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

[Rudyprimo]

The smaller head of a blade iron has a different COG and MOI as related to the shaft as the axis compared to cavity backed and larger club heads. The lower the MOI with the shaft as the axis and the closer the COG to the shaft, there's a tendency to close the club face through impact. And the opposite is true. The higher the MOI with the shaft as the axis and the further the COG is from the shaft there's a tendency to leave the club face open at impact. Cast clubs are made very well now a days and they are very workable. But the smaller blades are easier for some people to work the ball. I've always been a straight ball hitter. I could also hit a fade when I want to but I could never hit a draw consistent enough to use it much. I bought a mixed set of Titleist CB and MB 712's over the winter. When I first started practicing with them, I was hitting a draw and also a hook some of the time. After looking for reasons for this, I found the information I posted above on the golf section on about.com. At least for me, and I'm sure there must be others, the smaller head of the blade makes it easier for me to work the ball. I weakened my grip a little to hit it straight and I can also hit a draw or a fade when I want to. It still needs a lot of work, I can't work it like a pro of course, but I'm getting much better at doing it.

[carpediem4300]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

At least for me, and I'm sure there must be others, the smaller head of the blade makes it easier for me to work the ball. I weakened my grip a little to hit it straight and I can also hit a draw or a fade when I want to. It still needs a lot of work, I can't work it like a pro of course, but I'm getting much better at doing it.

THIS

[Mr3Wiggle]

I thought the Hogan Apex Blades that came out in 1994 were pretty long.

[Jon Robert]

Originally Posted by 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 over sized 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.

Don't be offended but these are ridiculous conclusions. But boy they sure sound good. So good they might even be believed.

"It would be heavy as a brick, impossible to hit off the deck due to the CG being even higher"

Mine are 2 ounces heavier and a brick is nowhere in my impression, and hitting off the deck is much easier on any irregularity.

" the large size would penalize fat shots and hitting out of the rough so much more"

Hitting out of the rough is impossibly EASY with all that mass pile driving through it. Same with fat shots and sand. Like a bulldozer compared to a kitchen spoon.

"you'd need like a 150 gram shaft or it might be subject to strain"

False I have used any of the standard shafts.

THAT IS ENOUGH TO DISPROVE THE "FACTS" WHICH BRINGS ME TO WHY NOT A LARGER HEAD ON A MUSCLEBACK (I would buy a set immediately with an OS head)

NONE = BECAUSE OF WIVES TALES AND TRADITIONAL SO CALLED WISDOM (like I dismiss above)

BUT BECAUSE OF ALL THAT RESISTANCE MANUFACTURES WON'T MAKE IT.

[Jon Robert]

ps IF the cavity back would have never been invented we would probably be looking at a selection of oversize musclebacks in the stores.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Jon Robert

Don't be offended but these are ridiculous conclusions. But boy they sure sound good. So good they might even be believed.

"It would be heavy as a brick, impossible to hit off the deck due to the CG being even higher"

Mine are 2 ounces heavier and a brick is nowhere in my impression, and hitting off the deck is much easier on any irregularity.

" the large size would penalize fat shots and hitting out of the rough so much more"

Hitting out of the rough is impossibly EASY with all that mass pile driving through it. Same with fat shots and sand. Like a bulldozer compared to a kitchen spoon.

"you'd need like a 150 gram shaft or it might be subject to strain"

False I have used any of the standard shafts.

THAT IS ENOUGH TO DISPROVE THE "FACTS" WHICH BRINGS ME TO WHY NOT A LARGER HEAD ON A MUSCLEBACK (I would buy a set immediately with an OS head)

NONE = BECAUSE OF WIVES TALES AND TRADITIONAL SO CALLED WISDOM (like I dismiss above)

BUT BECAUSE OF ALL THAT RESISTANCE MANUFACTURES WON'T MAKE IT.

OK, I'll bite. 2 ounces is about 56 grams. A 3 iron head weighing a typical 240g with a 130g shaft, 50g grip, playing at 39", would get a swingweight of a typical D2. This is pretty average among players irons, has been for years regardless of total weight.

If we add 2 ounces to the clubhead, this gets to a G0 swingweight. If one ounce was added to the head with another ounce in the shaft to balance it better, it would be E9 (158g shaft by the way). If we add 19g to the grip, 19g to the shaft, and 19g to the head, it would be E0 (This is with a grip heavier than anything conventional on the market, even Jumbo sizes, and a 149g shaft weight which is a good 12g heavier than anything on the market). If you played the head 19g heavier than normal (which is the best scenario of distributing 2 ounces of extra weight), it would also have the rough equivalent of soft stepping 3 times due to all that weight (the 240g 3 iron head would be the same weight as a 6 iron), which would make the shaft play way off what it's designed for.

Maybe you don't believe in swingweighting, but even a recreational player would be thrown way off by 8 swingweight points. As for the CG, it's a known fact that the club works best when the CG is below the equator of the ball. Otherwise we'd have thicker toplines than soles. If you're hitting off a tee you can get it in the air ok with a higher CG, but you need to hit the ball below the equator with the CG of the head low for the club to work properly. The lower the CG, the higher the launch and the greater the margin of error for hitting it thin. Sounds like 2 pretty good ideas for a player looking for help with his ballstriking.

The oversized clubs are worse through rough, turf, or sand if you have the same sole type on both. If you have 2 clubs, one with a 2 inch blade length and another with 4, the 4" head will have double the drag and double the amount of crap to plow through as the 2", all else being equal. We're not talking about doubling the size here, and it's not that big of an effect, but there is a difference. The sole grind and width is a bigger factor in turf interaction than blade length, but an oversize club can't be better through the turf.

The analogy of a bulldozer vs a kitchen spoon is perfect. No flaws there. Except the bulldozer comes with hundreds of horsepower while the spoon has your arm behind it. Ever try to swing a bulldozer's bucket with your bare hands? Maybe a hand tool like a shovel would be a better example? Even so, the spoon only has like 2 square inches of face area to create drag. The shovel could have all the strength behind it in the world, but it would have a maybe 144 sq in of area. Again, bigger club, bigger divot. And a club heavy enough to cut through the turf easily would sacrifice ease of swinging and reduce the speed of most players. I'm not a fan of ultralight clubs by any means, and a bit of lead tape is cool, but you're talking about making a club that cuts through the turf better? That won't improve your game unless you hit everything fat; you're supposed to hit the ball first. If you take turf properly after the ball, it's purely a feel thing how the club goes through the divot and the ball is long gone.

If the cavity back had never been invented? Oversize blades still wouldn't be any good.

The reason super OS blades don't exist is because they don't effing work. There's no demand, as others have said, but honestly the cavities and modern designs are the result of a lot of testing. The OEMs have never shied from hawking any exotic head designs before, so if an OS head was worth playing, why doesn't it exist? Is there a conspiracy keeping the "real" clubs down? It's been tried and it's not successful in the form suggested in this thread. There's no "resistance" by the manufacturers or anyone else. If the OEMs could make all of us buy new clubs by making OS blades, they'd do whatever it takes.

[Maverick]

If weight was the issue, why not then just put it on a graphite shaft? A UST Mamiya graphite iron shaft in a stiff is 95g.  A extra-stiff (X) from GD Tour AD graphite iron shaft is 109g.

I understand the talk that a smaller blade is more workable, cuts through the grass better, smaller top line,looks better and all the pro's of the classic MB.  Obviously, a OS muscleback won't be able to match it like it's "classic" brother.  It's going to be a GI club but with "some" of the benefits of it's almighty classic MB brother.  I play with the MX-200 and its a fairly big head..but if these OS MB's were as big..that would not bother me at all.

I say it's more of a comparison like a Porsche 911 to a Porsche Panamera.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Maverick

If weight was the issue, why not then just put it on a graphite shaft? A UST Mamiya graphite iron shaft in a stiff is 95g.  A extra-stiff (X) from GD Tour AD graphite iron shaft is 109g.

I understand the talk that a smaller blade is more workable, cuts through the grass better, smaller top line,looks better and all the pro's of the classic MB.  Obviously, a OS muscleback won't be able to match it like it's "classic" brother.  It's going to be a GI club but with "some" of the benefits of it's almighty classic MB brother.  I play with the MX-200 and its a fairly big head..but if these OS MB's were as big..that would not bother me at all.

I say it's more of a comparison like a Porsche 911 to a Porsche Panamera.

Graphite would help some with the overall weight, but remember we're talking players irons, generally you assume Dynamic Golds as default. Also, a light shaft like that will help total weight, you can even put on lighter grips, but you can't reduce head weight so the things would still have a high swingweight because the head is so heavy compared to the rest. A muscleback can't really be reduced in weight because it's solid steel with weight behind the hitting area by definition. So making it bigger would really have to add head weight. The only way to make the swingweight close to a typical measure of D2 is to counterweight the grip significantly, which would add a ton of static weight and throw off the playing characteristics. However, a GI iron can have cavities, be hollow, have titanium in the face or in the back like the MP59, and have a really wide sole at the same weight of a normal blade or less, making it possible to increase head size a bit because you're not constrained by shape.

[TourSpoon]

Anyone remember the WS RM midsize blade wedges? I can't remember if they went past the wedges. I never really liked the size of these.

[Maverick]

Think ALOT of people would love to try a MB, just that the head size is so darn small and opposing.

[Jon Robert]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

OK, I'll bite. 2 ounces is about 56 grams. A 3 iron head weighing a typical 240g with a 130g shaft, 50g grip, playing at 39", would get a swingweight of a typical D2. This is pretty average among players irons, has been for years regardless of total weight.

If we add 2 ounces to the clubhead, this gets to a G0 swingweight. If one ounce was added to the head with another ounce in the shaft to balance it better, it would be E9 (158g shaft by the.....................................

The reason super OS blades don't exist is because they don't effing work.

----------------------------------------------the "real" clubs down? It's been tried and it's not successful in the form suggested in this thread. There's no "resistance" by the manufacturers or anyone else. If the OEMs could make all of us buy new clubs by making OS blades, they'd do whatever it takes.

"The reason super OS blades don't exist is because they don't effing work"

Don't be offended but these are ridiculous conclusions. But it was a rather impressive pontification

Duh. People hit golf balls with chains for a shaft, ropes and hoses for shafts. Wooden balls on the ends of rope. Sticks with old time telephone hand sets for club heads and a bunch of other stuff to entertain crowds. But LuciusWoodings says "The reason super OS blades don't exist is because they don't effing work"

A club that is built just like a golf club only slightly bigger don't work because LuciusWooding said so

Oversize club heads work just fine. The reason OS blades are not made is pure economics. The same reason you can't find a million things that you could once find in stores. #1 blade players are very rare #2 muscle back players are rare so  there you have it. But if a phone on the end of a stick works then certainly an OS golf club will work.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Jon Robert

Duh. People hit golf balls with chains for a shaft, ropes and hoses for shafts. Wooden balls on the ends of rope. Sticks with old time telephone hand sets for club heads and a bunch of other stuff to entertain crowds. But LuciusWoodings says "The reason super OS blades don't exist is because they don't effing work"

A club that is built just like a golf club only slightly bigger don't work because LuciusWooding said so

I notice you don't see too many players on tour hitting their shots with a chain shaft. You do see plenty of blades as well as a large number of game improvement irons. There's a difference between what you can physically hit a golf ball with and what is effective.

Ask Maltby, Wishon, or any other club designer. I think you can actually email Maltby with this question. If you design a club with the vertical center of gravity above the equator of the ball at impact, the ball will fly like a wheelbarrow. You'd be totally unable to hit the sweet spot without hitting the ground first unless the ball was above the ground. You could lower the CG and allow the club to function properly by widening the sole, adding a cavity and offset, perimeter weighting, (all of which would make the club not a muscleback)or use a larger ball with a higher center of gravity. Low CG makes a club launch higher and gives a greater margin for error on thin shots. High CG, which is unavoidable in a true OS blade design, causes the ball to launch lower and gives less margin for error. Guess which weighting pattern high handicappers want? You don't see irons out there with a higher than .800" CG, and the diameter of the ball is around .168". Coincidence? And the GI irons typically have CGs in the range of .650 to .750". Even the pros prefer a bit of forgiveness. You could make the biggest sweet spot in the world though, and if it's too high on the face to hit the ball directly off the ground, the club is garbage. It's like hitting your driver off the deck on a tight lie. You can get it in the air, but it's not pretty and you'd hit a 3 wood farther because you can actually reach the sweet spot. If head size were everything, surely the driver would go further?

A quarter inch higher toe and longer blade? Maybe that won't make much difference, especially if they keep. But a big chunky head like a Callaway SGI iron without perimeter weighting and using a muscleback would be useless. Either traditional musclebacks or GI irons would indisputably perform better for any player.

[WUTiger]

Any market for O-sized blades likely has been absorbed by blended sets, which have appeared regularly since about 2005. In the current crop of irons, blended sets include Nike VR-Pro Combo, with pocket cavity heads in 3-4i, split cavity in 5-7i, and muscleback for 8i and above. A couple of years back, Titleist offered the ZB "Z-blend" which offered a cavity head in 3-6i, and blade in 7i and above.

Also, you can mix different iron sets: Some players get ZB equivalent by asking Titleist for current CB (cavityback) model in 3-6i, and MB (muscleback) in 7i and above.

[Jon Robert]

Originally Posted by WUTiger

Any market for O-sized blades likely has been absorbed by blended sets, which have appeared regularly since about 2005. In the current crop of irons, blended sets include Nike VR-Pro Combo, with pocket cavity heads in 3-4i, split cavity in 5-7i, and muscleback for 8i and above. A couple of years back, Titleist offered the ZB "Z-blend" which offered a cavity head in 3-6i, and blade in 7i and above.

Also, you can mix different iron sets: Some players get ZB equivalent by asking Titleist for current CB (cavity back) model in 3-6i, and MB (muscle back) in 7i and above.

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS!

I would purchase an over sized muscle back immediately. A cavity back set in the size of a Hogan Apex Edge would last about 2 seconds before I bought them.

In the absence of this (as I stated not going to happen due to ....)   the blended set is a suitable substitute.  Hoverer I have not yet found a true muscle back oversize on the short end that I like. (have not measured every one out there but as I see them) They are more like  altered cavity backs made to be like muscle backs and are smallish. I have not the slightest bit a fear that they won't work as some insist.

[TourSpoon]

Any market for O-sized blades likely has been absorbed by blended sets, which have appeared regularly since about 2005. In the current crop of irons, blended sets include Nike VR-Pro Combo, with pocket cavity heads in 3-4i, split cavity in 5-7i, and muscleback for 8i and above. A couple of years back, Titleist offered the ZB "Z-blend" which offered a cavity head in 3-6i, and blade in 7i and above. Also, you can mix different iron sets: Some players get ZB equivalent by asking Titleist for current CB (cavityback) model in 3-6i, and MB (muscleback) in 7i and above.

Titleist 735 CMs were pre ZBs. I play them and love them. I almost said I game them! Haha.