We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Blades Vs Cavity Back

SuperStroke
ProZoneGolf said:
What I see time and time again on THP is posters adding good content then a a few adding NOTHING! but trolling or tearing down what others write for the sake of a argument...
Click to expand...

That is not what THP stands for.
It stands for great conversation and a family friendly forum.

However the same goes both ways. Conversation is good. Content is good. Facts are good and even opinions are good.
Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are trolling, it means they want to open up the conversation to deal with facts.

This seems to come up a lot with very few threads and each time the same people are involved. We will continue to monitor to make sure that people are getting the correct info, all of the time, and that a debate based on subjective matters, while great, stays family friendly and clean.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
...according to UST who tested X flex players prefer more torque. lower torque is less forgiveness in a stiffer profile for your flex...some call it rebar...what's your HCP?
Click to expand...

I attended a THP event with the people from UST at their HQ and we were told directly that torque is basically just a feel characteristic these days and that it doesn't impact much else. They never once made claims that it would increase forgiveness based on the torque rating.

X flex players may prefer more torque because it feels better to them
 
ProZoneGolf said:
What I see time and time again on THP is posters adding good content then a a few adding NOTHING! but trolling or tearing down what others write for the sake of a argument...
Click to expand...
It may seem like that to you, as you are the object of many of these posts. With all due respect, I see it differently. You are posting info that is contrary in many ways to commonly held views. In many cases views that result from direct conversations with the manufacturers. Your posts are great - they lead to discussion which leads to education, which is ultimately one of the things THP is all about. But it also means many posts are going to 'come at you' (from your perspective) with challenges, questions, etc. Don't take it personally. I think just about everyone has been incredibly civil.
 
tequila4kapp said:
If a perfect swing results in perfect impact how would dispersion even matter? Every ball would be striped right down the middle, no?
Click to expand...
Maybe, I don't know. If you believe that cavity backs are inherently less accurate than muscle backs, then you'd expect the answer to that to be "no". If you believe they're equally accurate, then the answer is yes.

Here's a hint, this has actually been tested:

http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+...Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

Now granted, this was testing done back in the Hogan company, so almost 20 years ago now. I don't know if anybody has done a similar test more recently, but it would be interesting to see the results nowadays.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
For sure the ball will be a variable, so you'd need to hit a lot of balls to average it out. Sweet spot, you'd want to adjust the robot to hit it wherever it is, just like a real golfer would.

It doesn't matter if a robot swings like a person if you're trying to test the properties of the club itself. Sure, robots can't test things like feel. But they can test things that require a perfectly repeatable swing, like ball dispersion. You're basically finding out what's the absolute best a club can do if you pure it every time. A robot is the only way to be scientific about it, and I guarantee the engineers designing clubs care about scientific testing.

If nobody cared about the swing you put on a club, I'm happy to be a club tester for all the major manufacturers. My swing is crap, but that shouldn't matter, right? :alien:
Click to expand...
I do agree most engineers care about being scientific about their testing but they also know a robot doesn't swing the club. So while I am sure the performance is tested with a robot on the sweet spot I am also sure it is tested hitting it in other locations around the face. Now if we want to take all data and see which is closer to the pin to me that is a much better test than just what is closest when hitting it in the center and pure.
If I were designing I club I think I personally would care about the performance on less than perfect strikes . As even the best golfers only hit a few "perfect" shots a round (if that many). Performance matters on stripped shots but adding the human element in the equation is truly the only way to test performance. Lots and lots of testers would be needed and lots balls would need to be hit by each.

Great discussion BTW

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Dave Alvarado said:
Maybe, I don't know. If you believe that cavity backs are inherently less accurate than muscle backs, then you'd expect the answer to that to be "no". If you believe they're equally accurate, then the answer is yes.

Here's a hint, this has actually been tested:

http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+...Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

Now granted, this was testing done back in the Hogan company, so almost 20 years ago now. I don't know if anybody has done a similar test more recently, but it would be interesting to see the results nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think any test that long ago with irons while some info is useful can be pretty much thrown out. So many advances have come the last few years in cavity backs and just golf in general that I think a current test would be needed to validate any one side of the conversation.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
lightningbolt44 said:
I think any test that long ago with irons while some info is useful can be pretty much thrown out. So many advances have come the last few years in cavity backs and just golf in general that I think a current test would be needed to validate any one side of the conversation.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Interesting part of that test is that the person behind it (who is a good friend) only sells muscleback irons currently and has only sold them for the last 8 years. Then add the difference in technology in that amount of time is near staggering.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
Maybe, I don't know. If you believe that cavity backs are inherently less accurate than muscle backs, then you'd expect the answer to that to be "no". If you believe they're equally accurate, then the answer is yes.

Here's a hint, this has actually been tested:

http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+...Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

Now granted, this was testing done back in the Hogan company, so almost 20 years ago now. I don't know if anybody has done a similar test more recently, but it would be interesting to see the results nowadays.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

But assuming we control every variable possible. Hit indoors. Same lie. Same ball. Same swing (we will assume robot swing). If the iron contacts the ball at the same speed in the same place with the same angles, will the dispersion be any different between blades and cavity back irons?
 
lightningbolt44 said:
I think any test that long ago with irons while some info is useful can be pretty much thrown out. So many advances have come the last few years in cavity backs and just golf in general that I think a current test would be needed to validate any one side of the conversation.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this, and I'd love to see more modern results. Cavity back clubs today look *nothing* like what they did back in those days. Maybe manufacturers have closed that gap, maybe they haven't.

lightningbolt44 said:
I do agree most engineers care about being scientific about their testing but they also know a robot doesn't swing the club. So while I am sure the performance is tested with a robot on the sweet spot I am also sure it is tested hitting it in other locations around the face. Now if we want to take all data and see which is closer to the pin to me that is a much better test than just what is closest when hitting it in the center and pure.
If I were designing I club I think I personally would care about the performance on less than perfect strikes . As even the best golfers only hit a few "perfect" shots a round (if that many). Performance matters on stripped shots but adding the human element in the equation is truly the only way to test performance. Lots and lots of testers would be needed and lots balls would need to be hit by each.

Great discussion BTW
Click to expand...
I agree with this too, and my game is in the same boat. Sure pured shots feel great. I'll probably end up with a set of blades at some point to play on the days when I want to chase that perfect feeling. But for scoring, forgiveness is more important to me. It really comes down to the question of do you want to try to chase your lowest possible score, or do you want to prevent your score from getting too high? I think most people fall in the latter camp--you'll take a 73 on a good day instead of maybe a 69, if it means you're staying under 80 instead of maybe shooting an 85 or 90 on a bad day.

I'm also completely in agreement with you that you can't just build a club for a robot. It needs to perform for real golfers. The robot testing is just interesting to see what the club is capable of in addition to real golfer testing to see what its average performance will be.
 
blugold said:
But assuming we control every variable possible. Hit indoors. Same lie. Same ball. Same swing (we will assume robot swing). If the iron contacts the ball at the same speed in the same place with the same angles, will the dispersion be any different between blades and cavity back irons?
Click to expand...
It was in the late 90s. You'd have to repeat the test to find out if that's still true today.

Also I think you can trust a Trackman at this point. They're accurate enough for that kind of testing--throw away any obvious mis-reads if any happen (like the ball went 30 yards or 250 yards with a 6i) and use the same Trackman for any test and you've controlled that variable. You don't know for sure that its results are 100% accurate (meaning every ball actually landed where Trackman said) but at least you've got the same margin of error in every test, and I think that margin will be very small.
 
T2GRN18 said:
What does his handicap matter?the dude touches more equipment the just about anybody on the site. Talks, teaches, and review it all.
Click to expand...

Hcp matters...how can you take a review from a person when you don't know their game, SS, Plane in relation to offset, ball striking ability. Would you take a iron review from a person who hit 5 miss hits? Like in videos above Rick Shieids uses impact stickers as well as all the data. Yes Hcp is important to readers taking info...
 
Dave Alvarado said:
It was in the late 90s. You'd have to repeat the test to find out if that's still true today.

Also I think you can trust a Trackman at this point. They're accurate enough for that kind of testing--throw away any obvious mis-reads if any happen (like the ball went 30 yards or 250 yards with a 6i) and use the same Trackman for any test and you've controlled that variable. You don't know for sure that its results are 100% accurate (meaning every ball actually landed where Trackman said) but at least you've got the same margin of error in every test, and I think that margin will be very small.
Click to expand...

I know golf isn't played in that environment, but in a vacuum, with every variable controlled, I bet balls struck with a blade would land in the exact same place over and over, likewise, I bet balls launched off of cavity back irons would land in the exact same place over and over.

There is not inherent in cavity back designs that make them more accurate. It's the inaccurate machine (the human golfer) swing the iron that makes them inaccurate.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Hcp matters...how can you take a review from a person when you don't know their game, SS, Plane in relation to offset, ball striking ability. Would you take a iron review from a person who hit 5 miss hits? Like in videos above Rick Shieids uses impact stickers as well as all the data. Yes Hcp is important to readers taking info...
Click to expand...

So are you saying that we should not take your reviews seriously? I ask that genuinely.

Golf conversation is a wonderful thing. Subjective and objective together united and if done well mannered, it leads to a fascinating discussion.

The beauty of THP is that there are events all over this country that THPers get together, and are nothing short of the greatest golfing experiences available anywhere. They almost all have FlightScope available for range testing. They all have equipment to test both on the range and the course. And of course ALL handicaps matter both in reviews and at events.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Hcp matters...how can you take a review from a person when you don't know their game, SS, Plane in relation to offset, ball striking ability. Would you take a iron review from a person who hit 5 miss hits? Like in videos above Rick Shieids uses impact stickers as well as all the data. Yes Hcp is important to readers taking info...
Click to expand...

Only if we assume all handicaps are equal. I've played with guys of my equal handicap and would honestly be afraid of playing them in match play. They had a ton of fire power but also made big mistakes.

I've also played with guys "better" than me that don't scare me. They don't have the mental game to compete.

So handicap doesn't really matter at all
 
tequila4kapp said:
It may seem like that to you, as you are the object of many of these posts. With all due respect, I see it differently. You are posting info that is contrary in many ways to commonly held views. In many cases views that result from direct conversations with the manufacturers. Your posts are great - they lead to discussion which leads to education, which is ultimately one of the things THP is all about. But it also means many posts are going to 'come at you' (from your perspective) with challenges, questions, etc. Don't take it personally. I think just about everyone has been incredibly civil.
Click to expand...

My expertise is in shafting, or more spine and Flo of the shaft...20+ yrs, just one small area of golf that is coming apparent lately, unfortunately OEM's don't want to do it or talk about it as it impacts their profitability.
 
rtparty said:
Only if we assume all handicaps are equal. I've played with guys of my equal handicap and would honestly be afraid of playing them in match play. They had a ton of fire power but also made big mistakes.

I've also played with guys "better" than me that don't scare me. They don't have the mental game to compete.

So handicap doesn't really matter at all
Click to expand...
This is a great point handicaps are not created equal. I can throw a ton of birdies up but also throw huge numbers up which makes me a 10-11 cap during a normal stretch for me. Normally it is not getting off the tee that kills me and not my iron striking.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
rtparty said:
Only if we assume all handicaps are equal. I've played with guys of my equal handicap and would honestly be afraid of playing them in match play. They had a ton of fire power but also made big mistakes.

I've also played with guys "better" than me that don't scare me. They don't have the mental game to compete.

So handicap doesn't really matter at all
Click to expand...

How does handicap not matter at all? The difference between a golfer who is a 36 handicap and one who is scratch is huge from a consistency stand point. I'm not saying that the 36 handicap's review doesn't matter, but their review might not be as relevant to a scratch golfer due to the difference in skill levels. Just as a review from a scratch golfer might not as relevant to a 36 handicap because of their skill levels. Something that I think gets taken for granted is that a lot of people know the staff reviewers and know of their golfing abilities, but not everybody on the forums do. So I don't think it's out of line for someone to ask what someone else's handicap is.

That's one of the things I like about THP's reviews is that they have golfers of all skill levels giving reviews, so your 36 and your scratch golfers can both get an idea of what the clubs are like. It really does help to know the reviewer's golfing ability when reading their review because you can better translate that your own possible experiences with said club.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Hcp matters...how can you take a review from a person when you don't know their game, SS, Plane in relation to offset, ball striking ability. Would you take a iron review from a person who hit 5 miss hits? Like in videos above Rick Shieids uses impact stickers as well as all the data. Yes Hcp is important to readers taking info...
Click to expand...

Normally I would see your point. However I've seen all of the reviewers here either on the course on on the range in person. But that really doesn't matter either because their function is to review equipment as it pertains to what it's advertised to perform. Not measure it against their playing ability. Which is how we get the unbiased and equal playing field for all equipment. Our staff writers range from mid to scratch golfers. And then when we have an open forum testing and review the handicap range is quite wider. Our staff writers provide concrete evidence how the any given club performs, how not feels and looks. In nearly every review our members here are encouraged to seek a fitting to find what works best. Club selection is a very personal and often an expensive endeavor.
 
TexasHacker34 said:
I attended a THP event with the people from UST at their HQ and we were told directly that torque is basically just a feel characteristic these days and that it doesn't impact much else. They never once made claims that it would increase forgiveness based on the torque rating.

X flex players may prefer more torque because it feels better to them
Click to expand...

We were told the same thing at Project X. It all comes down to how you like to feel the shaft load and unload - a 1.5* torque shaft will feel VERY different from a 4.5* torque shaft. As ProZone said, it make the shaft feel a lot stiffer.

So I can understand where he's coming from, but I think it's difficult to boil torque down to looking at launch numbers and I would imagine ProZone would agree with that since it sounds like he is a clubfitter. If not, I'd be really interested to see how he approaches fitting someone for torque.
 
And all of the THP Staff Writers are equipped with a launch monitor for data.
But I think we are delving too far off topic here for everybody.

There are tons of threads on shafts and such. This topic is about head technology.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Hcp matters...how can you take a review from a person when you don't know their game, SS, Plane in relation to offset, ball striking ability. Would you take a iron review from a person who hit 5 miss hits? Like in videos above Rick Shieids uses impact stickers as well as all the data. Yes Hcp is important to readers taking info...
Click to expand...

I am going to play devil's advocate. If every review was done by a scratch golfer with perfectly fitted clubs what more what they have to say besides "this club is awesome"?

Professional reviewers like the ones we have at THP know how to assess a club while accounting for those variables. Since 99.99% of golfers are something other than scratch, information from them should be more valuable to the masses than that of a scratch player with a perfectly grooved swing who finds the center of the face every time. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mulligan9111 said:
How does handicap not matter at all? The difference between a golfer who is a 36 handicap and one who is scratch is huge from a consistency stand point. I'm not saying that the 36 handicap's review doesn't matter, but their review might not be as relevant to a scratch golfer due to the difference in skill levels. Just as a review from a scratch golfer might not as relevant to a 36 handicap because of their skill levels. Something that I think gets taken for granted is that a lot of people know the staff reviewers and know of their golfing abilities, but not everybody on the forums do. So I don't think it's out of line for someone to ask what someone else's handicap is.

That's one of the things I like about THP's reviews is that they have golfers of all skill levels giving reviews, so your 36 and your scratch golfers can both get an idea of what the clubs are like. It really does help to know the reviewer's golfing ability when reading their review because you can better translate that your own possible experiences with said club.
Click to expand...

If JB, Dean, Dan, James or anyone else puts up a review, the last thing I wonder about is what is their handicap. I've played with guys that can hit 300 yards but have no short game and have a 20 hdcp. I played with a gentleman this summer who hit it 220 off the tee and was near scratch. He was always straight and had a great short game to make up for distance.

Would I not trust the latter because he didn't "play my game" or vice versa? Of course I'd trust a review from both. Did the club do what it is designed for? Simple question. If so, what does handicap matter in the situation?

I'm more worried about the knowledge from a reviewer and THP has no shortage there. Every review is packed full of info and FACTS. I don't care what their hdcp is. They don't play my game no matter what the hdcp says. That's my point
 
rtparty said:
If JB, Dean, Dan, James or anyone else puts up a review, the last thing I wonder about is what is their handicap. I've played with guys that can hit 300 yards but have no short game and have a 20 hdcp. I played with a gentleman this summer who hit it 220 off the tee and was near scratch. He was always straight and had a great short game to make up for distance.

Would I not trust the latter because he didn't "play my game" or vice versa? Of course I'd trust a review from both. Did the club do what it is designed for? Simple question. If so, what does handicap matter in the situation?

I'm more worried about the knowledge from a reviewer and THP has no shortage there. Every review is packed full of info and FACTS. I don't care what their hdcp is. They don't play my game no matter what the hdcp says. That's my point
Click to expand...

If the reviewers abilities don't matter at all, why go to the trouble of having a bunch of people with different abilities do club reviews?
 
T2GRN18 said:
Normally I would see your point. However I've seen all of the reviewers here either on the course on on the range in person. But that really doesn't matter either because their function is to review equipment as it pertains to what it's advertised to perform. Not measure it against their playing ability. Which is how we get the unbiased and equal playing field for all equipment. Our staff writers range from mid to scratch golfers. And then when we have an open forum testing and review the handicap range is quite wider. Our staff writers provide concrete evidence how the any given club performs, how not feels and looks. In nearly every review our members here are encouraged to seek a fitting to find what works best. Club selection is a very personal and often an expensive endeavor.
Click to expand...

I disagree all club testers and writers should specifically state their game, hcp, ss, plane, miss tendencies push, pull, draw fade etc. They do on other site reviews.
Even on Mizuno website it states HCP for said designs. Now take into account say a THP tester writer testing a the new MP5 iron and hes a scratch player and says they are great, or he's a +12 and says they are not so good because he plays offset GI
 
Again, keep this on the topic in the OP.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top