We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Blades Vs Cavity Back

SuperStroke
JB said:
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.
Click to expand...

This may have been missed, so I am posting it here again. Im genuinely interested in your answer.
You said a review should not be taken seriously if the reader does not know their game.

As it relates to blades vs cavity backs, outside of attending a THP Event, how does anybody know anybody's game on the internet. If you read Dan's latest review that hit the THP Home Page this morning, you will see he has the most detailed review on the latest Mizuno muscle backs that exists on the internet.
 
I was at the UST event and they did say that torque alone didn't affect shaft performance. They did say that torque could affect feel, which could affect how someone swings. But feel is too subjective to say too high or low of torque is good for any one golfer, skill level, swing, etc. I thought the idea of the V2 line where you can have the same torque across difference flexes was a really interesting concept. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to see how I would react to different flexes with the same torque. It seems like a great way to really pinpoint your own ideal flex and torque.

Also, one of the original ideas behind this thread was that playing a small blade may somehow make Johan a better ball striker. I have no idea if there is any truth to that concept. However, I did read a study the other day that mentioned setting up to a ball normally and then intentionally trying to hit the ball with the toe or heel of the club. The results were that golfers that did this showed improvement in ball striking over time. Then I found several other studies with similar results. So there appears to be something to gain by focusing on pin point striking, but I'm not sure you need a blade to do this. It's my opinion that intentionally attempting to strike a ball with the heel or toe of a club teaches your mind better spatial awareness for whatever club you are using which helps your mind/subconscious/muscle memory to know where the center of the club is or needs to be at impact.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In that way you get the full range of players.

Are you saying a 5 hdcp is always a better ball striker than a 15?

I'm simply saying not all hdcps are created equal. Therefore, I don't put a lot of stock in hdcps
 
ProZoneGolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

A +12 would make him better than basically every golfer on the planet, so I am assuming you mean a 12.
 
tequila4kapp said:
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
Click to expand...

that's why i couldn't care less what shiels or crossfield say. they're going to bomb everything, they're going to hit everything dead straight or flight/shape it at will. i miss, so i want to know what happens when someone misses!
 
-CRW- said:
I was at the UST event and they did say that torque alone didn't affect shaft performance. They did say that torque could affect feel, which could affect how someone swings. But feel is too subjective to say too high or low of torque is good for any one golfer, skill level, swing, etc. I thought the idea of the V2 line where you can have the same torque across difference flexes was a really interesting concept. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to see how I would react to different flexes with the same torque. It seems like a great way to really pinpoint your own ideal flex and torque.

Also, one of the original ideas behind this thread was that playing a small blade may somehow make Johan a better ball striker. I have no idea if there is any truth to that concept. However, I did read a study the other day that mentioned setting up to a ball normally and then intentionally trying to hit the ball with the toe or heel of the club. The results were that golfers that did this showed improvement in ball striking over time. Then I found several other studies with similar results. So there appears to be something to gain by focusing on pin point striking, but I'm not sure you need a blade to do this. It's my opinion that intentionally attempting to strike a ball with the heel or toe of a club teaches your mind better spatial awareness for whatever club you are using which helps your mind/subconscious/muscle memory to know where the center of the club is or needs to be at impact.
Click to expand...
I'm quoting this post because it's that good
 
c.a.eleric said:
that's why i couldn't care less what shiels or crossfield say. they're going to bomb everything, they're going to hit everything dead straight or flight/shape it at will. i miss, so i want to know what happens when someone misses!
Click to expand...
Yes sir. 300 carry in some of those vids means jack shat to me.
 
blugold said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is all 100% false based on actual testing in the 90's. It may or may not be false today.

Sorry, I know you don't like robots, but they're useful for proving exactly this sort of thing.
 
JB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whats your current hcp? since you don't post it in you profile...

No its not just about heads, the OP just lengthened his shafts and has a whole new take on the heads play ability
 
lightningbolt44 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but push you hard and you shine bro. :angel:

That was the most fun loss I've ever had in golf.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
That is all 100% false based on actual testing in the 90's. It may or may not be false today.

Sorry, I know you don't like robots, but they're useful for proving exactly this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

In a non real world situation, absolutely.
 
Jman said:
In a non real world situation, absolutely.
Click to expand...
The thing we're talking about isn't a real world situation. If you hit every shot perfect, does the ball land in the same place every time? Meaning is there inherent inaccuracy in one club over another? No person can actually test that.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Whats your current hcp? since you don't post it in you profile...
Click to expand...

Injured as an 8.
Non-Injured 1.9

Then again I am at every single THP Event so hundreds of THPers have played with me and I would say every shaft and club manufacturer has played with me.
I will ask the question again though. You said without knowing how someone plays, the reviews dont really hold water. Yet you review products on THP all of the time and nobody has seen you play.

So should people care about your reviews? I think they should. But based on your thoughts, they shouldnt right? Im asking this again genuinely because I am curious.

The debate of blades vs Cavity backs will always end up being led by the subjective nature, because the other side of it wont bear out in stats.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
Whats your current hcp? since you don't post it in you profile...

No its not just about heads, the OP just lengthened his shafts and has a whole new take on the heads play ability
Click to expand...

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.
 
JB said:
Injured as an 8.
Non-Injured 1.9


Then again I am at every single THP Event so hundreds of THPers have played with me and I would say every shaft and club manufacturer has played with me.
I will ask the question again though. You said without knowing how someone plays, the reviews dont really hold water. Yet you review products on THP all of the time and nobody has seen you play.

So should people care about your reviews? I think they should. But based on your thoughts, they shouldnt right? Im asking this again genuinely because I am curious.

The debate of blades vs Cavity backs will always end up being led by the subjective nature, because the other side of it wont bear out in stats.
Click to expand...

I see you have some game by your hcp...good! perhaps some of your recommendations may fit my game...
I have always stated my hcp, SS, 7i distance and general ball striking ability, draw swing, miss tenancy.
Perpaps THP can add a few more sections to the left side were it posts info on the profile like

HCP
SS
Miss
7i dist:
fade draw:
swinger/hitter
---------
team
state
age
you could go on...there is room


This would help the readers.

Has THP ever considered keeping score cards Hcps, like some other sites?
 
Last edited:
rtparty said:
In that way you get the full range of players.

Are you saying a 5 hdcp is always a better ball striker than a 15?

I'm simply saying not all hdcps are created equal. Therefore, I don't put a lot of stock in hdcps
Click to expand...

Always a better ball striker, no. But in general I'd say a 5 handicap is a more consistent player than the 15 handicap 99% of the time, and therefore most likely has a more consistent/repeatable swing. Anyways there is a lot more I want to say, but it's not really on the topic of this thread.


I think it's awesome that you are enjoying your MP-5's Johan and that you are seeing improvement in your game. Whether it's the blades or not, seeing improvement is always a great feeling in golf.
 
ProZoneGolf said:
I have always stated my hcp, SS, 7i distance and general ball striking ability, draw swing, miss tendancy. Perpaps THP can add a few more sections to the left side were it posts info on the profile like

HCP
SS
Miss
7i dist:
fade draw:
swinger/hitter
---------
team
state
age
you could go on...there is room


This would help the readers.

Has THP ever considered keeping score cards Hcps, like some other sites?
Click to expand...

So anybody stating a handicap means that is all that matters? In that case, I am a plus 4. :D
#OutingApproved became a thing for a reason. People can see how people play...All the while experiencing once in a lifetime golfing events.

Still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blades vs Cavities and which will help Johan score better.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
That is all 100% false based on actual testing in the 90's. It may or may not be false today.

Sorry, I know you don't like robots, but they're useful for proving exactly this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
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.

5f58dd48dd60e3137e9d4696dd21fb85.jpg


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
 
Mulligan9111 said:
Always a better ball striker, no. But in general I'd say a 5 handicap is a more consistent player than the 15 handicap 99% of the time, and therefore most likely has a more consistent/repeatable swing. Anyways there is a lot more I want to say, but it's not really on the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

But that's not the discussion here. It was stated that a low cap shouldn't take the review of a high cap seriously. Why?

I know this isn't the place so feel free to quote me in the banter thread if you'd like.
 
c.a.eleric said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was just stating the OP's shafts will play softer with a 1 inch extension, lets wait for him to tell us how the change went...
Off to go Christmas present shopping...chow
 
blugold said:
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
Click to expand...
I would definitely disagree with that premise, because it has actually been done and the results showed that the CB landing spot varied a few yards left to right and 8 or so yards front to back. The MB landing area was 1/4 that size. As to what causes it, I have no idea, I'm not a club designer. I'm guessing it has to do with how the club and ball both deform at impact. Obviously you have some variability in the balls--no two balls are exactly the same. If a variable ball is smacking a solid hunk of metal that deforms very little, I wouldn't expect the results to change that much. If on the other hand the ball is smacking a very thin piece of metal that is designed to deform more, adding more of a "trampoline" effect (cup face / C200 / etc.), I'd expect the results to change more.

I'm serious that I'd like to see this test done with modern clubs. My hunch is that muscle back results would be the same as 20 years ago. "Players" CB would probably also be similar to 20 years ago. And I bet "distance" clubs have even more dispersion than the CBs from 20 years ago. All of those on perfect shots. I think you'll also have more categories to test--20 years ago things were more solidly divided into MB and CB. Nowadays you have everything from pure blades to muscle-cavity clubs like the Apex Pro, to true CB like the Wilson M3, to an incredible array of new designs with supported faces, unsupported faces, CG in every conceivable position, etc.

I'd really love to see actual scientific testing that showed which of those technologies are affecting accuracy and which aren't.
 
Johan185 said:
Is it better to keep swinging a shovel while you take lessons hoping to improve, or bite the bullet and get some blades?

Will the increased difficulty and smaller sweet spot force me to improve? Sink or swim. Or are they just instruments best left for experts on tour.
Click to expand...
My opinions:
It doesn't have to be a choice between a shovel and blades.

For 99.99% of golfers it is FAR better to take lessons with a teaching professional with ANY club than it is to self teach / self correct with ANY club.

We are able to receive adequate feedback on mishits with a wide spectrum of clubs.

True blades may provide additional feedback. The overwhelming vast majority of people do not have the skill to translate that feedback into appropriate swing changes (consider this: see any of the threads in Freddie's swing improvement forum. When an overly educated group of golf geeks can see video of what someone is doing nearly all of them still give incorrect teaching advice). At best, some people may concentrate better or learn to hit the center of the club face more and that is some measure of improvement. But it won't do much of anything to fix underlying swing flaws.

Blades are not necessarily best left to players on tour. People should play what they want. It is supposed to be fun. If blades is part of that equation for someone, fabulous.

Johan appears to be having fun and success with his new sticks. That's awesome. Shiny new things are great. Hitting them well is even better.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
I would definitely disagree with that premise, because it has actually been done and the results showed that the CB landing spot varied a few yards left to right and 8 or so yards front to back. The MB landing area was 1/4 that size. As to what causes it, I have no idea, I'm not a club designer. I'm guessing it has to do with how the club and ball both deform at impact. Obviously you have some variability in the balls--no two balls are exactly the same. If a variable ball is smacking a solid hunk of metal that deforms very little, I wouldn't expect the results to change that much. If on the other hand the ball is smacking a very thin piece of metal that is designed to deform more, adding more of a "trampoline" effect (cup face / C200 / etc.), I'd expect the results to change more.

I'm serious that I'd like to see this test done with modern clubs. My hunch is that muscle back results would be the same as 20 years ago. "Players" CB would probably also be similar to 20 years ago. And I bet "distance" clubs have even more dispersion than the CBs from 20 years ago. All of those on perfect shots. I think you'll also have more categories to test--20 years ago things were more solidly divided into MB and CB. Nowadays you have everything from pure blades to muscle-cavity clubs like the Apex Pro, to true CB like the Wilson M3, to an incredible array of new designs with supported faces, unsupported faces, CG in every conceivable position, etc.

I'd really love to see actual scientific testing that showed which of those technologies are affecting accuracy and which aren't.
Click to expand...
I just don't know how metal can deform and react in an unpredictable manner when the force producing that reaction is constant
 
the internet should have a handicap
 
blugold said:
I just don't know how metal can deform and react in an unpredictable manner when the force producing that reaction is constant
Click to expand...
It may be the metal, it may be the ball. It *could* be that the metal reacts perfectly every time and small irregularities in the ball are magnified more as you get a club face that is thinner, more trampoline effect, whatever. Or (and this is more likely), irregularities in *both* the ball and the club interact in very complex ways, causing different results.

I'm not an engineer or a club designer, so I can't answer the why. I just see that an actual test has been done, and actual results showed that for whatever reason, there's a difference. If you swing the same clubs tested back whenever by the guy at Hogan, you have less assurance that you'll hit your target if you're swinging a CB vs. a MB if you make a pure strike. On the other hand, you have more assurance that you'll get closer on a mishit with a CB than a MB.

It certainly makes the choice interesting, whether you want to trust your swing and try to throw darts, or trust that you'll mishit and try to at least hit the green.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top