Equipment Question

[Richie3Jack]

Richie - do you think that blades are better with the CoG closer to the heel?

Or is it just that you like old blades, and the heel bias doesn't bother you?

Older blades the sweetspot is a bit more towards the heel and the higher up on the face. Modern blades it is more centered and lower on the face.

I still like many of the modern blades because the weight is much more centered than a CB. But I like the vintage blades even more because the sweetspot is higher and there are times when I take a pretty good swing, but hit the ball higher up on the face and the modern blades don't react as well to it like the vintage blades do. Plus, I like to have a lot of different sets of irons and play with them. It makes me more in tune with my swing since each set is a bit different and just makes the game more fun. I didn't win the lotto, so I can't just by modern blades anytime I want. But I have 5 sets of vintage blades (4 Hogans, 1 MacGregor) and they cost me a total of $275 which includes shipping costs. That's 40 clubs total for me, at $6.88 a club.

Not bad for something that has helped my swing and made golf more fun for me.





3JACK

 

[Frans@France]

yep - that would tell you which club you hit closer to the target.

in the same way, but for a fraction of the cost, you could draw smiley faces on half of your practice balls and conduct head to head tests yourself.

so my question is, what functionality does trackman add to the mix?

club-data, which you don't get when only looking at the "closer to the target smiley faces balls"

 

[birly-shirly]

sorry if I'm being a bit slow, but can you say more about what you mean by "club-data" or, in your earlier post "end-results"?

suppose I came to you with a set of 30 year old macgregor blades and a set of new-ish callaway CBs. let's also pretend that I've put my favourite shafts into both sets.

what data would you show me after hitting both sets on TM that would help me choose between sets?

or, suppose I tell you that I want a "forgiving" set of irons (and to hell with hardwork and feedback) and I've got sets from Callaway and Ping to choose between. what data would you show me to demonstrate which set is best compensating for flawed swings or impacts?

 

[birly-shirly]

Older blades the sweetspot is a bit more towards the heel and the higher up on the face. Modern blades it is more centered and lower on the face.

I still like many of the modern blades because the weight is much more centered than a CB. But I like the vintage blades even more because the sweetspot is higher and there are times when I take a pretty good swing, but hit the ball higher up on the face and the modern blades don't react as well to it like the vintage blades do. Plus, I like to have a lot of different sets of irons and play with them. It makes me more in tune with my swing since each set is a bit different and just makes the game more fun. I didn't win the lotto, so I can't just by modern blades anytime I want. But I have 5 sets of vintage blades (4 Hogans, 1 MacGregor) and they cost me a total of $275 which includes shipping costs. That's 40 clubs total for me, at $6.88 a club.

Not bad for something that has helped my swing and made golf more fun for me.





3JACK

Thanks Richie - I've made similar investments to you, and I'm totally with you on the enjoyment factor that they can bring to the game, especially when you can pick up some flat out gorgeous, classic clubs for less than the price of a pair of shoes.

I've just never really thought in terms of the weight distribution of the older clubs being more playable. Generally, I like the looks, the size, the feel, and very often the sole and leading edge set up - and I suspect that the advantages of perimeter weighting are somewhat exaggerated.

But I think what you're saying is that exaggerated sole-weighting does you no favours (rather than that a heel bias is necessarily a good thing), and I can see your point.

 

[Brian Manzella]

BLOG: The Allure (and the Reality) of Blade Irons by Brian Manzella

The reason so much of golf's best has been played using blade clubs is simple.

It is due to a small little thing that you can't buy called TALENT.

But that talent, and its relationship to flat-backed iron heads, can be explained with science.

That science is called the Moment of Inertia—the measure of an object's resistance to changes to its rotation.

The higher the MOI, the harder it is for the club to be "twisted" by an outside force.

The lower the MOI, the easier on purpose, during the swing, twisting is.

Blade irons, with all of their mass distributed more or less evenly throughout the head, have a far lower MOI than say a hollow-headed 460cc Titanium Driver.

And much less than a cavity back iron.

So, for the highly skilled golfer, the ability to "twist", or manipulate the clubface during the swing, is "scientifically" easier to do with a blade iron.

But what about a higher MOI twisting less on off-center hits?

Well, if the ball is contacted on the sweetspot of a blade iron, not a big problem for the Hogan's, Nelson's, Snead's, Nicklaus', Miller's, and Eldrick's of the world, that resistance to twisting during an off-center impact, is not a big benefit to them.

So, why would anyone play with a cavity backed club?

Why would anyone play with a hybrid?

Because, mere mortals don't hit the sweetspot like a David Toms, and can't control the clubface like a Lee Buck Trevino.

Folks say that practicing with a blade iron will make you more precise.

Maybe.

But you could guess the same about practicing putting with a small hole, and you'll get your feelings hurt if you ask a real putting expert about that.

What about the feedback?

You mean the sting of an off center hit?

Yeah, that'll help you on a cold day on Long Island in March.

So, Brian, it sounds like you want everyone to run to Edwin Watts and buy four hybrids and some G15's, huh?

Well, not exactly.

What I am saying is simple.

Clubfitting is part science, and part art. You really never know until the pencil hits the card.

But today we have tools like TrackMan, and interchangeable shafts and heads in fitting "carts."

TrackMan will let you take The Combine—and 80 ball through the set test, and find out where you stand in the world, and against yourself.

Or you can take the 10 ball approach test at ANY yardage—over if you please—and see if you can hit G15's better than s57's or Muira's.

And you can look at the club data, the "5 Critical Numbers" that tell the truth about how the rubber hits the road, or in this case how the steel hits the synthetic.

If your club numbers are better, and the Approach Test numbers and Combine numbers are higher with a certain clubhead or shaft or whatever, you'd better at least borrow some for a weekend or your as dumb as a rock.

Or as stubborn as a book literalist.

 

[aaron_lohan]

I used to play King Cobra 2s and went to Mizuno tp19s and improved from 14 to 9. I think its psychological for amateurs in that they expect to hit more accurate shots with cavity backs, but looking at trends the average handicap hasn't reduced since cavity backs were invented. The first time I hit blades as an 18 hcp I loved the feel and the sound of the shots and they seemed to be much crisper than my King Cobras.I would recommend any golfer wondering whether to change should test both blades and cavity backs to see which is better.

 

[mgranato]

I went from these...

...to these...

...to these...

The latter is by far the best of the lot in terms of feel and performance. I've built sets for guys coming from blades and from "standard" cavity backs and they all agree that a top forged CB is the best combo for feel and forgiveness. My experience has been that it basically boils down to the top line at address as to what a player will consider or not. Once that criteria is met, the player can rarely tell the difference from MB to CB at address - then the testing tells the tale.

 

[crkranz]

That all may be true, but TrackMan can TEST it to see if it is.

I hear where you are coming from, as I tend to recommend slightly CB blades, but the whole Hybrids thing blows all of that up.

Really.

I'm confused now. You just said that you want G15s, but tend to recommend CB blades - Could you clarify this for me?

I am currently playing the S58s, but was thinking about going to G10s.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Can't say I disagree with your post, Brian.

My feeling is that it really depends on the golfer and mostly if they want to improve and if they have instruction for it. I'm a big believer that 'digging it out of the dirt' is very difficult to do and can take years, if not a lifetime. Had a friend in HS that played and practiced just about every day during golf season and refused to take lessons and more or less wanted to 'dig it out of the dirt.' It wasn't until his senior year that he started on a Central NY high school golf team, barely making the starting team as the 6th man. We had a lot of respect for his desire, will and stick to it-iveness, but the fact remains that digging it out of the dirt simply wasn't for him. He needed good coaching.

That's part of the problem, that and not everybody has access or the money to access a Trackman.

But on the other hand, I had a friend that was a 20 handicapper who just played on weekends and never hit balls decide to get some blades last year, thinking it would make him better (no, I didn't suggest this to him). He wound up playing like a 30 handicapper overnight. It wasn't that the clubs were bad, it was because he had no ambition to really work at it and one thing will always hold true in golf...you can't buy a golf swing. You have to work at it. Some more than others, but work is involved.

The thing about this board is that the majority of the regulars are pretty serious about improving and the instruction is good IMO. Good instruction to me is somebody who at the very least can improve 75% of the golfing population to some degree after one lesson and can improve all levels of golfers, from the beginner to the elite PGA Tour pro.

That's big as well. I think you could get some blades, work to improve your swing, but if the instruction is poor and you don't know what you are doing, it's really a crapshoot on whether you will improve or not.

But again, I think it's a different story with regulars on this board.

My contention is this. The majority of regulars on this board could very well perform better on Trackman's combine with CB's than they could with blades every time they take the combine test. But, I also think the majority of regulars would see their precision in their swing dip over time with using CB's over blades.

Blades IMO, certainly test the control of the low point, path and face better. I don't think I'm extraoridinarily talented and probably in golf terms have slightly above average talent. However, I do work much harder than the average serious amateur on my game and I believe I'm armed with much more knowledge about my own swing and D-Plane. I think anybody who can combine those factors can learn to hit blades very well over time, even if they are a double digit handicap.






3JACK

 

[BIGBALL]

I went from these...

...to these...

...to these...

The latter is by far the best of the lot in terms of feel and performance. I've built sets for guys coming from blades and from "standard" cavity backs and they all agree that a top forged CB is the best combo for feel and forgiveness. My experience has been that it basically boils down to the top line at address as to what a player will consider or not. Once that criteria is met, the player can rarely tell the difference from MB to CB at address - then the testing tells the tale.

I would agree with this. I had Adams A3OS max game improvement clubs. Hit them well, but I didn't like not having feedback when I didn't hit a shot well, which as a 19 handicap was more than I liked! This March I purchased Adams A4 forged irons, and what a difference! Feel sooo great on good contact, yet forgiving enough to let you know you hit a less than great shot without being overly penalizing. My iron play is about as good as it has ever been, and I attribute most of that to the new clubs.

 

[birly-shirly]

That science is called the Moment of Inertia—the measure of an object's resistance to changes to its rotation.

The higher the MOI, the harder it is for the club to be "twisted" by an outside force.

The lower the MOI, the easier on purpose, during the swing, twisting is.

Blade irons, with all of their mass distributed more or less evenly throughout the head, have a far lower MOI than say a hollow-headed 460cc Titanium Driver.

And much less than a cavity back iron.

So, for the highly skilled golfer, the ability to "twist", or manipulate the clubface during the swing, is "scientifically" easier to do with a blade iron.

But what about a higher MOI twisting less on off-center hits?

Well, if the ball is contacted on the sweetspot of a blade iron, not a big problem for the Hogan's, Nelson's, Snead's, Nicklaus', Miller's, and Eldrick's of the world, that resistance to twisting during an off-center impact, is not a big benefit to them.

So, why would anyone play with a cavity backed club?

Why would anyone play with a hybrid?

Because, mere mortals don't hit the sweetspot like a David Toms, and can't control the clubface like a Lee Buck Trevino.

Folks say that practicing with a blade iron will make you more precise.

Maybe.

But you could guess the same about practicing putting with a small hole, and you'll get your feelings hurt if you ask a real putting expert about that.

What about the feedback?

You mean the sting of an off center hit?

Yeah, that'll help you on a cold day on Long Island in March.

So, Brian, it sounds like you want everyone to run to Edwin Watts and buy four hybrids and some G15's, huh?

Well, not exactly.

What I am saying is simple.

Clubfitting is part science, and part art. You really never know until the pencil hits the card.

But today we have tools like TrackMan, and interchangeable shafts and heads in fitting "carts."

TrackMan will let you take The Combine—and 80 ball through the set test, and find out where you stand in the world, and against yourself.

Or you can take the 10 ball approach test at ANY yardage—over if you please—and see if you can hit G15's better than s57's or Muira's.

And you can look at the club data, the "5 Critical Numbers" that tell the truth about how the rubber hits the road, or in this case how the steel hits the synthetic.

If your club numbers are better, and the Approach Test numbers and Combine numbers are higher with a certain clubhead or shaft or whatever, you'd better at least borrow some for a weekend or your as dumb as a rock.

Or as stubborn as a book literalist.

Brian - I'm quite with you that clubfitting is part art and part science. These are questions on the science bit of the process.

As far as I can see, the combine test is basically charting your dispersion, yes? Huge time saver I guess, especially in a lesson situation, so I'm not knocking it.

In terms of club data, or the "Critical 5" - have you seen a link between club design and the Critical 5 parameters? In other words, have you seen better numbers returned just from a change of club? And if you match shaft, lie and grip, do you see changes just from different head designs?

And on MOI or resistance to twisting, there are 2 different kinds of "twist" at issue surely. There's the rotation of the clubhead around the clubhead's CoG due to an off-centre impact. But I would guess that, in terms of squaring the club through impact, we're really talking about the rotation of the clubhead around the shaft. Aren't these 2 different design variables? And if so, do you think that different irons are measurably easier or harder to square up (or indeed over-rotate closed)?

 

[Frans@France]

In terms of club data, or the "Critical 5" - have you seen a link between club design and the Critical 5 parameters? In other words, have you seen better numbers returned just from a change of club? And if you match shaft, lie and grip, do you see changes just from different head designs?

Yes, using connectors during a fitting will allow to only change heads. Looking at the data you will then see differences in the data. Either the consistancy is less or the consistancy is better but in some cases the consistancy is better but not good

Below two results using the same shaft but different heads (the golfer was a beginner playing for around 1 year)

and just for fun the same head as the one above but using an other shaft.

 

[fronesis]

I'm late to this thread, but just one comment. I think Richie and Brian are making different arguments.

Brian is arguing that for most players CB irons will let them hit the ball better right now and that in any case the test would be to use Trackman to see which club helps the player hit it better.

Richie is arguing that blades will help a good player, who wants to get better over time, improve. Conversely, and perhaps more importantly, Richie is arguing that when a good player switches to CBs he may, over time, actually lose some of his ball-striking ability.

I think they are both right. But I think Richie's point about losing motor skills is a very subtle but very important one. My own experience bears this out: my ball-striking got worse when I stopped playing blades, and since I've gone back I feel it's gotten better.

Finally, today's modern blades are SO MUCH easier to hit than the old blades.

 

[Richie3Jack]

fronesis, you really nailed it IMO.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Looking at the guys that usually finish well in my PGA Tour ballstriking statistical rankings I think of Hunter Mahan, Kenny Perry, Heath Slocum and Joe Durant. And all hit CB's. Some guys like Ryan Moore go from CB's to blades and switch back and forth and I don't think their skills erode at all. However, I believe that Sergio's ballstriking isn't what it once was a few years ago and I believe him continuing to bag CB's is a big issue why.

I remember Payne Stewart going to Spalding and playing their CB's and his ballstriking fell off the planet. He quickly went back to blades and got things straightened out.

I will say this...I don't think anybody will become less precise practicing with blades (even if they game CB's). Can't say the same for CB's.






3JACK

 

[vjsinger]

Feelings on a combo set? I've thought of going with some Miura's and getting 7-pw in blade and 6-3 in Cavity..thoughts on this approach?

 

[curtisj76]

Feelings on a combo set? I've thought of going with some Miura's and getting 7-pw in blade and 6-3 in Cavity..thoughts on this approach?

There are many pro's that will have 2, (I've even seen 3) different styles of irons in their bags. I'd say it's a great idea.

 

[duckjr78]

In Bobby Clampett's book, he talks about the lower CG and offset of game-improvement irons and how that can lead to a bit of casting. He says that when the CG is farther behind the shaft, it is going to try to catch up during the downswing and that leads to a flip or cast. Is this to small of a influence to worry about?

And I'll add that I'm trying to get rid of a flip, so I'd rather remove anything that is trying to counteract what I'm trying to do. I'm a 6 handicap who has been trying to time a flip my whole life. I've got Ping Eye 2's and Wilson FG-17's in the garage and Titleist DCI 990's in the bag and I want to play the clubs that are going to help me learn to be a better ball-striker. Would that be the Wilson's?

 

[birly-shirly]

For a couple of reasons, I don't think that the difference in head designs between the titleists, wilsons and pings will make a great difference to your efforts to get rid of a flip.

1. The Pings and the Wilsons are probably about as far apart as you'll get in terms of "depth" of CoG. But on the end of a shaft that's between 3 and 4 feet long, you're talking about a difference of maybe 1* in shaft lean.

Put another way, Clampett says you should be aiming for a low point some 4" beyond the ball, whereas the combined effects of offset and back-weighting (which isn't huge on your Pings) might move the CoG between 0.5" and 1". (I think you'd see a greater shift comparing a long iron with a hybrid or fw, but not comparing different irons). In other words, the shift in CoG is relatively small compared to the amount by which you want your lowpoint ahead of the ball.

2. If you're trying to get rid of a flip, then you're trying to rid yourself of an active hand/wrist movement through the ball. As I understand it, you're trying to get rid of the active flip - you shouldn't be trying to maximise your shaft lean angle per se and you should be worried about trying to restrict the genuinely passive release of the angles in your hands/wrists. If you do get rid of the active flip, then you shouldn't need to worry about whether a slight shift in the fore/aft location of the CoG results in a slightly greater, passive release and slightly less lean angle.

What might make a difference to your practice is the leading edge and sole configuration. I don't think this will itself change the position of your low point, but you might get better feedback (ie divots) on where your low point is with a sharper leading edge and less bounce. I'm guessing that, in your case, that might favour the fg17s - but it hardly rules out the others.

 

[westy]

multi material adjustability....

Multi material heads are changing the way stuff looks vs how it performs more towards look good, play good.
before.... look good, play bad or look bad play good.
We all like the look of a shiny butterknife blade, but the ball dosent give a s#@t... it likes science.
Go hit the new R9 irons, they whizz....
B manz, you will like the new Anser irons.....predict you will get some ITB.

 

[JonWil]

The reason so much of golf's best has been played using blade clubs is simple.

It is due to a small little thing that you can't buy called TALENT.But that talent, and its relationship to flat-backed iron heads, can be explained with science.

That science is called the Moment of Inertia—the measure of an object's resistance to changes to its rotation.

The higher the MOI, the harder it is for the club to be "twisted" by an outside force.

The lower the MOI, the easier on purpose, during the swing, twisting is.

Blade irons, with all of their mass distributed more or less evenly throughout the head, have a far lower MOI than say a hollow-headed 460cc Titanium Driver.

And much less than a cavity back iron.

So, for the highly skilled golfer, the ability to "twist", or manipulate the clubface during the swing, is "scientifically" easier to do with a blade iron.

But what about a higher MOI twisting less on off-center hits?

Well, if the ball is contacted on the sweetspot of a blade iron, not a big problem for the Hogan's, Nelson's, Snead's, Nicklaus', Miller's, and Eldrick's of the world, that resistance to twisting during an off-center impact, is not a big benefit to them.

So, why would anyone play with a cavity backed club?

Why would anyone play with a hybrid?

Because, mere mortals don't hit the sweetspot like a David Toms, and can't control the clubface like a Lee Buck Trevino.

Folks say that practicing with a blade iron will make you more precise.

Maybe.

But you could guess the same about practicing putting with a small hole, and you'll get your feelings hurt if you ask a real putting expert about that.

What about the feedback?

You mean the sting of an off center hit?

Yeah, that'll help you on a cold day on Long Island in March.

So, Brian, it sounds like you want everyone to run to Edwin Watts and buy four hybrids and some G15's, huh?

Well, not exactly.

What I am saying is simple.

Clubfitting is part science, and part art. You really never know until the pencil hits the card.

But today we have tools like TrackMan, and interchangeable shafts and heads in fitting "carts."

TrackMan will let you take The Combine—and 80 ball through the set test, and find out where you stand in the world, and against yourself.

Or you can take the 10 ball approach test at ANY yardage—over if you please—and see if you can hit G15's better than s57's or Muira's.

And you can look at the club data, the "5 Critical Numbers" that tell the truth about how the rubber hits the road, or in this case how the steel hits the synthetic.

If your club numbers are better, and the Approach Test numbers and Combine numbers are higher with a certain clubhead or shaft or whatever, you'd better at least borrow some for a weekend or your as dumb as a rock.

Or as stubborn as a book literalist.

Brian is great!

(red emphasis is mine)