Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Workability in an iron - is it overrated


Note: This thread is 4121 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Just saw that Tiger fired Foley. Wow! Cleaning house, I see...

Anyway,

I'm going to purchase TM Speedblades from a friend. He got them cheap as part of some promotional deal and he wants to dump them. I hit them this weekend at Golfsmith and like them. I've been playing "player's" muscle backs for a while, and want to give clubs that are designed for a mid-handicap a try. I guess I've never understood why game improvement clubs are considered to have less workability. If you apply the laws of physics in your golf swing properly, why would it matter? What do muscle backs have that game improvements don't? The best shot of my life was hit with a clunky game improvement iron - a 35 yard hook around a tree from deep rough to a 150 yard pin that I hit to the fringe. Would I have put it on the green with a pro iron?

Side note : I just wrote a long review of the Speed Blades that took me over an hour. When I tried to post it, the TST gave me an error message and my review doesn't seem to be saved in a draft. GRRRRRR!!!!! :censored:

Can it be recovered? Thanks

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Three characteristics seem to define GI irons vs players irons:

- Large face/sweet spot

- Wide sole

- Offset

I happen to be with you in thinking that none of these features should preclude a player from being able to draw or fade the ball.  The ball flight laws tell us that path vs face angle determine the curvature, period.  None of the above characteristics should affect one's ability to control face angle vs path.  The other end of "working the ball" involves flighting it high or low.  Yes, wide-soled clubs want to go high, but still, this isn't anything that can't be accounted for.  Ball position plus shaft lean will determine the launch angle for any club.  The annals of history are littered with players that got down to single-digit handicap using GI irons, then made the switch to "player's" irons and ceased to improve (or maybe got worse) from there.  Lee Westwood is a prime example.

While every manufacturer offers a variety of irons along the GI spectrum, where the club industry lets us down is in providing GI wedge selections.  You have to either be lucky enough to locate the G,S, and L wedges that go with your GI iron set (and pay a fortune for them), or play non-offset blades for this difficult-to-master range of clubs.  The sole exception seems to be the Ping Eye reissue wedges, which came about as a response to the number of pros and better players snapping up the vintage sticks out of complete sets when they could find them.


Posted

I'm no golf expert at any means but I've just bought some new AP2's and I feel I can provide a little insight.

What I've noticed about hitting my new irons in the first few weeks since I've got them is the consistency when trying to work the ball.  I've noticed that rarely do any of my shots go straight.  With my old irons, they absolutely went straight.  Now there is a consistent draw to my shot and I can plan for it.  With my old irons (Callaway RAZR X Black) it was much harder to produce a draw or fade and it was not consistent in terms of how much it would fade/draw.

You are correct that if your swing has the right physics the ball has no choice but to draw/fade.  But since muscle back irons are made for players who wish to hit a straighter ball, the draw/fade must be hit very precisely in order for it to work.


Posted

IF you are hitting the sweet spot in the club, then no there is no significant difference in the ability to work the ball.

I do believe muscleback irons curve more on off center hits, they also travel less. I remember someone posting a study done that showed that muscleback irons were more accurate in dispersion on solidly struck hits. I think the theory is, when you widen the sweet spot you are giving the player more leeway in the swing to not hit the absolute center. I do think each club does have an exact sweet spot. So when you hit it slightly off, it might not curve as much back as you want, or might just deviate slightly more. So I do think Muscleback irons are just a tad more accurate for better players.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4121 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Is it? I bought the Stack radar to replace my PRGR based on what Stack told me! When I am swinging for speed, the PRGR would miss 50%-80% of my backswings due to a higher speed. The stack seldom misses those- at least for me.
    • As an analyst by nature, I would like to compare the scores under both systems. It is something we can easily do if we have the data. I actually thought the new system was less fair to those whose game was on the decline - like mine! Old: Best 10 of last 20 scores with the .96 multiplier. Course handicap excluded course rating and overall par. New: Best 8/20. Course handicap includes course rating -par. My understanding is Stableford caps scores at Net double bogey like stroke play. If so, handicap should be slower to rise because you are only using 8 versus 10 scores. If I am missing something, I am curious enough to  want to understand what that may be. My home course tees that I play are 72.1/154 now. My best score out here is 82. When my game started to decline, my handicap didn’t budge for 13 rounds because of good scores in my first 8! I know I am an anomaly but my handicap has increased almost 80% in the past few years (with only a few rounds this year). For a few months I knew I was losing every bet because my game was nowhere near my handicap. I suspect I have steamrolled a few nuances but that shouldn’t matter much. When I have modeled this with someone playing the same tees and course, one good round, or return to form, will immediately reduce the handicap by some amount.
    • Wordle 1,631 3/6* ⬛⬛🟦⬛🟧 ⬛🟧🟧⬛🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧 Awesome, @WillieT! Go get another!
    • Wordle 1,631 2/6* ⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Day 11: did mirror work for a while. Worked on the same stuff. 
×
×
  • Create New...

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.