On Forgiveness in Irons

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 03 Feb 2007 00:07:42
From: Dave Lee
Subject: On Forgiveness in Irons

I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
(have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).

Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
$5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
clubs that I've tried.

I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
"blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
tried.

The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.

Anyone out there with an opinion on this?

dave

ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?

Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:29:02
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:inQwh.17701$pQ3.6080@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back
irons
> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has
been
> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>
> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize
it
> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
> clubs that I've tried.
>
> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that
I
> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that
I've
> tried.
>
> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>
> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>
> dave
>
> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>

FWIW I finally found a club (4i) that I don't like. I had a couple of clubs
in the attic with an old, but unknown heritage. One of them is a Haig Ultra
4i - blade that I am guessing dates to the early 60's. It is probably a
closer to a "player's 5i" by today's standards.

I took it on the range today and the first two hits were wounded ducks. I
hit about 15 balls and never did hit one that felt really good, and maybe
half (at best) were serviceable shots. As I would putting the club down I
looked and thought 'is that shaft bent?'.

Sure enough it was bowed maybe as much as 1/4" in the center. The direction
of the curvature was in the same plane as my eyeline at address, so I didn't
see it.

So there you have it - early 60's vintage Walter Hagen blades with bent
shafts are hard to hit :-)

dave

Date: 09 Feb 2007 10:49:52
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Feb 8, 7:01 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> So someone from Wilson Sporting Goods, a company that is known for
> their blades but is trying to break into the cavity back ket with
> their Staff Ultra's to increase club sales, said their cavity backs
> were 40% more accurate than their blades?
>
> Did I get that right?

Especially when I would imagine the profit gin from a set of cast
cavities adds much more to the bottom line than that of a box of
forged blades (esp. when you factor in how many cavity vs. blades sets
are sold).

Wonder if that might have anything to do with it?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 16:55:07
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Feb 2, 5:42 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com > wrote:
> Tighthead wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
> >> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
> >> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
> >> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
> >> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
> >> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
> >> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>
> >> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
> >> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
> >> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
> >> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
> >> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
> >> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
> >> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
> >> clubs that I've tried.
>
> >> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> >> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
> >> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
> >> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
> >> tried.
>
> >> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> >> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> >> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>
> >> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>
> >> dave
>
> >> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>
> > Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>
> > The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
> > increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
> > swing a little better, etc.
>
> > Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
> > to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
> > harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>
> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.

I grew up on blades, now use a mild cavity back, the differences
are not worth discussion from the 7 iron through the wedge. As you
get into the longer irons, the differences become larger, but still,
if I
get a toe-hit on the blades, it is within 5 yards of a comparable toe
hit
on the cavity backs.

The bigger point is the heavier weighting of the sole. A slightly
thin
hit with a cavity back with sole weighting (which is nearly all of
them)
is substantially better than a slightly thin hit with a blade.

But except for the shorter irons the differences (independent of sw,
shaft, offset, and loft) are pretty minor. A toe-hit on a blade does
feel
a lot worse though, which may actually be useful.

-PA

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:43:30
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

SKIPPER wrote:

> On Feb 2, 5:42 pm, lynx <n...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> Tighthead wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
>>>> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
>>>> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
>>>> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
>>>> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
>>>> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
>>>> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>>>>
>>>> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
>>>> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
>>>> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
>>>> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
>>>> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
>>>> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
>>>> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
>>>> clubs that I've tried.
>>>>
>>>> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
>>>> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
>>>> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
>>>> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
>>>> tried.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
>>>> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
>>>> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>>>>
>>>> dave
>>>>
>>>> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>>>>
>>> Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>>>
>>> The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
>>> increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
>>> swing a little better, etc.
>>>
>>> Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
>>> to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
>>> harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>>>
>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>
>
> I grew up on blades, now use a mild cavity back, the differences
> are not worth discussion from the 7 iron through the wedge. As you
> get into the longer irons, the differences become larger, but still,
> if I
> get a toe-hit on the blades, it is within 5 yards of a comparable toe
> hit
> on the cavity backs.
>
> The bigger point is the heavier weighting of the sole. A slightly
> thin
> hit with a cavity back with sole weighting (which is nearly all of
> them)
> is substantially better than a slightly thin hit with a blade.
>
> But except for the shorter irons the differences (independent of sw,
> shaft, offset, and loft) are pretty minor. A toe-hit on a blade does
> feel
> a lot worse though, which may actually be useful.
>
> -PA
>
>
>

Perhaps a factor that may be being overlooked in this matter is
swingspeed. Someone who really belts the ball might benefit less from a
cavity design, because the power of the hit will help prevent the shaft
twisting, and also negate to some extent the lack of mass in the area of
the strike. and I actually find that the cavity/sole weighing design is
very beneficial with the shorter irons.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Most packages say "Open here". What's the protocol if it says, "Open somewhere else"?'

Date: 04 Feb 2007 03:00:08
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170550507.887676.176060@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> I grew up on blades, now use a mild cavity back, the differences
> are not worth discussion from the 7 iron through the wedge. As you
> get into the longer irons, the differences become larger, but still,
> if I
> get a toe-hit on the blades, it is within 5 yards of a comparable toe
> hit
> on the cavity backs.
>
> The bigger point is the heavier weighting of the sole. A slightly
> thin
> hit with a cavity back with sole weighting (which is nearly all of
> them)
> is substantially better than a slightly thin hit with a blade.
>
> But except for the shorter irons the differences (independent of sw,
> shaft, offset, and loft) are pretty minor. A toe-hit on a blade does
> feel
> a lot worse though, which may actually be useful.
>
> -PA
>

That is interesting and makes sense. It is also interesting to observe that
all of the moderate cavity backs that I can think of that are designed to be
used in a "blended set" (cavity back design in the shorter irons, blades in
the longer ones) tend to have cavity back designs that basically have a
heavier outer rim that goes clear around the clubhead with a thinner middle.
That would seem to get more weight to the perimeter vs. a blade/MB, but no
more (or maybe even less) sole weight than a typical muscle-back type blade.

Interesting.

dave

Date: 04 Feb 2007 00:37:53
From: DaveB
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:07:42 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

>I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
>(have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
>pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
>cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
>minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
>Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
>blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>
>Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
>interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
>$5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
>as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
>I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
>using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
>honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
>clubs that I've tried.
>
>I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
>different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
>can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
>"blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
>tried.
>
>The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
>clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
>better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>
>Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>
>dave
>
>ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>
>
Great thread btw.

Regards
Daveb

Date: 03 Feb 2007 08:00:19
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Dave Lee wrote:
> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
> tried.
>
> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>
> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?

I think that the difference remains in feel, not performance (measurable
forgiveness). Perhaps this club is better fitted to you, the head
design looks better, but something is probably making you strike the
ball better with this one.

I would fiddle some with impact tape or face king and see if the
'good' sessions with this KZG have the same scatter on the face as the
others that are being outperformed.

Dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 13:27:12
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:eq211111cif@news2.newsguy.com...
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> > different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs
that I
> > can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has
a
> > "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that
I've
> > tried.
> >
> > The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> > clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> > better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
> >
> > Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>
> I think that the difference remains in feel, not performance (measurable
> forgiveness). Perhaps this club is better fitted to you, the head
> design looks better, but something is probably making you strike the
> ball better with this one.
>
> I would fiddle some with impact tape or face king and see if the
> 'good' sessions with this KZG have the same scatter on the face as the
> others that are being outperformed.
>
> Dave

Dave, this was an interesting club in that it had the same model shaft as my
current blades. I ended up doing 3/8" butt trim and a smidge of lead tape to
match SW and length. Even matched the grips. I've messed around a bit with
some dry erase ker on the face (cheap version of impact tape), but wasn't
careful enough to generate data.

But the fact remains that I liked this club better at impact (not
necessarily on absolutely pure hits - but on average) and there are only two
differences (maybe).

1) Clubhead
2) 6 CPM's of butt frequency (new club is stiffer)
3) Something else like a better lie match (not sure that matters that much
when the loft drops below 30*)

I'm a slow/smooth type swinger, not a big hitter (high 90's driver SS), with
a somewhat early release. I've never felt that shafts really mattered that
much to me as I just don't torque them that much. Although I do admit to
hating driver shafts with stiff tips.

WhatDaYaThink? Shaft, clubhead, or the vagaries of what feels good in golf?

dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 09:03:52
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Dave Lee wrote:
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> I'm a slow/smooth type swinger, not a big hitter (high 90's driver SS), with
> a somewhat early release. I've never felt that shafts really mattered that
> much to me as I just don't torque them that much. Although I do admit to
> hating driver shafts with stiff tips.
>
> WhatDaYaThink? Shaft, clubhead, or the vagaries of what feels good in golf?

Well I noticed you've included a TA3, which I have a set of. (I mostly
use my TA1s now).

The thing about the TA3 is when you mishit it heavy (not hard in deep
rough or off a tee), it feels like a jokester switched the ball for a
boulder. It's simply horrific - definitely worse than with my TA1
muscleback if I make the same ballstriking mistake. I'm speaking of
feel - not shot results.

I wonder if the KZG is the anti-TA3 - they've managed to tone down the
feedback better than other similar designs.

Dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 15:27:13
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:eq24o601i3n@news2.newsguy.com...
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > I'm a slow/smooth type swinger, not a big hitter (high 90's driver SS),
with
> > a somewhat early release. I've never felt that shafts really mattered
that
> > much to me as I just don't torque them that much. Although I do admit to
> > hating driver shafts with stiff tips.
> >
> > WhatDaYaThink? Shaft, clubhead, or the vagaries of what feels good in
golf?
>
> Well I noticed you've included a TA3, which I have a set of. (I mostly
> use my TA1s now).
>
> The thing about the TA3 is when you mishit it heavy (not hard in deep
> rough or off a tee), it feels like a jokester switched the ball for a
> boulder. It's simply horrific - definitely worse than with my TA1
> muscleback if I make the same ballstriking mistake. I'm speaking of
> feel - not shot results.
>
> I wonder if the KZG is the anti-TA3 - they've managed to tone down the
> feedback better than other similar designs.
>
> Dave

Don't know about the anti-TA3, but I've certainly been (mostly) practicing
in anti-rough (mats with occasional practice in thin/dormant common bermuda
at my practice area). Tough to get a "high" ballstrike in either of those
conditions. I really haven't noticed anything in particular about the TA3
vs. my blades. Even went so far as to reshaft the TA3 with the same shafts
as my blades.

dave

Date: 02 Feb 2007 17:00:47
From: Tighthead
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>
> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
> clubs that I've tried.
>
> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
> tried.
>
> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>
> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>
> dave
>
> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?

Two thoughts, not related to each other:

The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
swing a little better, etc.

Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
harsh, but the result is not really that bad.

Date: 03 Feb 2007 12:42:10
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Tighthead wrote:

> On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
>> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back irons
>> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has been
>> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
>> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine was
>> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to reshaft a
>> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
>> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>>
>> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
>> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
>> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd characterize it
>> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons that
>> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should be
>> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet, I
>> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the other
>> clubs that I've tried.
>>
>> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
>> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs that I
>> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has a
>> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that I've
>> tried.
>>
>> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
>> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
>> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>>
>> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>>
>> dave
>>
>> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>>
>
> Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>
> The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
> increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
> swing a little better, etc.
>
> Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
> to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
> harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>
>

I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why is it called 'after dark', when it is really after light? '

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:02:22
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:42:10 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com > wrote:

>I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.

There is no unbiased evidence that supports this. I had the test
result from an independent testing company who used an Iron Byron type
of machine to test center and off center hits of blades and cavity
backs. Unfortunately I lost this and many other test results and data
in the Katrina flood.

What I do remember is that when hit on the sweetspot both cavity backs
and blades produced the same identical results. However, on
off-center hits the blades produced a shot pattern that was twice as
accurate as the cavity backs.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Feb 2007 08:11:12
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

lynx wrote:
> Tighthead wrote:
>> Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>>
>> The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
>> increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
>> swing a little better, etc.
>>
>> Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
>> to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
>> harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>>
>>
>
> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>

Actually there is an argument that while high MOI clubheads reduce the
'push' resulting from a mishit, there is another argument that a lower
MOI clubhead produces more of a change in spin that counteracts the
greater push. So a toe hit with a compact head results in a push shot
but a less slice spin than a larger head. So the net result, in
testing, is very similar. That's the argument.

I wish I could get my hands on an iron byron swing machine and one of
those advanced launch monitoring systems. Then I could
confirm/dispel/quantify how much effect, if any, the MOI has on iron shots.

There isn't much doubt that big metalwoods are straighter than the
little ones. I think the MOI has a lot more effect in metal woods,
since the perimeter weighting is done in 3 directions, not 2. So any
reaction of the clubhead due to the off-center hit is reduced another
magnitude lower. I think this also explains to some extent why
hybrid/rescue clubs are easier for amateurs than long irons.

Dave

Date: 02 Feb 2007 20:55:04
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"lynx" <none@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>
> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with a
> blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.

>
> rgds,
>
> Pete

The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a better result
on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast clubs. The dispersion from
intended target line on a forged blade is less, and the distance loss is
less.
It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell the opposite
propaganda in Golf Mag ads.

Date: 02 Feb 2007 23:38:12
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote :
>
> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result
>> than with a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my
>> experience also.
>
>>
>> rgds,
>>
>> Pete
>
> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a
> better result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast
> clubs. The dispersion from intended target line on a forged blade
> is less, and the distance loss is less.
> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell the
> opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
>

That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your
evidence?

Date: 02 Feb 2007 21:43:56
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:XkUwh.59284$xX6.451696@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
>>
>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>>> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>
>>>
>>> rgds,
>>>
>>> Pete
>>
>> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a better
>> result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast clubs. The
>> dispersion from intended target line on a forged blade is less, and the
>> distance loss is less.
>> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
>> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell the
>> opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
>>
>
> That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your evidence?

Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
Can't cite the issue.
David laville has posted the link in the past.

Date: 03 Feb 2007 11:38:26
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote:
>
> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
>>>
>>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result
>>>> than with a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my
>>>> experience also.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> rgds,
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>
>>> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a
>>> better result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast
>>> clubs. The dispersion from intended target line on a forged
>>> blade is less, and the distance loss is less.
>>> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
>>> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell
>>> the opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
>>>
>>
>> That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your
>> evidence?
>
> Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
> Can't cite the issue.
> David laville has posted the link in the past.
>

Well then it must be true. Two unimpeachable sources.

Here's some evidence to support the cavity-back argument.

In the 1995 issue of 'Golf the scientific way', edited by Alistair
Cochran, the article 'Clubhead designs: how they affect ball flight'
says:

"The increased MOI of the cavity-back design results in a shot
pattern that is much more consistent than the blade. ... Both clubs
experience a minimum of 6-8 yards in distance loss on any hits
located away from the centre of the club face, but the cavity-back
shows a maximum loss of only 12 yards, compared to 16 yards for the
blade. In addition, the cavity-back produces a maximum dispersion of
7 yards across all hitting locations, versus the blade's maximum
dispersion of 13 yards.

..... cavity-back irons are more forgiving because they produce more
consistent performance from shots hit on all areas of the face. The
increased MOI can result in accuracy increases of up to 60% over
blade-type irons."

In the same issue, the article "Game improvement clubs", by Carl
Scheie of Wilson Sporting Goods, said:

"In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade, the
Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra. ....
The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from the
vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads were
of equal mass."

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:01:38
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:38:26 -0500, "GaryC_47"
<garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com > wrote:

>> Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
>> Can't cite the issue.
>> David laville has posted the link in the past.
>>
>
>Well then it must be true. Two unimpeachable sources.

It sure is. As an authorized instructor of The Golfing Machine my
reputation is based on my credibility and if I say something you can
guarantee it's 99.99% accurate. I verify everything before I say it
because I'd look like a damn fool if I said something that could
easily be disproved.

>Here's some evidence to support the cavity-back argument.
>
>In the 1995 issue of 'Golf the scientific way', edited by Alistair
>Cochran, the article 'Clubhead designs: how they affect ball flight'
>says:
>
>"The increased MOI of the cavity-back design results in a shot
>pattern that is much more consistent than the blade. ... Both clubs
>experience a minimum of 6-8 yards in distance loss on any hits
>located away from the centre of the club face, but the cavity-back
>shows a maximum loss of only 12 yards, compared to 16 yards for the
>blade. In addition, the cavity-back produces a maximum dispersion of
>7 yards across all hitting locations, versus the blade's maximum
>dispersion of 13 yards.

Who conducted the test and what type of testing machine did they use?

>..... cavity-back irons are more forgiving because they produce more
>consistent performance from shots hit on all areas of the face. The
>increased MOI can result in accuracy increases of up to 60% over
>blade-type irons."

Again, who conducted the test and what type of testing machine did
they use to come up with this 60% figure?

>In the same issue, the article "Game improvement clubs", by Carl
>Scheie of Wilson Sporting Goods, said:
>
>"In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
>comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade, the
>Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra. ....
>The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from the
>vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads were
>of equal mass."

So someone from Wilson Sporting Goods, a company that is known for
their blades but is trying to break into the cavity back ket with
their Staff Ultra's to increase club sales, said their cavity backs
were 40% more accurate than their blades?

Did I get that right?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Feb 2007 17:21:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:7U2xh.93474$xX6.617145@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote:
> >
> > "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
> >>>
> >>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
> >>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result
> >>>> than with a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my
> >>>> experience also.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> rgds,
> >>>>
> >>>> Pete
> >>>
> >>> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a
> >>> better result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast
> >>> clubs. The dispersion from intended target line on a forged
> >>> blade is less, and the distance loss is less.
> >>> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
> >>> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell
> >>> the opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your
> >> evidence?
> >
> > Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
> > Can't cite the issue.
> > David laville has posted the link in the past.
> >
>
> Well then it must be true. Two unimpeachable sources.
>
> Here's some evidence to support the cavity-back argument.
>
> In the 1995 issue of 'Golf the scientific way', edited by Alistair
> Cochran, the article 'Clubhead designs: how they affect ball flight'
> says:
>
> "The increased MOI of the cavity-back design results in a shot
> pattern that is much more consistent than the blade. ... Both clubs
> experience a minimum of 6-8 yards in distance loss on any hits
> located away from the centre of the club face, but the cavity-back
> shows a maximum loss of only 12 yards, compared to 16 yards for the
> blade. In addition, the cavity-back produces a maximum dispersion of
> 7 yards across all hitting locations, versus the blade's maximum
> dispersion of 13 yards.
>
> ..... cavity-back irons are more forgiving because they produce more
> consistent performance from shots hit on all areas of the face. The
> increased MOI can result in accuracy increases of up to 60% over
> blade-type irons."
>
> In the same issue, the article "Game improvement clubs", by Carl
> Scheie of Wilson Sporting Goods, said:
>
> "In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
> comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade, the
> Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra. ....
> The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from the
> vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads were
> of equal mass."
>

Interesting info - thanks.

FWIW, here is a link to a picture of a "Wilson Staff Ultra 45" 2i. Don't
know if this is the same model they were using or not.

http://tinyurl.com/2no7ow

dave

dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 17:55:03
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:Cw3xh.18604$yx6.9237@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7U2xh.93474$xX6.617145@wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> > "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
> > >>>
> > >>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> >snip

> > Well then it must be true. Two unimpeachable sources.
> >
> > Here's some evidence to support the cavity-back argument.
> >
> > In the 1995 issue of 'Golf the scientific way', edited by Alistair
> > Cochran, the article 'Clubhead designs: how they affect ball flight'
> > says:
> >
> > "The increased MOI of the cavity-back design results in a shot
> > pattern that is much more consistent than the blade. ... Both clubs
> > experience a minimum of 6-8 yards in distance loss on any hits
> > located away from the centre of the club face, but the cavity-back
> > shows a maximum loss of only 12 yards, compared to 16 yards for the
> > blade. In addition, the cavity-back produces a maximum dispersion of
> > 7 yards across all hitting locations, versus the blade's maximum
> > dispersion of 13 yards.
> >
> > ..... cavity-back irons are more forgiving because they produce more
> > consistent performance from shots hit on all areas of the face. The
> > increased MOI can result in accuracy increases of up to 60% over
> > blade-type irons."
> >
> > In the same issue, the article "Game improvement clubs", by Carl
> > Scheie of Wilson Sporting Goods, said:
> >
> > "In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
> > comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade, the
> > Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra. ....
> > The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from the
> > vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads were
> > of equal mass."
> >
>
> Interesting info - thanks.
>
> FWIW, here is a link to a picture of a "Wilson Staff Ultra 45" 2i. Don't
> know if this is the same model they were using or not.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2no7ow
>
> dave
>

An additional comment. From this single picture it would appear that this
club has an exceptionally long blade which matches my original premise (I'm
not claiming proof here).

dave

Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:04:09
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com
> wrote:>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote :
>>
>> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message

<snip >

>> >
>> > "In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
>> > comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade,
>> > the
>> > Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra.
>> > ....
>> > The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from
>> > the
>> > vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads
>> > were
>> > of equal mass."
>> >
>>
>> Interesting info - thanks.
>>
>> FWIW, here is a link to a picture of a "Wilson Staff Ultra 45"
>> 2i. Don't
>> know if this is the same model they were using or not.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2no7ow
>>
>> dave
>>
>
> An additional comment. From this single picture it would appear
> that this
> club has an exceptionally long blade which matches my original
> premise (I'm
> not claiming proof here).
>
> dave
>

I don't know if it's the same either but the timeframe is right.

I did a very unscientific measurement of the head in the photo and
it appears to be
no longer than my Tommy Armor 845M blades. (The hosel appears to be
1/8 of the
total length of the head from toe to heel, the same as the 845's
which are roughly 3.75-4")

In any case I believe that clubhead design trumps size when
comparing a well designed
head to a less well designed head.

Gary

Date: 04 Feb 2007 14:41:08
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Dave Lee wrote:

> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:Cw3xh.18604$yx6.9237@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:7U2xh.93474$xX6.617145@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> Well then it must be true. Two unimpeachable sources.
>>>
>>> Here's some evidence to support the cavity-back argument.
>>>
>>> In the 1995 issue of 'Golf the scientific way', edited by Alistair
>>> Cochran, the article 'Clubhead designs: how they affect ball flight'
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "The increased MOI of the cavity-back design results in a shot
>>> pattern that is much more consistent than the blade. ... Both clubs
>>> experience a minimum of 6-8 yards in distance loss on any hits
>>> located away from the centre of the club face, but the cavity-back
>>> shows a maximum loss of only 12 yards, compared to 16 yards for the
>>> blade. In addition, the cavity-back produces a maximum dispersion of
>>> 7 yards across all hitting locations, versus the blade's maximum
>>> dispersion of 13 yards.
>>>
>>> ..... cavity-back irons are more forgiving because they produce more
>>> consistent performance from shots hit on all areas of the face. The
>>> increased MOI can result in accuracy increases of up to 60% over
>>> blade-type irons."
>>>
>>> In the same issue, the article "Game improvement clubs", by Carl
>>> Scheie of Wilson Sporting Goods, said:
>>>
>>> "In an Iron Byron #5i test using ... nine impact locations ...
>>> comparing a Wilson Staff Ultra to the Wilson Staff Tour Blade, the
>>> Tour Blade had a landing area 40% larger than the Staff Ultra. ....
>>> The Staff Ultra's MOI about an the axis inclined at 45� from the
>>> vertical was 30% greater than the Staff Tour Blade. The heads were
>>> of equal mass."
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting info - thanks.
>>
>> FWIW, here is a link to a picture of a "Wilson Staff Ultra 45" 2i. Don't
>> know if this is the same model they were using or not.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2no7ow
>>
>> dave
>>
>>
>
> An additional comment. From this single picture it would appear that this
> club has an exceptionally long blade which matches my original premise (I'm
> not claiming proof here).
>
> dave
>
>
>

You'll notice that pro's carrying long irons favor a cavity back design.
They're are easier to hit, and mishits produce less dispersion, as
GaryC_47 said.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If IBMs have bugs, do APPLEs have worms ?'

Date: 03 Feb 2007 20:50:07
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"lynx" <none@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:12salevne3hk8ac@news.supernews.com...
> You'll notice that pro's carrying long irons favor a cavity back design.
> They're are easier to hit, and mishits produce less dispersion, as
> GaryC_47 said.
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete

You spend too much time reading GOLF Mag.
I've got more mass behind the toe of my MP-14 MB than you do on any cavity
back club you can name.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:49:03
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

glfnaz wrote:

> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12salevne3hk8ac@news.supernews.com...
>
>> You'll notice that pro's carrying long irons favor a cavity back design.
>> They're are easier to hit, and mishits produce less dispersion, as
>> GaryC_47 said.
>>
>>
>
> You spend too much time reading GOLF Mag.
> I've got more mass behind the toe of my MP-14 MB than you do on any cavity
> back club you can name.
>
>

Next time you're at a tournament, see how many pro's you can find with
muscle back long irons (1, 2) vs cavity design.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Computers are machines to help you solve problems you wouldn't have if you didn't have a computer'

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:02:46
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:49:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com > wrote:

>Next time you're at a tournament, see how many pro's you can find with
>muscle back long irons (1, 2) vs cavity design.

You mean the same pros who are given free clubs or paid to play a
certain brand to help promote sales? Now before you ask why would a
touring pro be hitting an inferior club remember this; in another
post I mentioned that when hit on the sweetspot both blades and cavity
backs produced the same results. The pros hit the sweetspot 98%+ of
the time so it makes no difference what they use. Golf is a billion
dollar industry, always follow the money trail.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Feb 2007 20:39:23
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

glfnaz wrote:

> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XkUwh.59284$xX6.451696@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
>>
>>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>>>> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>>>
>>> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a better
>>> result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast clubs. The
>>> dispersion from intended target line on a forged blade is less, and the
>>> distance loss is less.
>>> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
>>> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell the
>>> opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
>>>
>>>
>> That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your evidence?
>>
>
> Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
> Can't cite the issue.
> David laville has posted the link in the past.
>
>

So on the basis of one article in a golf mag you dispute club
manufacturers findings?- or propaganda as you call it. And "late 90's"
discounts almost a decade of club design innovation and technology.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Mental backup in progress - Do Not Disturb!'

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:02:37
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:39:23 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com > wrote:

>So on the basis of one article in a golf mag you dispute club
>manufacturers findings?-

I sure do. That Golf Digest article was based on the test results of
an independent testing company, they had no monetary gain in favoring
one club design over another.

> or propaganda as you call it. And "late 90's"
>discounts almost a decade of club design innovation and technology.

And if you add up all the increases in distance and accuracy over the
past decade the club manufacturers have been feeding you about
innovation and technology the weekend golfer should be able to
consistently hit a 600 yard drive straight down the middle every time.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 03 Feb 2007 09:05:16
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"lynx" <none@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:12s8m2je6ndfk4a@news.supernews.com...
> glfnaz wrote:
>
>> "GaryC_47" <garyc_48_minus_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XkUwh.59284$xX6.451696@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote :
>>>
>>>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>>>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than
>>>>> with a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>>>>
>>>> The evidence suggests that Muscle -back forged clubs offer a better
>>>> result on 'same' miss-hits than perimeter weighted cast clubs. The
>>>> dispersion from intended target line on a forged blade is less, and the
>>>> distance loss is less.
>>>> It feels worse, but the shot is closer to intended location.
>>>> This has been proven, yet the cast - club keters still sell the
>>>> opposite propaganda in Golf Mag ads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's interesting. Can you direct us to the source of your evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Golf Digest article in the late 1990's.
>> Can't cite the issue.
>> David laville has posted the link in the past.
>>
>
> So on the basis of one article in a golf mag you dispute club
> manufacturers findings?- or propaganda as you call it. And "late 90's"
> discounts almost a decade of club design innovation and technology.
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> =====
> http://pw352.blogspot.com/
> 'Mental backup in progress - Do Not Disturb!'
>
>

Which manufacturers' findings? Which innovation and technology? Please
provide indisputable proof. Do you know what hearsay is?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 03:40:23
From: Silvio Bierman
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

When I switched from MaxFli Revolution Black Dot (mild) cavities to
MacGregor XP270 cast blades I was expecting worse results on mishits. No
such thing, mishits hurt like hell but went no less straight or long than
with the MaxFli irons. Because I ran into a great deal (and because they
look great) I switched to forged Mizuno MP33 blades. Hoped to experience
that often stated "great soft feel" of forged irons. No such thing either,
they perform just about like the MacGregors, except that the stiffer shafts
make them easier for me to hit.

I tried a lot of different irons, sometimes for just a few shots but often
to play a complete round when on vacation. My conclusion for what it is
worth: bigger iron heads produce slightly better results with off-center
hits but look disgusting on address. Shafts make a huge difference. I can't
seem to hit graphite shafted irons while I seem to be able to slow down on
more flexible steel shafts with reasonable results.

As much as the OEMs would like us to belive differently it is still the
indian...

Kind regards,

Silvio

Date: 03 Feb 2007 01:49:34
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"lynx" <none@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
> Tighthead wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back
irons
> >> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has
been
> >> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
> >> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine
was
> >> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to
reshaft a
> >> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
> >> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
> >>
> >> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
> >> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
> >> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd
characterize it
> >> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons
that
> >> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should
be
> >> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet,
I
> >> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the
other
> >> clubs that I've tried.
> >>
> >> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
> >> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs
that I
> >> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has
a
> >> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that
I've
> >> tried.
> >>
> >> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
> >> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
> >> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
> >>
> >> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
> >>
> >> dave
> >>
> >> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
> >>
> >
> > Two thoughts, not related to each other:
> >
> > The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
> > increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
> > swing a little better, etc.
> >
> > Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
> > to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
> > harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
> >
> >
>
> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>

I keep reading that. But it wasn't my experience (maybe just the wrong
cavity backs). Is there really evidence/data out there? You would think
there would be - I just haven't ever seen it.

I have taken recorded data that showed no difference, but I would not claim
that the experiments were good enough to really make a solid case.

Thanks.

dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 04:12:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

I'm curious - forgiveness in a club head may be different depending on
how one misses. For instance, if one misses inside or outside, vs.
missing high or low.

What have you observed?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 12:06:19
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:er28s2pgks93uif97e6frp07l66smn6csj@4ax.com...
> I'm curious - forgiveness in a club head may be different depending on
> how one misses. For instance, if one misses inside or outside, vs.
> missing high or low.
>
> What have you observed?

I'll make one additional comment here. My experimentation has been with
either a 5i or 6i. The results might well be different with the longer irons
(which seem to have less and less relevance). I ultimately replaced my 3i
and 4i with hybrids, but the driving consideration was trajectory (I get a
much more useful trajectory from my hybrids vs. my long irons). I will still
put my 3i and 4i in the bag on really windy days. But I don't hit them much
anymore.

dave

Date: 03 Feb 2007 11:47:39
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Date: 03 Feb 2007 13:51:42
From: lynx
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

Dave Lee wrote:

> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Tighthead wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back
>>>>
> irons
>
>>>> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion has
>>>>
> been
>
>>>> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
>>>> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine
>>>>
> was
>
>>>> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to
>>>>
> reshaft a
>
>>>> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
>>>> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>>>>
>>>> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
>>>> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel (typically
>>>> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd
>>>>
> characterize it
>
>>>> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons
>>>>
> that
>
>>>> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should
>>>>
> be
>
>>>> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet,
>>>>
> I
>
>>>> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the
>>>>
> other
>
>>>> clubs that I've tried.
>>>>
>>>> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
>>>> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs
>>>>
> that I
>
>>>> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i has
>>>>
> a
>
>>>> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that
>>>>
> I've
>
>>>> tried.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
>>>> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
>>>> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>>>>
>>>> dave
>>>>
>>>> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>>>
>>> The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
>>> increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
>>> swing a little better, etc.
>>>
>>> Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
>>> to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
>>> harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> rgds,
>>
>>
>
> I keep reading that. But it wasn't my experience (maybe just the wrong
> cavity backs). Is there really evidence/data out there? You would think
> there would be - I just haven't ever seen it.
>
> I have taken recorded data that showed no difference, but I would not claim
> that the experiments were good enough to really make a solid case.
>

Well the manufacturers testing proved it, which is why those irons were
developed in the first place. I don't know of any specific results
available on the web, as I have not investigated the matter. But the
concept involved is this: It's the mass behind the ball when it's struck
that gives the ball it's momentum, and hence distance. This principle is
employed with blade irons by placing the most mass in the center of the
clubface. (more or less) Although this design produces a very solid hit,
it also means that the clubhead has a very small sweet spot. by moving
much of the clubhead mass to the perimeter, meant that when the ball was
NOT hit from the center of the clubface, there was certain to be more
mass behind the ball than with the blade design, thus producing a better
result for off center hits. Also the fact that there is more mass where
the ball is struck, means that there is less likelihood for twisting of
the clubhead, which also aids in producing a better result.

> Thanks.
>
> dave
>
>

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it'

Date: 03 Feb 2007 08:58:49
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: On Forgiveness in Irons

"lynx" <none@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:12s7u66n05jqo41@news.supernews.com...
> Dave Lee wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12s7q3qaa80kkc3@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Tighthead wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 2, 4:07 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've done a few informal experiments comparing blades with cavity back
>>>>>
>> irons
>>
>>>>> (have not done anything with "extreme" cavity backs). My conclusion
>>>>> has
>>>>>
>> been
>>
>>>>> pretty consistent - mis-hits with blades feel worse than with moderate
>>>>> cavity backs. But the performance difference that I could deterimine
>>>>>
>> was
>>
>>>>> minimal to undetectable. I've even gone so far in one case as to
>>>>>
>> reshaft a
>>
>>>>> Cleveland TA3 (VERY moderate cavity back) with a shaft identical to my
>>>>> blades (mid 90's vintage Hogan Apex clubheads with TT TX-90 shafts).
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of my experimentation has involved the occasional purchase of
>>>>> interesting looking irons in a local golf shop's used barrel
>>>>> (typically
>>>>> $5-$7). A couple weeks ago I picked up a KZG Forged IIM (I'd
>>>>>
>> characterize it
>>
>>>>> as a moderate cavity back) 5i. I really liked this club. Of the irons
>>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>>> I've tried this is the first one that said to me "hey Dave, you should
>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>>>> using this one". While I haven't done any semi-formal experiments yet,
>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>>>> honestly believe that this club is somehow more forgiving than the
>>>>>
>> other
>>
>>>>> clubs that I've tried.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was puzzled with this outcome. There was certainly nothing obviously
>>>>> different about this club vs. others that I have hit. From the specs
>>>>>
>> that I
>>
>>>>> can find and measurements that I've done, it looks like this KZG 5i
>>>>> has
>>>>>
>> a
>>
>>>>> "blade length" that is 5-10mm longer than most of the other clubs that
>>>>>
>> I've
>>
>>>>> tried.
>>>>>
>>>>> The obvious conclusion is that clubhead size is a bigger factor than
>>>>> clubhead design. But the data that I'm basing this one, while somewhat
>>>>> better than anecdotal, is hardly scientific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone out there with an opinion on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> dave
>>>>>
>>>>> ps. Can anyone tell me exactly how blade length on a club is measured?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Two thoughts, not related to each other:
>>>>
>>>> The forgiveness you attribute to the club may be caused by the
>>>> increased confidence you have in it. You may just feel confident,
>>>> swing a little better, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, I have long thought that forgiveness in irons relates more
>>>> to feel than performance. Mishits with my blades can feel pretty
>>>> harsh, but the result is not really that bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think there's little doubt (none in fact) that mishits with
>>> 'forgiving'/peripheral weighted irons produce a better result than with
>>> a blade. The evidence supports this, and it's my experience also.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> rgds,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I keep reading that. But it wasn't my experience (maybe just the wrong
>> cavity backs). Is there really evidence/data out there? You would think
>> there would be - I just haven't ever seen it.
>>
>> I have taken recorded data that showed no difference, but I would not
>> claim
>> that the experiments were good enough to really make a solid case.
>>
>
> Well the manufacturers testing proved it, which is why those irons were
> developed in the first place. I don't know of any specific results
> available on the web, as I have not investigated the matter. But the
> concept involved is this: It's the mass behind the ball when it's struck
> that gives the ball it's momentum, and hence distance. This principle is
> employed with blade irons by placing the most mass in the center of the
> clubface. (more or less) Although this design produces a very solid hit,
> it also means that the clubhead has a very small sweet spot. by moving
> much of the clubhead mass to the perimeter, meant that when the ball was
> NOT hit from the center of the clubface, there was certain to be more mass
> behind the ball than with the blade design, thus producing a better result
> for off center hits. Also the fact that there is more mass where the ball
> is struck, means that there is less likelihood for twisting of the
> clubhead, which also aids in producing a better result.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> dave
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> =====
> http://pw352.blogspot.com/
> 'Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it'
>
>

You say there's a difference but can't bring proof, not even from your own
personal experience. So why do you even say it?