Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • iacas

      Snell 20% Off   11/24/2017

      TST Partner Snell Golf is having a 20% off Black Friday/Cyber Monday sale! Check it out at snellgolf.com.
Sign in to follow this  
SoundandFury

Cavity backs are workable too

10 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

The predominent sentiment, as I understand it, is that higher cappers play cavity backs because they're more forgiving on hits that aren't spot on the sweet spot, and lower cappers play forged/blades/muscle backs whatever you want to call them because they are more workable (and those players have no problem hitting the sweet spot consistently).

As my ball striking has improved, I've started working on shot shape, and honestly, I don't have much of a problem making the ball move the way I (I am by no means claiming I hit my target consistently, most of the time I overcook my draws 15 yards left of the target).  I play Callaway Razr X irons, full cavity, cast, game improvement irons.  I've hit Mizuno MP-53's and Titleist Ap2's, and when I do strike them pure, I lose about 10 yards compared to my Razr X's.

My question therefore is where the benefit of blades or forged clubs lies? I can work my cavity backs and the go longer.  I don't see the point in using a club that's harder to hit and shorter (for me at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

I believe I have read that the higher center of gravity helps the player with faster swing speeds keep the ball lower.  I could be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think GI clubs can be workable, but not as easily for better player.  The way I look at it, a GI club tends to hit the ball high and straight.  So a swing that with a "players" style club might curve, with a GI club will fly straight.  You can still curve a GI club, but you probably have to make an exaggerated move.  A player with a consistent swing may prefer to use less variation to achieve the curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think GI clubs can be workable, but not as easily for better player.  The way I look at it, a GI club tends to hit the ball high and straight.  So a swing that with a "players" style club might curve, with a GI club will fly straight.  You can still curve a GI club, but you probably have to make an exaggerated move.  A player with a consistent swing may prefer to use less variation to achieve the curve.


hmm, interesting thought.  I wonder if that contributes to overcooked draw I have a tendency to hit...of course it could just be me sucking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the main reason is that blades (whether they be forged or caste but that's another conversation:-)) are more consistent distance wise. Accurate and repeatable distances are paramount in the pros game. Hit 100 balls with a cavity back 7 iron and 100 balls with a blade 7 iron and the blade will give you far more consistent distances where as the CB might give a dispersion of 10 yards. This is, of course, assuming that you are hitting the sweet spot consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Muscle back irons, cavity backs, game improvement irons, it still works the same..... strike the ball with the center of the face, and the ball will start in the direction the face is pointing, and will curve relative to the face angle/path.  Where the game improvement irons differ is that off-center strikes will fly slightly less off-line because GI heads are generally built around a higher MOI, or the ability to resist twisting about it's CoG.

The CoG location can shift slightly for irons, and that will have a small impact on the work-ability of an iron. It's more to do with the trajectory (height) of a shot, though, and even that can be subtle (depending on the club), so don't worry about it on shaping shots sideways. A CoG that is higher and closer to the face will produce a lower trajectory.  A CoG low and rearward in the head will produce a higher trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer

Any time you are hitting a round object with a flat surface, there is workability.  A cavity doesnt change that.

Exactly, the difference is that forged are more consistant distance wise as someone above stated. You can work the ball with a CB just as easily as a forged club. The forged also give you a more buttery feel when hit correctly. On a forged club, the power you put in is directly related to the distance you get. On CBs the ball tends to come off the face hot, they are made to launch the ball but distance control is "less" ( a relative term).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the difference is that forged are more consistant distance wise as someone above stated. You can work the ball with a CB just as easily as a forged club. The forged also give you a more buttery feel when hit correctly. On a forged club, the power you put in is directly related to the distance you get. On CBs the ball tends to come off the face hot, they are made to launch the ball but distance control is "less" ( a relative term).

Nonsense. Forging is a process by which the clubhead is made. Cast is the alternative process. Cavity back is a type of clubhead. A cavity back club can be either forged or cast....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by David in FL

Nonsense.

Forging is a process by which the clubhead is made. Cast is the alternative process. Cavity back is a type of clubhead. A cavity back club can be either forged or cast....

Correct, there are forged clubs that are made for high handicappers and muslce backs that are cast.  Most wedges people buy are cast, Vokey, Cleveland, TaylorMade, PING.  But that's getting a bit off topic to continue the different metals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • Lol, I like both those movies you hated. Loved? No, but I liked them. I also liked Vanilla Sky too in spite of its flaws. To each his own I guess, and perhaps therein lies the rub that's makes % ratings unreliable more often than not. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for Tom Cruise vanity projects.  But I agree that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't help much at all in determining whether I'll enjoy a movie or not. It's still interesting to browse though, just to see where the pulse of the American critic is, if little else.  I also agree that the discrepancy between critic and audience score is a fascinating one to see when it happens. That's a fun list on that link. Let's see... what are some "bad" movies that I still enjoyed... The 13th Floor (1999) was 29% but with a 67% audience score. A totally flawed movie overshadowed by the Matrix, but still a fun sci-fi journey i think with interesting ideas in it.  I enjoyed Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) that is 55% critic and 53% audience. I dunno, I thought it was a nice story... plus the Writer-Director lady is from the same town as me in NJ, so I always found that interesting that we grew up drinking the same water.  I've always loved the Cable Guy (1996) which is 54%, 51% respectively. Man, people really hated this movie when it came out, but I've always found it hilarious.  I thought Primer (2004) was an ambitious and cool sci-fi movie made on a shoestring budget. I'm not sure how it has only 72% from the critics given what they accomplished on a per dollar scale. Cool story that no doubt has its flaws.  One recent movie that I quite enjoyed that was totally panned (and for good reason) was Passengers (2016). It currently stands at 30%, 63%. Perhaps its just its basic log line that I like, as the film itself kind of loses its way at times. I certainly wouldn't fault people for thinking it was boring or lame as its execution and linear script was pretty banal at times, I admit.  But this random Youtuber made a really cool video about how to make the script for Passengers better, and I 100% agree with his suggestions. This is a pretty cool video if you've seen the movie already. His version is way better.  I think if they took this guy's suggestions, that 30% critic score would be above 65%.   
    • I'm not sure if this is what he meant, but I think you can you use the "feel ain't real" to your advantage. Meaning, if the feel seems right but the results are wrong (or video shows it's wrong), you can exaggerate a move to the point where it feels wrong and it might closer. Example... if I feel my head is remaining stable but video shows I'm moving it towards the target as I get to the top of my backswing, I might change to the point where I feel like I'm moving back away from the target. On video, that feel produces a steadier head. Does that make sense? That's not to say that feel will always work. In fact, there's a good chance it will not. Edit: I didn't realize this is exactly what @klinekahad posted. (it's good to know I'm not the only one who has used that feel). Anyway, maybe that's what @Buckeyebowmanmeant with his response.
    • He's played with every president. That's remaining neutral. You either play with none of 'em or all of 'em.
  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. golf755
      golf755
      (28 years old)
    2. PaddyMac
      PaddyMac
      (48 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon

×

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...