The most common reasons I've heard over the years from average players using blades are:
 
1. "The guys on TV use them and shoot low numbers with them so that's what will make me a better player."
 
2. "I've had this set of (Staffs, Spaldings, McGregors, Hogans) for years. I only play a couple of times per year so why buy new stuff?"
 
3. "I'm a plus 2 and I need to work the ball. Can't do that with (Pings, Titleists, Callaways, etc.) as well as with blades. (An aside; when I ask; how come Tour players seem to do well with those clubs, hitting hooks and fades, highs and lows? The answer invariably is; well, they're pros.")
 
There are other reasons given but these seem to have been the most often heard.
 
I played blades for a long time. McGregor Toney Penna TP 64's, Wilson Staffs, and a set of Confidence forged blades. I was at the time handicapped in the 3 - 4 range. I bought a set of used Ping Karsten II's to give to one of my sons. However, after trying them out I kept them for myself. I played better than I ever did with the blades.
 
I think that whether a player is a plus 2 or a chop, modern design clubs will serve him much better than would any blade on the market. This is amply shown on the various tours every day. The perception that because Sergio or Jack or whoever is better with blade than he would be with newer, peripheral cast irons is an old wive's tale that should be put to rest.
 
TFlan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:32 AM
Subject: ShopTalk: Blades

Gentlemen
 
I hear this story often. It's easier to "work" the ball with a forged blade. 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?), power for on centre shots and being able to adjust loft and lie. I've never been convinced about the "feel" thing. Now, I realise that there's two issue here: ie blades and forgings
 
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
 
Thanks
Graham
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to