Re: ShopTalk: Blades

[Bernie Baymiller]

Tom,   I tend to agree with you...most modern blades do seem to have a lower CG than the oversize cavitybacks... but there were a lot of exceptions in the past. I can remember some really popular McGregor MT musclebacks of the 1950s that had a weight bar over half way up the back of the head. I was a skinny kid of 125 pounds in my late teens in those days and just couldn't get the ball up at all with those things. (Bet TFlan remembers those old MTs, too.) Settled for some 1966 Staffs (which I still have) and they played very solidly. In the early 1930's, before they did some excellent research on heads, Spalding made some blades that had hardly any difference in head thickness from the sole up. My mother had a set and they were really "clankers." (Still have a couple of them, too...my dad used to like chipping with them because they were almost like lofted putter heads.)   On the other hand, a few years ago, I tried some GS Backflow cavityback irons which seemed so oversize that the CG almost HAD to be way up the ball. They felt almost as bad as those old MTs to me on impact. Went back to my semi-blades after that (Chicago 944C).   Your comment raises an interesting speculation, though...if blades feel better to better players, maybe it's because their CG is lower, rather than the heads being forged or cast. I've found that lower CG clubs do feel better to me...though they don't necessarily fly the ball any better. The Hireko Catapult STS cavity back short irons I'm using now really feel good to me...they have a very heavy sole and spin the ball very well, even though delofted by 4� in the PW. For the average player who wants a steel shaft and some heft in the club, these smaller (or mid-size), low CG, delofted cavitybacks seem to be a really good design.   Bernie Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Wishon To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Blades 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----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Pat & Laura Kelley Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ShopTalk: Blades   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----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Little Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 5:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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