We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Blades Vs Cavity Back

SuperStroke
Hox30 said:
All very true. So many different thoughts on this subject really surprised me. Of course I'm on the side they are easier to control but to each his own
Click to expand...

Definitely are easier to control (or as easy as a smaller cavity back) Much of that is being able to put spin on the ball to move it in the directions one wants to.
 
Canadan said:
I think that makes a ton of sense for you, as a +2.4 handicap and obviously an exceptional ball striker. I'd expect nothing less than that from someone on the plus side of scratch.
Click to expand...

But then again you take the 70+% of the PGA tour who would all be VERY + HC's, especially on the courses the majority of us play, and they are playing something with a cavity. It's interesting for sure.

To be fair though, I'd also probably switch to MB's in a heart beat if I got down to 3 or below and was playing that consistently haha. But I'm weird and that would be more of an aesthetics thing than anything.
 
As you can see for me by my hcp index chart, my game significantly improved moving away from cavities...by 2 strokes per round
 
Interesting read between what is being perceived at opinion and what is being perceived as a fact here. Either which way, great read along here.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
As you can see for me by my hcp index chart, my game significantly improved moving away from cavities...by 2 strokes per round
Click to expand...

eh, doesn't really correlate IMO. Maybe it did it, maybe it didn't, but there really isn't a way to quantify it. It might just be that you visually prefer the Hogans and it makes you more confident swinging them. Which is huge. But my game dropped 4 strokes after switching from semi-GI irons to the J15CB's, but it wasn't them that did it. I was practicing and playing more and started to groove my swing because of the time I was putting in.
 
cbaker2882 said:
But then again you take the 70+% of the PGA tour who would all be VERY + HC's, especially on the courses the majority of us play, and they are playing something with a cavity. It's interesting for sure.

To be fair though, I'd also probably switch to MB's in a heart beat if I got down to 3 or below and was playing that consistently haha. But I'm weird and that would be more of an aesthetics thing than anything.
Click to expand...

They are doing so for good reason. Not every golf ball needs to be worked.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
As you can see for me by my hcp index chart, my game significantly improved moving away from cavities...by 2 strokes per round
Click to expand...
My index went down 7 points moving to what I believe is a more forgiving club.
 
I am still trying to comprehend how a blade can land the ball close to the hole than a CB.
 
blugold said:
I am still trying to comprehend how a blade can land the ball close to the hole than a CB.
Click to expand...

The theory behind that is quite simple. There are technically two parts.

1. More spin on the ball means more flight manipulation, which means playing the shots a golfer wants to play. Less "flyers", etc. This only would pertain to perfect contact obviously as missed contact would result in much farther away most likely. Its not really apt to the new players irons, but one that gets mentioned quite a bit.

2. The old theory that if you want to strike a nail, you use a hammer rather than a dinner plate. More mass directly behind the ball and while it is kind of an old school line of thinking, with the advent of new technology being able to still create mass while maintaining something else, its been thought of that way.
 
Personally, I think that every pro golfer on tour right now would be able to play a muscle back iron and still play just as good as they are now. Their swings are already so repeatable that they don't miss the center of the club face very much.

I think that golf itself (due to technology) has changed to the point where it's not as necessary to work the ball as it was in the past. Therefore they don't require clubs that specialize in working the ball. Now don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly aware that CB's and SGI irons are capable of working the ball, but I personally don't feel they are as efficient as MB irons with this regard.

Anyways, this debate always seems to cause emotions to run high for some reason. I've personally never understood why people care so much what others play or why they choose to play what they do.
 
Flying some awe inspiring lasers with blades...over cavities...and get commended often. This usually calms down some competitive hyenas in random pairings and I can get back to my game.Some rounds the same club similar distances twice for close putts. I can easily and confidently repeat shots. I have my mIsses too. I have a good short game. Prehaps I take some stats on some future rounds on how do I get around the course.
 
Last edited:
Canadan said:
They are doing so for good reason. Not every golf ball needs to be worked.
Click to expand...

and yet, the guy who arguably works the ball more than anyone else on tour uses cavity-backs. i guess it could be argued that his deal with ping earns him more money than annual tour earnings (i'm just guessing, i don't know the contract numbers), so he doesn't play blades because his sponsor doesn't offer them. but i have to think he's such a big name that anybody would take him, including sponsors with blades in their lineup.

NINJA edit: by the way, i think you hit the nail on the head as to why so many pros play cavities over blades. don't need that much shaping, but appreciate the ball speed retention.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
Anyways, this debate always seems to cause emotions to run high for some reason. I've personally never understood why people care so much what others play or why they choose to play what they do.
Click to expand...

This thread really hasnt had any of that. In fact just about everybody has said play what you want to play. Great dialogue on both sides with people talking and explaining things concise and clearly and dealing with facts.
There is no place for it on THP and threads like this can and WILL exist to make sure people have a place to talk about the choices they make.
 
JB said:
The theory behind that is quite simple. There are technically two parts.

1. More spin on the ball means more flight manipulation, which means playing the shots a golfer wants to play. Less "flyers", etc. This only would pertain to perfect contact obviously as missed contact would result in much farther away most likely. Its not really apt to the new players irons, but one that gets mentioned quite a bit.

2. The old theory that if you want to strike a nail, you use a hammer rather than a dinner plate. More mass directly behind the ball and while it is kind of an old school line of thinking, with the advent of new technology being able to still create mass while maintaining something else, its been thought of that way.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory, but from what I gather it is really old school thinking. The modern GI or CB iron will create ball flights that are controllable, and most specifically to the question of proximity, will check up on a green.
 
c.a.eleric said:
and yet, the guy who arguably works the ball more than anyone else on tour uses cavity-backs. i guess it could be argued that his deal with ping earns him more money than annual tour earnings (i'm just guessing, i don't know the contract numbers), so he doesn't play blades because his sponsor doesn't offer them. but i have to think he's such a big name that anybody would take him, including sponsors with blades in their lineup.
Click to expand...

and you'd think that if he really wanted to game a blade, they'd make a set for him, heck they even made pink drivers for him to play with
 
c.a.eleric said:
and yet, the guy who arguably works the ball more than anyone else on tour uses cavity-backs. i guess it could be argued that his deal with ping earns him more money than annual tour earnings (i'm just guessing, i don't know the contract numbers), so he doesn't play blades because his sponsor doesn't offer them. but i have to think he's such a big name that anybody would take him, including sponsors with blades in their lineup.

NINJA edit: by the way, i think you hit the nail on the head as to why so many pros play cavities over blades. don't need that much shaping, but appreciate the ball speed retention.
Click to expand...

I would guess that Bubba Watson made more from the Tour than he did his Ping contract. Last year alone he made $7 million and I dont believe his deal with PING is even close to that much.
 
c.a.eleric said:
and yet, the guy who arguably works the ball more than anyone else on tour uses cavity-backs. i guess it could be argued that his deal with ping earns him more money than annual tour earnings (i'm just guessing, i don't know the contract numbers), so he doesn't play blades because his sponsor doesn't offer them. but i have to think he's such a big name that anybody would take him, including sponsors with blades in their lineup.

NINJA edit: by the way, i think you hit the nail on the head as to why so many pros play cavities over blades. don't need that much shaping, but appreciate the ball speed retention.
Click to expand...

And I think by that merit, pros prove how easy it still is to work the ball with a CB rather than an MB. Much the same from what I experience for myself as a scratch player.

I think this argument is much better for CB to GI or SGI, but I think it's lost on me regarding CB vs MB nowadays. I just don't see a big enough difference(improvement) moving to MBs that could justify the slight reductions in forgiveness across the face.
 
blugold said:
I understand the theory and think, but from what I gather it is really old school thinking. The modern GI or CB iron will create ball flights that are controllable, and most specifically to the question of proximity, will check up on a green.
Click to expand...

For me personally it's about consistently being able to hit the shot I'm trying to hit. The MB gives me that. Now can I hit said shots with a gi or sgi sure I can, just can't seem to do it consistently with those. That's where the controlling a MB is easier for me. It's about consistency. The main thing for me is a MB trajectory control is where it really matters. They don't balloon on me like GI. I put a good flighted swing on a MB it's going to flight. I put a good flighted swing on a GI it might not. So confidence a consistency is what I get out of them
 
This thread makes me want to get some ZB's!
 
Hox30 said:
For me personally it's about consistently being able to hit the shot I'm trying to hit. The MB gives me that. Now can I hit said shots with a gi or sgi sure I can, just can't seem to do it consistently with those. That's where the controlling a MB is easier for me. It's about consistency. The main thing for me is a MB trajectory control is where it really matters. They don't balloon on me like GI. I put a good flighted swing on a MB it's going to flight. I put a good flighted swing on a GI it might not. So confidence a consistency is what I get out of them
Click to expand...

Do you think you would be losing consistency with a set similar to Bridgestone J15? Or Srixon 745?
I think people often times blend all things perimeter weighted together.
 
JB said:
This thread really hasnt had any of that. In fact just about everybody has said play what you want to play. Great dialogue on both sides with people talking and explaining things concise and clearly and dealing with facts.
There is no place for it on THP and threads like this can and WILL exist to make sure people have a place to talk about the choices they make.
Click to expand...

Don't recall saying threads like this shouldn't exist...simply said I don't understand why people care so much about other's choices that they get so defensive.
 
Hox30 said:
For me personally it's about consistently being able to hit the shot I'm trying to hit. The MB gives me that. Now can I hit said shots with a gi or sgi sure I can, just can't seem to do it consistently with those. That's where the controlling a MB is easier for me. It's about consistency. The main thing for me is a MB trajectory control is where it really matters. They don't balloon on me like GI. I put a good flighted swing on a MB it's going to flight. I put a good flighted swing on a GI it might not. So confidence a consistency is what I get out of them
Click to expand...

I do not doubt that all. I think an MB may be easier to control, but the best of the best can still do a plenty bit of controlling with GI irons. Where I think this is very important, in regards to where this thread started, does a -20 index need to worry that much about trajectory control?
 
JB said:
Do you think you would be losing consistency with a set similar to Bridgestone J15? Or Srixon 745?
I think people often times blend all things perimeter weighted together.
Click to expand...

Truly no and I do have a tendency to blend things together. When it comes down to a J15cb or a MB it's pure aesthetics at that point for me. But an AP1 or J40 type club yes I do believe I would espicially in the trajectory department.
 
Hox30 said:
Truly no and I do have a tendency to blend things together. When it comes down to a J15cb or a MB it's pure aesthetics at that point for me. But an AP1 or J40 type club yes I do believe I would espicially in the trajectory department.
Click to expand...

Thanks brother. Great conversation and I enjoy your input as always.
 
Poll: Do you think shiny blades look better in a bag then cavities... bag candy?
Do they affect your financial decision in a side bet on the first tee looking at them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top