Dave Thanks. One of the things I love about this forum is the input from different perspectives. On the one hand we get views based on using or observing use of different component combinations and on the other hand we have the opportunity to explore the issues from a more technical perspective. I think your comments on MOI are entirely consistent with Bernie's view about smaller head size and concentrated head mass allowing him to hit controlled draws and fades.
Cheers Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:51 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Blades > A number of comments, most not directed at your question about working the > ball... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Graham Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 5:32 AM > > > > Personally, I've always thought forged irons were overrated. > > However, I can see some advantages for a better player. > > ie less off-set (is this the key?), > > Most blades have little offset. > Most cavity backs have more. > But there is nothing inherent in the design that requires this. > > > power for on centre shots > > This is a common claim that has absolutley no basis in mechanics. Here's the > basis of my contention: > * Either the clubhead is perfectly rigid or it flexes. > * If it is perfectly rigid, then it doesn't matter WHERE the weight is for > an on-center hit. > * If it flexes to any appreciable degree, then that would increase the > distance; see the debated about whether to allow flexible driver faces for > just this reason. > > Frankly, I don't think flex has any effect at all in irons -- there isn't > enough thin area to matter -- but thought I'd mention it just to head off > any argument about it. > > > and being able to adjust loft and lie. > > Forgings (blade or not) are better than MOST castings in this regard. But > there are certainly cast heads that are cast of softer stainless, which are > as adjustable as forgings. See the Chicago 944C, for example. And I have a > set of old Golfsmith Tour Model IV clubs in the basement of the same softer > stainless: cavity-back, 4-way cambered sole, but very bendable. > > > I've never been convinced about the "feel" thing. > > Nor I. But there may be a little bit to it. > Studies have shown that a lot of "feel" is really sound. I could be > convinced that forgings might (because of the internal grain of the metal) > have a slightly different sound. > > This could be proven -- if anybody cared -- by doing controlled experiments > to see (a) if golfers could tell the difference in feel between otherwise > identical heads, one forged and one cast, and (b) repeating the experiment > with earplugs. I recall seeing studies that said golfers could not tell the > difference in controlled studies, but I don't remember for sure whether it > was (a) or (b). (Actually, I'm sure I've seen a (b) where they could not > distinguish, but I'm not sure there wasn't an (a) as well.) If they could > distinguish in (a) but not in (b), then the explanation is the sound. > > > Now, I realise that there's two issue here: ie blades and forgings > > That is a KEY REALIZATION!!! > Too many people equate blades with forgings and cavities with castings. > This results in their being confused about the properties. > > > Can some of you better players explain why you think > > it's easier to work the ball? When they come in to see > > me I'd like a better explanation than the one I have now > > I'm not the guy you want to ask about this, at least not from an experience > point of view. I can't work the ball at will with any club. But I could > think of three possible effects involved, and discuss it from a mechanics > point of view: > > (1) Working the ball MOSTLY has to do with delivering the clubhead to it at > the proper positions and velocities. In this regard, the only way clubhead > design affects this is that -- just possibly -- the lower MOI of a blade may > make it more sensitive to small changes of hand torque. That is small > changes of hand torque could open or close the face more on a blade than a > perimeter-weighted club. I doubt this would make much, if any, difference in > an iron, but it might. > > (2) If working the ball has any subtle dependence on hitting it off the heel > or toe, then the lower MOI of the blade would result in more "action" for > that kind of hit. Again, I doubt that has much to do with it, but it might. > > (3) Because of the increased "feedback" of the blade (that is, both the feel > and the performance of the shot degrade faster for a bad hit), this might be > a better tool to TEACH the working of the ball. Even on an informal > shot-to-shot basis, the "teaching" effect might make a difference. That is, > what you did and felt on the last shot might well affect what happens to the > next one. > > Hope this is of some help. > DaveT > >
