|
Guys: Beg to differ but the vertical CG position
is lower in musclebacks about 90% of the time over cavity backs – I kid
you not. Go measure it and you will
see. Reason being that most
muscleback iron designs are made with shorter toe and crotch height, which they
have to be to hit the right weight.
Remember, you have a solid thick non-cavity ironhead and that uses up
mass pretty fast over a design that puts a cavity in the back. But really, most all blades have a lower
CG than do most cavity backs simply because of blade height being less. Now go ahead and continue your
conversation. TOM W -----Original Message----- Graham, Based on my playing
experience, I'll offer 3 major differences in playnig non-cavity vs. cavity
clubs. As an aside, let me first say that I'm certain that the metal used
for the iron is the major factor in the feel of the club. I've also
played cast clubs that had hot spots (they were 8260 carbon steel if I
remember), and although they were soft and felt pretty good, hitting a 6 and 7
iron the same distance is really of no benefit. Back to the
cavity/non-cavity issue..... Non-cavity clubs ARE
easier to hit fades and draws (intentional or not!!) because the CG is higher
than a cavity club. Higher CG means less backspin, and therefore any
sidespin put on the ball effects the ballflight more. It's much
more difficult to control trajectory with cavity back clubs. The
ball goes high, and that's it. It's possible to hit some knockdowns with
a cavity club, but they require a 3/4 swing and a big forward press.
That's too much adjustment IMO, and leads to problems when the pressure's on.
Also, it's basically imposible to hit a low trajectory shot with a hard swing
(unless you plain blade it) using a cavity club. I've been using this
'stinger' 2 iron (thanks Tiger) a lot on narrow holes. I never gets 25'
off the ground, and with roll I can hit it 200-230. I doubt that shot
exists without the higher CG in a blade. Also, the lower
CG in cavities generally requires stronger lofts to prevent ballooning, which
then gives me a PW that CARRIES 150. Too far, IMO. Subtle differences in shots
are possible with blades, and much more difficult to execute with cavity
backs. If I have a 140 yd shot to a back hole location, it generally
requires a shot that either lands and releases a bit, or simply stops without
spinning back. The higher percentage for success is to hit a shot that
lands ~2/3 of the way back, and releases a bit. That way, if it
stops dead, you still have a chance for the putt to go in, and if it spins
you're still on the green. For me, that shot is usually an 80% 9i
that will fly about as high as my normal 9i, but roll out a bit instead of
spinning. With a cavity club's lower CG/higher spin, that shot becomes
much more difficult IMO. I'd need to swing a LOT slower (my HARD swing is
maybe 85%, so the shot I describe above is real close to a 'full' swing for
me), and/or try to fly it back farther, relying more on the spin to stop
it. Bigger margin for error there..... Pat Kelley -----Original Message-----
|
- ShopTalk: Blades Graham Little
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Bernie Baymiller
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Graham Little
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Bernie Baymiller
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Dave Tutelman
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Graham Little
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades David Rees
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Royce Engler
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades S.D. Weijand
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Pat & Laura Kelley
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Tom Wishon
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Pat & Laura Kelley
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Bernie Baymiller
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Tom Flanagan
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Pat & Laura Kelley
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Cub \(Steve Culbreth\)
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Tom Flanagan
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Cub \(Steve Culbreth\)
- RE: ShopTalk: Blades Burgess Howell
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Jen Kuntz
- Re: ShopTalk: Blades Tom Flanagan
