Blades Vs Cavity Back

[Mulligan9111]

I just don't know how metal can deform and react in an unpredictable manner when the force producing that reaction is constant

Could the metal have inconsistencies when it's being formed? So if it's weaker or stronger due to too much heat or not enough heat, that would effect how it would react to being deformed? I would imagine if this is possible that it would be more pronounced the thinner the metal form was.

I ask genuinely as I'm not a metal expert.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

Could the metal have inconsistencies when it's being formed? So if it's weaker or stronger due to too much heat or not enough heat, that would effect how it would react to being deformed? I would imagine if this is possible that it would be more pronounced the thinner the metal form was.

Apparently yes, for both casting and forging techniques. You never get perfect metal, just like you never get perfect rubber. Clubs and balls are *always* imperfect.

 

[blugold]

Could the metal have inconsistencies when it's being formed? So if it's weaker or stronger due to too much heat or not enough heat, that would effect how it would react to being deformed? I would imagine if this is possible that it would be more pronounced the thinner the metal form was.

I ask genuinely as I'm not a metal expert.

With modern casting and forging processes, I don't know how inconsistent the offerings are. Likewise, the location of any inconsistency wouldn't move. So the inconsistencies would be consistent.

 

[Mulligan9111]

With modern casting and forging processes, I don't know how inconsistent the offerings are. Likewise, the location of any inconsistency wouldn't move. So the inconsistencies would be consistent.

I guess I was thinking that if it's a weaker offering with a thinner metal form (thinner face), that the trampoline effect could be greater or less consistent due to the weaker metal. Maybe that's not the way it works though.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

I guess I was thinking that if it's a weaker offering with a thinner metal form (thinner face), that the trampoline effect could be greater or less consistent due to the weaker metal. Maybe that's not the way it works though.

I think that's true if you move around the face--I'm pretty sure that's how you get "hot spots" on the club.

But like Blugold said, it wouldn't necessarily affect a test where you're already hitting in the same spot. I guess it also depends how precise the robot is too. What looks like hitting the same spot every time may or may not be really. I bet it's never exactly the same on the microscopic level, but I don't know how far off you're really talking--is it a millimeter? Less? More? No clue.

 

[ProZoneGolf]

Apparently yes, for both casting and forging techniques. You never get perfect metal, just like you never get perfect rubber. Clubs and balls are *always* imperfect.

That's why it's better to start off with quality JDM forgings that have been dropped forged multiple Times with 1020-1030 quality metal. Not some less quality metal mix forged in China

 

[-CRW-]

Just my opinion, but the test argument regarding club/ball reaction repeatability is a lot like the argument over wedges/grooves and how and/or how much they create spin. In the end, the answer to the question is almost always maybe or even that it is likely that the materials would provide different results. That's why there are neat concepts like tolerances and standard deviation. But with all the differences of a golfers individual swings and other outside influences, the bigger question is does it/would it really affect anything enough to be discernible by the golfer. The answer is most likely that it wouldn't make a discernible difference for most golfers. But that's just like, my opinion man.

 

[blugold]

I guess I was thinking that if it's a weaker offering with a thinner metal form (thinner face), that the trampoline effect could be greater or less consistent due to the weaker metal. Maybe that's not the way it works though.

I think that's true if you move around the face--I'm pretty sure that's how you get "hot spots" on the club.

But like Blugold said, it wouldn't necessarily affect a test where you're already hitting in the same spot. I guess it also depends how precise the robot is too. What looks like hitting the same spot every time may or may not be really. I bet it's never exactly the same on the microscopic level, but I don't know how far off you're really talking--is it a millimeter? Less? More? No clue.

I fully admit that "hot spots" were common with older castings. But casting processes have improved to a point were these hot spots are no longer a factor.

 

[McLovin]

Just my opinion, but the test argument regarding club/ball reaction repeatability is a lot like the argument over wedges/grooves and how and/or how much they create spin. In the end, the answer to the question is almost always maybe or even that it is likely that the materials would provide different results. That's why there are neat concepts like tolerances and standard deviation. But with all the differences of a golfers individual swings and other outside influences, the bigger question is does it/would it really affect anything enough to be discernible by the golfer. The answer is most likely that it wouldn't make a discernible difference for most golfers. But that's just like, my opinion man.

i thought of you and the wedge/groove discussion 100 times during this thread! and i came to the same conclusion you did: it might make a difference, but in play and with human error it matters not.

 

[Nixhex524]

Major skim here, only reading the first few and last few posts, but I would have to agree with Dave on the fact that even with a robot you are going to have some variables... be it the clubhead, the ball, or even the shaft not performing the exact same way every time. 100 out of 100 times is highly unlikely.

As for the OP, from someone who hoes a lot of irons.... pick something that feels good and you like looking at and stick with them, through the good times and bad and really work on grooving a swing with those clubs. You'll have more fun and get better at the same time.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

Just my opinion, but the test argument regarding club/ball reaction repeatability is a lot like the argument over wedges/grooves and how and/or how much they create spin.

I must have missed that argument. I don't see how it could be an argument, just test for it and see. With all the R&D effort that is going into wedges there must be tests you can do.

I suspect that the question isn't whether grooves create spin, it's what kind of grooves create what kind of spin with what kind of swing.

 

[-CRW-]

i thought of you and the wedge/groove discussion 100 times during this thread! and i came to the same conclusion you did: it might make a difference, but in play and with human error it matters not.

Someone else has quoted it here on THP before, but I like the quote "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Fitting, given what day today is.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

Someone else has quoted it here on THP before, but I like the quote "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Fitting, given what day today is.

I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

 

[Johan185]

i fail to see why caps matter? but that's off topic.

i am curious why a head's playability would be affected by the length of the shaft. i'm not saying you're incorrect, just genuinely curious. how would changing the length affect a blade playability more or less than a cavity playability? i guess apart from normal loss in ball speed retention and dispersion on mishits.

For me it was really just a matter of having the clubs adjusted to better fit my swing. So it appeared that the MP-5's were significantly more difficult to hit consistently on the sweet spot prior to the adjustment when compared to the XR Pro's, which had already been adjusted and fit to my swing.

When I had the clubs adjusted to the same specs as the XR Pro's, boom the MP-5's literally came alive in my hands.

Therefore now in my opinion Mizuno has a winner. It might not be as forgiving as a Cup Face Distance Champ XR Pro's, but only a little bit less.

To be able to play a Forged Blade with that amount of forgiveness was unimaginable just a few years ago. But now it is reality. I'm sure in the future other OEM'S will be coming out with their own Channel Back or other high tech Blades to meet the demands for beautiful forged clubs that can hide or mask our swing flaws. But be gorgeous and shiny and meet the curb appeal ever golfer dreams of.

Because at the end of the day. We all want to be able to play Hogan's 1999 Blades that play like a Ping G30, or a Callaway Big Bertha iron. Looks and feel of Mizuno, forgiveness of a Big Bertha or Karsten. What more could anyone demand.

Oops. I just realized that while this might be my dream club. Other THP'ERS might have a totally different dream list. And BTW that's alright by me.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Johan185]

For this example, a robot would be needed.

I'm only using this picture because I have it. This is impact data from one of my 6i swings. Started straight and drew slightly left.

If we could calibrate a robot to make this swing 100 times with a cavity back iron and 100 times with a blade, I would be that 100 of the CB balls would land in the same place and 100 of the blade swings land in the same place.

If you disagree with that premise, why? What would cause for unpredictable results

The laws of thermal dynamics. Entropy. Chaos theory. And the principal of quantum mechanics.

In a nuts shell. Events with more than one variable if repeated will have a definite pattern but not a exact, precise, repeatable result.

The golf balls will being built exactly the same will have enough variability to, when struck by a high speed object, fly through the air and land in a particular pattern. But never in the exact place. The greater the number of balls the more precise pattern.

So it is valid to compare and contrast the pattern of dispersion between any to clubs. Whether they are the same model to determine if your building similar clubs to achieve your specs and published results. Or between different clubs to determine if there is any similarities or differences between different clubs with in the same category or between different categories.

And by the way these test could be done by a iron byron or a human of different handicaps and ball striking ability. Each striker would produce it's own dispersion pattern and a comparison and contrast can be interpreted by a trained individual.

This is the very basis of club fitting, as done each and every day. The fitter will look at the data you generate when you swing a club and give you recommendations which he believes will improve your game.

JMTC

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[JB]

Fwiw we have done those tests. Constantly both at HQ as well as THP Events all over the country. What people choose to do with our results is completely up to them however. And should be.

All we can do is pass on honest info and facts.

 

[Johan185]

Fwiw we have done those tests. Constantly both at HQ as well as THP Events all over the country. What people choose to do with our results is completely up to them however. And should be.

All we can do is pass on honest info and facts.

And In the end. That's what we want. A little science, a little opinions, a little hot sauce and boom magic. The clubs of our dreams.

We read all of it, keeping the good and releasing the bad. Or maybe just what we don't want to hear. Lol.

But ideas are fruits that either grow or die based on their own merit.

And golf is as much science as it is opinion, because in the end human have a brain and a heart.

One responses to data and facts. The other To looks and feel. Beauty and purpose.

Sweetness and Birdies. Ahhhhhhhhhh. .....

Love



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Johan185]

BTW. My humanity avoids painful stimulus. So the ball marks on the MP-5's resemble a thumbnail. The size of a quarter. Not a Hogan dime of course. But a quarter none the less.

The XR Pro's ball marks resemble an oval 2 x 3 cm. Height x width.

Most likely the same size as the sweet spot in the middle of the club face.

But the trajectory and dispersion are smaller with the blades. For my 20 hcp. 105 SS draw flight with a hook miss. The putting may one day lead to my death by a thousand wounds.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Johan185]

Xrp advantage almost gone.

MP-5'S
Chs 69.8
Bs 101.2
LA 28.4
Bs 4725
PH 35
Da 50
Carry 138
Td 146

PW

Say no Mas

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[CBaker]

Xrp advantage almost gone.

MP-5'S
Chs 69.8
Bs 101.2
LA 28.4
Bs 4725
PH 35
Da 50
Carry 138
Td 146

PW

Say no Mas

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

That back spin, if that's what you're listing there, is insanely low for a PW. Is that even possible? Or is the LM doing something weird?

From what I understand, you'd want your PW to spin somewhere around 10k, correct? About 1,000 times the club # with irons (10 in the case of a PW)? Is that true, or no?

 

[Johan185]

I'm working on lowering my trajectory and back spin. Extra forward shaft lean. Launch 28 degrees with PW.

4 iron
Chs 87.1
Bs 126.3
LA 12.9
Back spin 4210
PH 22
Carry 180
Td 199

So keeping peak height and spin constant

Less than 30 peak height

20 degree or less launch.

Low piercing ball flight. Good for wind coastal conditions. California

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[CBaker]

I'm working on lowering my trajectory and back spin. Extra forward shaft lean. Launch 28 degrees with PW.

4 iron
Chs 87.1
Bs 126.3
LA 12.9
Back spin 4210
PH 22
Carry 180
Td 199

So keeping peak height and spin constant

Less than 30 peak height

20 degree or less launch.

Low piercing ball flight. Good for wind coastal conditions. California

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Something is weird going on with your results. you only have 500 RPM's different between your 4 iron and PW. I would have thought you thinned the PW to be that low, but it still got to 35y. do you have averages? or is that averages?

 

[Johan185]

Something is weird going on with your results. you only have 500 RPM's different between your 4 iron and PW. I would have thought you thinned the PW to be that low, but it still got to 35y. do you have averages? or is that averages?

High floater.

PW

Chs 63.6
Bs 92.6
LA 20.7
Bs 9250
PH 21
Carry 116
Td 116

Different shots for different reasons and situations

But both equal to my XR Pro's distances. Just less effort to effect change in shots.

Fade draw. High. Low. On Demand.

MP -5'S are Blades with a sweetheart for a sweet spot.

Very easy and fun to play and practice.



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[ProZoneGolf]

Glad the irons are working better, do consider flattening the lie since they are longer, if you have not already done that. Puttn troubles...Demo/Try a Scotty Newport Select 2.6 @ 35. (simple center shaft setup), Tip take the putter back 1/2 as fast. Chime in on some shots and game scores...enjoy!

 

[Johan185]

6 iron slight draw 6 yards.

Chs 78.1
Bs 113.1
LA 20.1
Bs 5700
PH 31
Carry 158
Td 162



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk