they lack subjective points. Not to mention many players would only want a high MOI and all the rest of those features would defeat the purpose of a blade. And they only measure the 6 iron which is flawed in my opinion. Maltby obviously designs his irons with a maximum MPF, and for the most part that produces clubs with good performance under his criteria, but don't discount a well regarded set because of those ratings.

[sblack5]

I play the smallest blade irons made......from someone that plays blades I would say that the reason a bigger blade wouldnt work is that most blades are forged and can get a head of similar weight into a smaller package......with a more compact design and more mass behind the center of the club as opposed to the perimeter of the club you can do more with the ball, and you get slightly higher ball speed.