Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 11 Jan 2007 22:05:07
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades that
I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.

I did some informal experiments comparing my m muscle backs with the 845
cavity backs (admittedly far from being an 'extreme' game improvement club)
and came to the conclusion that the muscle back's felt worse on mis-hits but
that they didn't go any worse. I ended up with a somewhat newer (mid-90's)
set of Hogan musclebacks ( http://tinyurl.com/yfbtry )

I found an old Cleveland TA-3 6i recently for $5 and bought it (
http://tinyurl.com/yj6lar ). I then reshafted it to exactly match my Hogan
6i -same shaft, swingweight, grip, and flex. I got careless, had to add a
few more grams of lead tape than anticipated to match swingweight, so the
actual flex came out 3 cpm's lower. Given my poor release I doubt this
matters.

The TA-3 basic design is typical of what I consider a "player's cavity
back". All this got my attention because the majority of the tour players
are now playing this type of club, vs. a traditional muscle back. God knows
every damn one of them hits the ball way better than me and my 6'ish
handicap swing, so I had to ask myself if my irons are a good choice for me.

I went out to my favorite shag area today to compare the two clubs. I'm
still having real problems with this damned iliotibial band, so it wasn't as
extensive as I had intended. I ended up hitting only around 15-20 balls with
each club. I was hitting into a slight uphill area, pretty soft ground that
you would probably call light rough, so there wasn't much roll.

When I got to the landing area I kind of lumped the balls into (just eyeball
kinda' stuff) three groups.

1) Best - maybe 8 yards/better from the center of the grouping
2) Average - more than 8 and less than around 15 yards from the center
3) Poor - the rest of them. Any total flubs were ignored.

Using M for the muscle back club (Hogan Channelback) and C for cavity (TA3),
here were the results

Best - 4 M's, 3 C's
Average - 9 M's, 8 C's
Poor - 6 M's, 7 C's

It would be interesting to hit more balls (particularly when I can take a
normal stance and normal swing) and actually do some measurements and maybe
generate some useful statistics. But I'll swear that an older muscle back
club just IS NOT any harder to hit than a very moderate cavity back.

dave

Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:33:25
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

larryrsf wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:28 am, "Simon" <hancock_si...@hotmail.com> wrote:>
> > I've never been convinced that your scoring would be improved just
> > because you can hit a certain numbered club further. I have a feeling
> > that your 150 yard shot is no more accurate with your longer shafted,
> > delofted 8 that it was with your old 7 iron
>
> Everyone should take a dozen 6i out to the range and hit enough to
> learn the truth. Take steel and graphite in the most popular brands
> and head types, CB, forged, etc. I did that-- and in an hour I had
> resolved all the pre-conceived notions I had. There was simply no
> doubt that I could hit the targets at 160-170 more consistently with
> graphite shaft OS cavity backs. I could swing MUCH easier and make a
> better divot because the clubhead was more consistently accelerating
> all the way through (lighter shaft!). I could feel the clubhead better
> since the shaft is relatively lightweight.

My point was that a six iron in one set could be the same as a 7 in
another set. In summer conditions, I hit my steel shafted 7 iron 160
yards. I could probably get a graphite shafted, delofted 8 iron that
does the same. If you compare 8 irons from the two sets, you could say
that the graphite one is better. What you should compare is your
accuracy from 160 yards, regardless of the number on the botttom of the
club.

>
> Someone in this thread pointed out that ALL drivers are using the
> lightest possible shafts now--NOBODY is using steel. It is exactly the
> same principle with irons

As I've said, with a free choice, virtually all the top pros choose a
light graphite shaft in their woods for maximum distance, and steel in
their irons for maximum accuracy and feel. It's not the purpose of
irons to hit the ball as far as possible.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 14:55:38
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Jan 15, 11:28 am, "Simon" <hancock_si...@hotmail.com > wrote:>
> I've never been convinced that your scoring would be improved just
> because you can hit a certain numbered club further. I have a feeling
> that your 150 yard shot is no more accurate with your longer shafted,
> delofted 8 that it was with your old 7 iron

Everyone should take a dozen 6i out to the range and hit enough to
learn the truth. Take steel and graphite in the most popular brands
and head types, CB, forged, etc. I did that-- and in an hour I had
resolved all the pre-conceived notions I had. There was simply no
doubt that I could hit the targets at 160-170 more consistently with
graphite shaft OS cavity backs. I could swing MUCH easier and make a
better divot because the clubhead was more consistently accelerating
all the way through (lighter shaft!). I could feel the clubhead better
since the shaft is relatively lightweight.

Someone in this thread pointed out that ALL drivers are using the
lightest possible shafts now--NOBODY is using steel. It is exactly the
same principle with irons-- Just as with our driver and 3w, we should
be throwing the clubhead with a loose grip--NOT pushing the club like a
garden hoe. With a correct swing, the shaft material and flex
characterists are irrelevant. For example, I can hit my Whippy 5i
exactly the same (from a tight lie) as my regular 5i. If you can't do
that, then your problem is not your clubs-- it is your golf swing.
Buying new clubs with a swing like that is foolish, the result of the
'fitting" session should be "take some lessons," not "buy these."

Larry

Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:19:01
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On 15 Jan 2007 14:55:38 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>Someone in this thread pointed out that ALL drivers are using the
>lightest possible shafts now--NOBODY is using steel.

Some people use steel.

And sometimes steel shafts can be lighter and more flexible than some
graphite shafts.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:44:27
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:qvgoq21nc3fpurnnfkst3nk2bceu6ufio9@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jan 2007 14:55:38 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Someone in this thread pointed out that ALL drivers are using the
>>lightest possible shafts now--NOBODY is using steel.
>
> Some people use steel.
>
> And sometimes steel shafts can be lighter and more flexible than some
> graphite shafts.

My new lightweight steel are neato: they feel more secure-more stable, less
wobble--than the stiffer graphites! For whatever reason: having tasted
steel again except for woods I don't want to use the graphite clubs.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 11:28:40
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

larryrsf wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:02 am, "Simon" <hancock_si...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> All the pros have switched to giant headed, graphite shafted drivers
> > and plenty have switched to hybrids instead of long irons, so they
> > probably are prepared to use new things if there is an advantage to be
> > had.
>
> Yep. I suspect they are experimenting all the time, especially those
> on the verge of losing their cards. The st ones look at Pavin and
> Funk, etc. and the Champion's tour in general-- and realize those guys
> are nearly as good as the current touring pros--could likely still be
> making cuts out there.
>
> I think everyone should simply set their prejudices aside and go out
> and do side-by-side comparisons on the range. Everyone older than a
> teenager will benefit from sufficient distance with less effort. It is
> always more consistent to swing easier! Who needs "feedback" if it
> rattles your arms and hands?
>

I don't know if you are agreeing with me or arguing against me Larry!
The pros all experiment with the latest gear, but still hardly any of
them use graphite shafts in their irons or use anything except blades
in their wedges. I guess they must see some advantage in their choice.

I've never been convinced that your scoring would be improved just
because you can hit a certain numbered club further. I have a feeling
that your 150 yard shot is no more accurate with your longer shafted,
delofted 8 that it was with your old 7 iron :-)

Date: 15 Jan 2007 11:01:16
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

larryrsf wrote:

> In my experience, many of the amateurs who talk about "working" the
> ball can't hit them straight! Bobby Jones' earnest advice to all
> amateurs was first learn to consistently hit everything straight--

That doesn't help when I am blinded to the green and need to
bend the ball 30-40 degrees to the right to reach the green. Or
when a tree blocks a straight path to the green, but a 10 yard
draw will hit the green easily. I can open my blades AND hit it
on the toe and REALLY bend it for a slice (opposite for a draw).

I can still open/close the clubface on the cavity backs, but the
toe or heel move has a much smaller impact.

I am using cavity backs now simply because my blades have
25 year old shafts in them and need reshafting. And I am finding
it is not really any different. The kind of miss necessary to show
the difference between the clubs is an extreme toe or heel miss.
These are rare to non-existent in the shorter irons, but I sure
benefit from it in the longer irons in which the club is longer
and the sweet spot smaller.

But even on the shots when it WOULD make a difference,
we're talking about less than a half shot a round average
difference in score for someone between a 5 and 10 index.

-PA

Date: 15 Jan 2007 09:48:59
From:
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Hi Brian,

I was to buying new clubs last Christmas. I went to Houston to
Edwinwattsgolf, and hit some clubs demo in order to get my new clubs. I
hit the 6 iron from MP-67, MP-60 and Nike force blade irons (all with
dinamic gold S300 shaft...)
I was 5 hcp some years ago, I give up playing but now I=B4m coming back
with golf :) !!My feelings were:

- I got pretty shots with all of them (I had old Hippo irons since a
lot of years),

- The easiest ones were the Nike force and MP-60, with more
forgiveness but a little bit shorter than the MP-67.

- MP-67 lightly more straight and lower flight than with MP-60. The
nike iron were the highest flights.
- Sweetest hit with the MP-67, longer and little more ball control.

These are only personal feelings, it all depends on your feelings, your
hcp, your swing speed... (aha, in Golf Galaxy shop, they had one
simulator where I messured my swing speed... good to know also this)

I strongly recommend you to be fitted, and to find out if you need for
example +1/2" length of the club or 1=B0 upright/down... I was fitted
with "Ping fitting set" there in the golf shop for free and I needed
+1/2" and 1=B0 upright.

Finally I bought MP-67 irons and they are coming per post next week!!!
:)
I also recommend you to see the 695mb titleist irons or hogan apex
irons (but for me they are litte bit more difficult than mp-67).

good luck and enjoy playing,

Hugo

KnighT schrieb:

> Good topic David. I have been really thinking about getting new clubs
> and I definately want to be fitted, and I really want to hit some
> muscle backs. I have a set of Ram FX2's....big 'flow weighted' cavity
> back irons. I don't think I really want a really big forgiving sweet
> spot. I want a club that demands a precise swing....because that is
> exactly want I want to build. These Ram irons feel big and clunky to
> me. I took the PW from my Dad's old set of Ram Accubar's (from around
> the 70's) and had it regripped. It has a lightweight shaft, a smaller
> clubhead, with more of a heel/toe weighted head. I can feel it much
> better than my FX2's. Maybe that cool W8 Winn grip has something to do
> with it though. I also put a golf pride Galaxy grip on the 7-iron, but
> really dislike that grip. It's way too rough.
>
> I am really interested in Mizuno irons. Especially the MP-32, MP-67,
> and MP-60. The MP-60 looks like it might be the best choice for me
> because a little forgiveness might be a good thing on the golf course.
> I like the engineering behind these 'cut muscle' designs to locate a
> precise sweet spot for each iron. Has anybody ever hit any of these
> clubs ?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 09:17:25
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Jan 15, 8:59 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> You left out "deliberately"
>
> "water" <roeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ceOqh.23477$sR.16583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > Its difficult to work the ball left and right with cavity backs.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

In my experience, many of the amateurs who talk about "working" the
ball can't hit them straight! Bobby Jones' earnest advice to all
amateurs was first learn to consistently hit everything straight--

Larry

Date: 15 Jan 2007 13:15:01
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

The best advice may be learn to live with a consistent error.

"larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:1168881444.454688.90840@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 15, 8:59 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> You left out "deliberately"
>>
>> "water" <roeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:ceOqh.23477$sR.16583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Its difficult to work the ball left and right with cavity backs.- Hide
>> > quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> In my experience, many of the amateurs who talk about "working" the
> ball can't hit them straight! Bobby Jones' earnest advice to all
> amateurs was first learn to consistently hit everything straight--
>
> Larry
>

Date: 15 Jan 2007 09:15:09
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Jan 15, 7:02 am, "Simon" <hancock_si...@hotmail.com > wrote:

All the pros have switched to giant headed, graphite shafted drivers
> and plenty have switched to hybrids instead of long irons, so they
> probably are prepared to use new things if there is an advantage to be
> had.

Yep. I suspect they are experimenting all the time, especially those
on the verge of losing their cards. The st ones look at Pavin and
Funk, etc. and the Champion's tour in general-- and realize those guys
are nearly as good as the current touring pros--could likely still be
making cuts out there.

I think everyone should simply set their prejudices aside and go out
and do side-by-side comparisons on the range. Everyone older than a
teenager will benefit from sufficient distance with less effort. It is
always more consistent to swing easier! Who needs "feedback" if it
rattles your arms and hands?

I think everyone should read and watch Bobby Jones-- who played tiny
forged blades with heavy wooden shafts, yet hit them straight and long
--even his 1-iron. He could do that because he didn't use leverage
from the handle-- he 'threw' the clubhead through the ball
centrifigally -- and I bet he would have LOVED graphite shaft OS
cavity backs-- which offer wonderful clubhead feel.

The best golfers of yesteryear-- Jimmy Demeret, etc. were famous for
their pre-shot routines and habits-- For instance Demeret would hold
his club very lightly in his fingers, spinning and spinning it-- to
better feel the clubhead. Then he would use that same light grip to
swing-- He could have hit our clubs beautifully-- but not visa-versa!

Larry

Date: 15 Jan 2007 07:02:55
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Howard Brazee wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:33:57 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the earth.
> >They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about to
> >change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't about
> >to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.
>
> Especially if those are the clubs they are paid to carry.

All the pros have switched to giant headed, graphite shafted drivers
and plenty have switched to hybrids instead of long irons, so they
probably are prepared to use new things if there is an advantage to be
had.

Date: 14 Jan 2007 11:26:01
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

larryrsf wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:05 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> "But I'll swear that an older muscle back club just IS NOT any harder
> to hit than a very moderate cavity back."
>
> So why on Earth would any rational golfer play any but the easiest iron
> to hit straight and long?

I think that comes out of Dave's little study (and others I've seen) is
that there is actually very little difference in accuracy between
blades, muscle-backs and cavity backs. The real difference is in the
feel. Hit a bad shot with a cavity and you don't feel anything
different. Hit that same bad shot with a blade and you can feel exactly
what you have done wrong. I guess some players would rather mask bad
contacts in case it affected their confidence and others would rather
have the feedback from bad contacts.

>
> The day is coming when you will see all the pros playing lightweight
> graphite shafts and cavity back clubheads. When they compare such
> clubs side-by-side as you did, since the only thing important in their
> lives is to make cuts, they will choose the clubs that require the
> least effort to hit more greens. They will not choose stupidly as many
> amateurs, PROUD that they are swinging stiff steel (heavy) shafts with
> tiny forged blades (but scoring 5+ strokes higher than necessary).
> Meets my definition of macho stupid.

There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
blades. Hardly any use graphite shafts. Don't forget that these guys
have a free choice from all the new equipment that comes along and can
pick anything they like. There's probably no difference in hitting a
full shot with any type of club, but partial shots, especially with
your wedges, require a lot of feel. Even amongst those pros that play
cavity backs I doubt you'd find anything but bladed wedges.

There's a big difference between pros and amateurs. The pros have
plenty of distance and are more concerned with accuracy and feel. They
probably find these factors are better with blades and steel shafts
that cavities and graphite. I don't know where you get the idea that
higher handicap players are using stiff shafts and blades. Maybe a
couple of our really low hcp players use blades, but not many. Only the
older and weaker players use graphite shafts. A few better players have
tried, but always gone back to steel.

>
> Larry (I play graphite Callaway BB). 7.7 handicap.

Do you use the big clunky BB wedges or do you use bladed ones?

Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:18:23
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

In article <1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
hancock_simon@hotmail.com says...

> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
> blades.

"Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you have
to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
-- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest

MM

Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:45:14
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:18:23 -0500, MoiMoi <moimoi@example.com > wrote:

>"Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
>million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
>the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
>what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
>GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you have
>to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
>planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
> -- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest

Good point to consider - but club characteristics that are matched to
their games are not necessarily matched optimal for my game.

Magazines also wonder why so many of us haven't moved to rescue woods
instead of long irons - and when they say that the easiest way for us
to save strokes is to buy a long putter.

Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:33:57
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the earth.
They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about to
change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't about
to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.

"MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.2014682f2bed59189896fa@news.individual.net...
> In article <1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> hancock_simon@hotmail.com says...
>
>> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
>> blades.
>
> "Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
> million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
> the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
> what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
> GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you have
> to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
> planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
> -- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest
>
> MM

Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:45:45
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:33:57 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the earth.
>They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about to
>change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't about
>to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.

Especially if those are the clubs they are paid to carry.

Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:49:34
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

In article <AKOdndQqYZhaPDfYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com >, sfb@spam.net
says...
> Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the earth.
> They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about to
> change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't about
> to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.

So you think Golf Digest just made this up?
You ever read "What's in the Bag"?

MM
===========
>
> "MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2014682f2bed59189896fa@news.individual.net...
> > In article <1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > hancock_simon@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
> >> blades.
> >
> > "Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
> > million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
> > the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
> > what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
> > GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you have
> > to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
> > planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
> > -- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest
> >
> > MM
>
>
>

Date: 14 Jan 2007 17:30:52
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

The quote is accurate, just full of crap. That the tour pros don't play
cavity backs doesn't make them unsuitable for amateurs.

"MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.20146f7a1c3af3169896fb@news.individual.net...
> In article <AKOdndQqYZhaPDfYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com>, sfb@spam.net
> says...
>> Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the
>> earth.
>> They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about to
>> change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't
>> about
>> to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.
>
> So you think Golf Digest just made this up?
> You ever read "What's in the Bag"?
>
> MM
> ===========
>>
>> "MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2014682f2bed59189896fa@news.individual.net...
>> > In article <1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > hancock_simon@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> >> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
>> >> blades.
>> >
>> > "Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
>> > million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
>> > the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
>> > what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
>> > GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you have
>> > to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
>> > planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
>> > -- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest
>> >
>> > MM
>>
>>
>>

Date: 14 Jan 2007 17:58:45
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

In article <EYKdnV4dLIOCMjfYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com >, sfb@spam.net
says...
> The quote is accurate, just full of crap. That the tour pros don't play
> cavity backs doesn't make them unsuitable for amateurs.

Article says that majority of tour pros DO play cavity backs, and hence
that cavity backs ARE suitable for amateurs too.

MM

Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:36:07
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:EYKdnV4dLIOCMjfYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com...
> The quote is accurate, just full of crap. That the tour pros don't play
> cavity backs doesn't make them unsuitable for amateurs.
>

The article was saying just the opposite - that amateurs should be playing
cavity backs.

dave

> "MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20146f7a1c3af3169896fb@news.individual.net...
> > In article <AKOdndQqYZhaPDfYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com>, sfb@spam.net
> > says...
> >> Bleep - tour pros may be the most conservative creatures walking the
> >> earth.
> >> They have been playing blades since they could walk and are not about
to
> >> change unless there is a decided advantage. There isn't so they aren't
> >> about
> >> to invest the time to learn to play cavity backs.
> >
> > So you think Golf Digest just made this up?
> > You ever read "What's in the Bag"?
> >
> > MM
> > ===========
> >>
> >> "MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.2014682f2bed59189896fa@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article <1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > hancock_simon@hotmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> >> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
> >> >> blades.
> >> >
> >> > "Only half of the 22 players on the PGA Tour who earned at least $2.5
> >> > million used true blades. Overall, less than 25 percent of players on
> >> > the big tour carry muscle-back irons. We're not about to argue with
> >> > what Tiger Woods (Nike Forged blades), Vijay Singh (Cleveland CGI
> >> > GunMetal) and Adam Scott (Titleist 695MB) choose to play, but you
have
> >> > to ask yourself this: If the majority of the greatest players on the
> >> > planet are eschewing these clubs, why am I even considering them?"
> >> > -- Feb. 2007 Golf Digest
> >> >
> >> > MM
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Date: 14 Jan 2007 15:55:07
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168802761.180208.13630@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

>
> There are some pros playing cavity backs, but still lots playing
> blades. Hardly any use graphite shafts. Don't forget that these guys
> have a free choice from all the new equipment that comes along and can
> pick anything they like. There's probably no difference in hitting a
> full shot with any type of club, but partial shots, especially with
> your wedges, require a lot of feel. Even amongst those pros that play
> cavity backs I doubt you'd find anything but bladed wedges.
>
> There's a big difference between pros and amateurs. The pros have
> plenty of distance and are more concerned with accuracy and feel. They
> probably find these factors are better with blades and steel shafts
> that cavities and graphite. I don't know where you get the idea that
> higher handicap players are using stiff shafts and blades. Maybe a
> couple of our really low hcp players use blades, but not many. Only the
> older and weaker players use graphite shafts. A few better players have
> tried, but always gone back to steel.
>
>>
>> Larry (I play graphite Callaway BB). 7.7 handicap.
>
> Do you use the big clunky BB wedges or do you use bladed ones?
>

I have cavity backs with graphite that feel "wobbly" despite being stiff
enough to compare to steel, but the stability of my steel shafted (R)
BLADES gives me much more satisfafaction. They are so "definite" and exact
in my hands.
And I am anything but long... I am awaiting lengthened steel shafted
cavitybacks that need lie angles bent and I think I will like them better
because of their length AND since they have steel shafts. It isn't the head
for me: I think it's the shaft.

Date: 13 Jan 2007 14:54:40
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Date: 13 Jan 2007 11:23:15
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Jan 11, 2:05 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:

"But I'll swear that an older muscle back club just IS NOT any harder
to hit than a very moderate cavity back."

So why on Earth would any rational golfer play any but the easiest iron
to hit straight and long?

The day is coming when you will see all the pros playing lightweight
graphite shafts and cavity back clubheads. When they compare such
clubs side-by-side as you did, since the only thing important in their
lives is to make cuts, they will choose the clubs that require the
least effort to hit more greens. They will not choose stupidly as many
amateurs, PROUD that they are swinging stiff steel (heavy) shafts with
tiny forged blades (but scoring 5+ strokes higher than necessary).
Meets my definition of macho stupid.

Larry (I play graphite Callaway BB). 7.7 handicap.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 16:47:04
From: water
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Its difficult to work the ball left and right with cavity backs.

"larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:1168716193.724635.287730@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2:05 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> "But I'll swear that an older muscle back club just IS NOT any harder
> to hit than a very moderate cavity back."
>
> So why on Earth would any rational golfer play any but the easiest iron
> to hit straight and long?
>
> The day is coming when you will see all the pros playing lightweight
> graphite shafts and cavity back clubheads. When they compare such
> clubs side-by-side as you did, since the only thing important in their
> lives is to make cuts, they will choose the clubs that require the
> least effort to hit more greens. They will not choose stupidly as many
> amateurs, PROUD that they are swinging stiff steel (heavy) shafts with
> tiny forged blades (but scoring 5+ strokes higher than necessary).
> Meets my definition of macho stupid.
>
> Larry (I play graphite Callaway BB). 7.7 handicap.
>
>

Date: 15 Jan 2007 11:59:19
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

You left out "deliberately"

"water" <roebaer@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:ceOqh.23477$sR.16583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Its difficult to work the ball left and right with cavity backs.
>
>

Date: 13 Jan 2007 22:33:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On 13 Jan 2007 11:23:15 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>So why on Earth would any rational golfer play any but the easiest iron
>to hit straight and long?

I don't know?

Do you use a long putter? Or do you use a putter that isn't as easy
to use?

Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:14:04
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:nwyph.8889$pQ3.3159@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades
that
> I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
> 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
> old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
>
> I did some informal experiments comparing my m muscle backs with the 845
> cavity backs (admittedly far from being an 'extreme' game improvement
club)
> and came to the conclusion that the muscle back's felt worse on mis-hits
but
> that they didn't go any worse. I ended up with a somewhat newer (mid-90's)
> set of Hogan musclebacks ( http://tinyurl.com/yfbtry )
>
> I found an old Cleveland TA-3 6i recently for $5 and bought it (
> http://tinyurl.com/yj6lar ). I then reshafted it to exactly match my Hogan
> 6i -same shaft, swingweight, grip, and flex. I got careless, had to add a
> few more grams of lead tape than anticipated to match swingweight, so the
> actual flex came out 3 cpm's lower. Given my poor release I doubt this
> matters.
>
> The TA-3 basic design is typical of what I consider a "player's cavity
> back". All this got my attention because the majority of the tour players
> are now playing this type of club, vs. a traditional muscle back. God
knows
> every damn one of them hits the ball way better than me and my 6'ish
> handicap swing, so I had to ask myself if my irons are a good choice for
me.
>
> I went out to my favorite shag area today to compare the two clubs. I'm
> still having real problems with this damned iliotibial band, so it wasn't
as
> extensive as I had intended. I ended up hitting only around 15-20 balls
with
> each club. I was hitting into a slight uphill area, pretty soft ground
that
> you would probably call light rough, so there wasn't much roll.
>
> When I got to the landing area I kind of lumped the balls into (just
eyeball
> kinda' stuff) three groups.
>
> 1) Best - maybe 8 yards/better from the center of the grouping
> 2) Average - more than 8 and less than around 15 yards from the center
> 3) Poor - the rest of them. Any total flubs were ignored.
>
> Using M for the muscle back club (Hogan Channelback) and C for cavity
(TA3),
> here were the results
>
> Best - 4 M's, 3 C's
> Average - 9 M's, 8 C's
> Poor - 6 M's, 7 C's
>
> It would be interesting to hit more balls (particularly when I can take a
> normal stance and normal swing) and actually do some measurements and
maybe
> generate some useful statistics. But I'll swear that an older muscle back
> club just IS NOT any harder to hit than a very moderate cavity back.
>
> dave

Gonna have to fess up to an error here. I was at the range today where
landing areas were very visible. I was playing around my the two 6i's again
and noticed that the TA3 (cavity back) really was about a half club longer
than the Hogan (blade).

I didn't understand why that would be, so I did a bit more research. I
thought that both were 32 degree lofts - WRONG. The TA3 (nominal) is 31
degrees and the Hogan is (nominal) 33 degrees. So not only did I not hit
enough balls and take data carelessly, I didn't even build the same clubs.
Everybody impressed :-)

dave

Date: 14 Jan 2007 08:27:18
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:wnWph.10376$w91.8987@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:nwyph.8889$pQ3.3159@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades
> that
>> I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
>> 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
>> old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
>>
>> I did some informal experiments comparing my m muscle backs with the 845
>> cavity backs (admittedly far from being an 'extreme' game improvement
> club)
>> and came to the conclusion that the muscle back's felt worse on mis-hits
> but
>> that they didn't go any worse. I ended up with a somewhat newer
>> (mid-90's)
>> set of Hogan musclebacks ( http://tinyurl.com/yfbtry )
>>
>> I found an old Cleveland TA-3 6i recently for $5 and bought it (
>> http://tinyurl.com/yj6lar ). I then reshafted it to exactly match my
>> Hogan
>> 6i -same shaft, swingweight, grip, and flex. I got careless, had to add a
>> few more grams of lead tape than anticipated to match swingweight, so the
>> actual flex came out 3 cpm's lower. Given my poor release I doubt this
>> matters.
>>
>> The TA-3 basic design is typical of what I consider a "player's cavity
>> back". All this got my attention because the majority of the tour players
>> are now playing this type of club, vs. a traditional muscle back. God
> knows
>> every damn one of them hits the ball way better than me and my 6'ish
>> handicap swing, so I had to ask myself if my irons are a good choice for
> me.
>>
>> I went out to my favorite shag area today to compare the two clubs. I'm
>> still having real problems with this damned iliotibial band, so it wasn't
> as
>> extensive as I had intended. I ended up hitting only around 15-20 balls
> with
>> each club. I was hitting into a slight uphill area, pretty soft ground
> that
>> you would probably call light rough, so there wasn't much roll.
>>
>> When I got to the landing area I kind of lumped the balls into (just
> eyeball
>> kinda' stuff) three groups.
>>
>> 1) Best - maybe 8 yards/better from the center of the grouping
>> 2) Average - more than 8 and less than around 15 yards from the center
>> 3) Poor - the rest of them. Any total flubs were ignored.
>>
>> Using M for the muscle back club (Hogan Channelback) and C for cavity
> (TA3),
>> here were the results
>>
>> Best - 4 M's, 3 C's
>> Average - 9 M's, 8 C's
>> Poor - 6 M's, 7 C's
>>
>> It would be interesting to hit more balls (particularly when I can take a
>> normal stance and normal swing) and actually do some measurements and
> maybe
>> generate some useful statistics. But I'll swear that an older muscle back
>> club just IS NOT any harder to hit than a very moderate cavity back.
>>
>> dave
>
> Gonna have to fess up to an error here. I was at the range today where
> landing areas were very visible. I was playing around my the two 6i's
> again
> and noticed that the TA3 (cavity back) really was about a half club longer
> than the Hogan (blade).
>
> I didn't understand why that would be, so I did a bit more research. I
> thought that both were 32 degree lofts - WRONG. The TA3 (nominal) is 31
> degrees and the Hogan is (nominal) 33 degrees. So not only did I not hit
> enough balls and take data carelessly, I didn't even build the same clubs.
> Everybody impressed :-)
>
> dave
>

I would still be interested in the accuracy of each club. Consistency of
line and length rather than overall length. It is the consistency of shot
that gives confidence.

Rex

Date: 12 Jan 2007 07:27:53
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

On Jan 12, 8:55 am, "KnighT" <bryanjunk...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Good topic David. I have been really thinking about getting new clubs
> and I definately want to be fitted, and I really want to hit some
> muscle backs. I have a set of Ram FX2's....big 'flow weighted' cavity
> back irons. I don't think I really want a really big forgiving sweet
> spot. I want a club that demands a precise swing....because that is
> exactly want I want to build. These Ram irons feel big and clunky to
> me. I took the PW from my Dad's old set of Ram Accubar's (from around
> the 70's) and had it regripped. It has a lightweight shaft, a smaller
> clubhead, with more of a heel/toe weighted head. I can feel it much
> better than my FX2's. Maybe that cool W8 Winn grip has something to do
> with it though. I also put a golf pride Galaxy grip on the 7-iron, but
> really dislike that grip. It's way too rough.
>
> I am really interested in Mizuno irons. Especially the MP-32, MP-67,
> and MP-60. The MP-60 looks like it might be the best choice for me
> because a little forgiveness might be a good thing on the golf course.
> I like the engineering behind these 'cut muscle' designs to locate a
> precise sweet spot for each iron. Has anybody ever hit any of these
> clubs ?

I've hit the MP-67, and another Mizuno club, I believe it was the
MP-32,
but not sure. I hit muscle back clubs about as well as I hit
cavity backs these days (that wasn't always the case).

My present irons are Wilson Deep Red irons with graphite fat shafts.
There is no question that I get higher swing speeds with the graphite
shafts, and with the high torque of the fat shafts, I'm not giving
up much accuracy over steel. So I haven't felt a compelling need
to switch irons just yet.

On the other hand, I do miss the feel of steel on chip shots,
which is why I do most of my chipping with my Cleveland
wedges, which do have steel shafts. That may be enough
of a reason to switch back to steel, and maybe muscle backs,
too.

Date: 12 Jan 2007 06:55:28
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Good topic David. I have been really thinking about getting new clubs
and I definately want to be fitted, and I really want to hit some
muscle backs. I have a set of Ram FX2's....big 'flow weighted' cavity
back irons. I don't think I really want a really big forgiving sweet
spot. I want a club that demands a precise swing....because that is
exactly want I want to build. These Ram irons feel big and clunky to
me. I took the PW from my Dad's old set of Ram Accubar's (from around
the 70's) and had it regripped. It has a lightweight shaft, a smaller
clubhead, with more of a heel/toe weighted head. I can feel it much
better than my FX2's. Maybe that cool W8 Winn grip has something to do
with it though. I also put a golf pride Galaxy grip on the 7-iron, but
really dislike that grip. It's way too rough.

I am really interested in Mizuno irons. Especially the MP-32, MP-67,
and MP-60. The MP-60 looks like it might be the best choice for me
because a little forgiveness might be a good thing on the golf course.
I like the engineering behind these 'cut muscle' designs to locate a
precise sweet spot for each iron. Has anybody ever hit any of these
clubs ?

Date: 13 Jan 2007 08:34:01
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1168613726.256794.21240@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Good topic David. I have been really thinking about getting new clubs
> and I definately want to be fitted, and I really want to hit some
> muscle backs. I have a set of Ram FX2's....big 'flow weighted' cavity
> back irons. I don't think I really want a really big forgiving sweet
> spot. I want a club that demands a precise swing....because that is
> exactly want I want to build. These Ram irons feel big and clunky to
> me. I took the PW from my Dad's old set of Ram Accubar's (from around
> the 70's) and had it regripped. It has a lightweight shaft, a smaller
> clubhead, with more of a heel/toe weighted head. I can feel it much
> better than my FX2's. Maybe that cool W8 Winn grip has something to do
> with it though. I also put a golf pride Galaxy grip on the 7-iron, but
> really dislike that grip. It's way too rough.
>
> I am really interested in Mizuno irons. Especially the MP-32, MP-67,
> and MP-60. The MP-60 looks like it might be the best choice for me
> because a little forgiveness might be a good thing on the golf course.
> I like the engineering behind these 'cut muscle' designs to locate a
> precise sweet spot for each iron. Has anybody ever hit any of these
> clubs ?
>

Just after I bought my Apex Plus I hit a Mizuno MP30 iron on a demo day at a
driving range. I also hit the MP32 blade. The MP30 was so good I wanted
to buy them on the spot but could not afford to change my clubs at the time.
If the Mp60's are anything like the MP30's I would certainly give them a go.
To me they were exactly right for my swing. TheMP 32 blade did not feel as
good and in memory not as good as my TP 19's.

Rex

Date: 13 Jan 2007 08:48:35
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Corection It was MP 33's not Mp 32.

Rex

"Rex" <rexroh@gmail.com > wrote in message news:eo8nrd$dj6$1@aioe.org...
>
> "KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168613726.256794.21240@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Good topic David. I have been really thinking about getting new clubs
>> and I definately want to be fitted, and I really want to hit some
>> muscle backs. I have a set of Ram FX2's....big 'flow weighted' cavity
>> back irons. I don't think I really want a really big forgiving sweet
>> spot. I want a club that demands a precise swing....because that is
>> exactly want I want to build. These Ram irons feel big and clunky to
>> me. I took the PW from my Dad's old set of Ram Accubar's (from around
>> the 70's) and had it regripped. It has a lightweight shaft, a smaller
>> clubhead, with more of a heel/toe weighted head. I can feel it much
>> better than my FX2's. Maybe that cool W8 Winn grip has something to do
>> with it though. I also put a golf pride Galaxy grip on the 7-iron, but
>> really dislike that grip. It's way too rough.
>>
>> I am really interested in Mizuno irons. Especially the MP-32, MP-67,
>> and MP-60. The MP-60 looks like it might be the best choice for me
>> because a little forgiveness might be a good thing on the golf course.
>> I like the engineering behind these 'cut muscle' designs to locate a
>> precise sweet spot for each iron. Has anybody ever hit any of these
>> clubs ?
>>
>
> Just after I bought my Apex Plus I hit a Mizuno MP30 iron on a demo day at
> a driving range. I also hit the MP32 blade. The MP30 was so good I
> wanted to buy them on the spot but could not afford to change my clubs at
> the time. If the Mp60's are anything like the MP30's I would certainly
> give them a go. To me they were exactly right for my swing. TheMP 32
> blade did not feel as good and in memory not as good as my TP 19's.
>
> Rex
>

Date: 12 Jan 2007 06:35:48
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Dave Lee wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168564216.421544.191510@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dave Lee wrote:
> > > Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades
> that
> > > I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
> > > 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
> > > old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
> > >
> >
> > I have an old set up Apex PCs, superceded by fairly new Titleist,
> > I find no difference at all from the 5 iron through the wedge. The
> > lower irons are moderately easier with the cavity back - the
> > small lighter clubhead makes the sweet spot pretty small...
> >
> > Also, clubs have gotten stronger in the last 20 years, I'd be
> > surprised if there were not a 3-4 degree loft difference between the
> > old Hogans and the new Armours.
> >
> > I still wonder if I shouldn't have just put new shafts into the Apex
> > PCs...
> >
> > -PA
> >
>
> I've got a friend who plays Apex PC's. He likes them and (being refinished)
> they are very attractive if you care about that.

Don't say crap like that, it is only going to cost me money, the
Apex PCs are still sitting in the garage and need re-shafting to
lose a little weight.

-PA

Date: 12 Jan 2007 17:22:35
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:nwyph.8889$pQ3.3159@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades
> that
> I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
> 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
> old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
>
> I did some informal experiments comparing my m muscle backs with the 845
> cavity backs (admittedly far from being an 'extreme' game improvement
> club)
> and came to the conclusion that the muscle back's felt worse on mis-hits
> but
> that they didn't go any worse. I ended up with a somewhat newer (mid-90's)
> set of Hogan musclebacks ( http://tinyurl.com/yfbtry )
>
> I found an old Cleveland TA-3 6i recently for $5 and bought it (
> http://tinyurl.com/yj6lar ). I then reshafted it to exactly match my Hogan
> 6i -same shaft, swingweight, grip, and flex. I got careless, had to add a
> few more grams of lead tape than anticipated to match swingweight, so the
> actual flex came out 3 cpm's lower. Given my poor release I doubt this
> matters.
>
> The TA-3 basic design is typical of what I consider a "player's cavity
> back". All this got my attention because the majority of the tour players
> are now playing this type of club, vs. a traditional muscle back. God
> knows
> every damn one of them hits the ball way better than me and my 6'ish
> handicap swing, so I had to ask myself if my irons are a good choice for
> me.
>
> I went out to my favorite shag area today to compare the two clubs. I'm
> still having real problems with this damned iliotibial band, so it wasn't
> as
> extensive as I had intended. I ended up hitting only around 15-20 balls
> with
> each club. I was hitting into a slight uphill area, pretty soft ground
> that
> you would probably call light rough, so there wasn't much roll.
>
> When I got to the landing area I kind of lumped the balls into (just
> eyeball
> kinda' stuff) three groups.
>
> 1) Best - maybe 8 yards/better from the center of the grouping
> 2) Average - more than 8 and less than around 15 yards from the center
> 3) Poor - the rest of them. Any total flubs were ignored.
>
> Using M for the muscle back club (Hogan Channelback) and C for cavity
> (TA3),
> here were the results
>
> Best - 4 M's, 3 C's
> Average - 9 M's, 8 C's
> Poor - 6 M's, 7 C's
>
> It would be interesting to hit more balls (particularly when I can take a
> normal stance and normal swing) and actually do some measurements and
> maybe
> generate some useful statistics. But I'll swear that an older muscle back
> club just IS NOT any harder to hit than a very moderate cavity back.
>
> dave
>

I have gone from Hogan Apex Plus(2003) cavity backs (reg shaft) to Mizuno
TP19 (1992) muscle backs (Stiff shaft). I prefer the feel of the muscle
back and the sweet hit when swinging well. I find I am more consistent with
the muscle back and get a better flight. I have not done any club to club
comparison however.

Rex

Date: 11 Jan 2007 17:10:16
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

Dave Lee wrote:
> Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades that
> I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
> 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
> old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
>

I have an old set up Apex PCs, superceded by fairly new Titleist,
I find no difference at all from the 5 iron through the wedge. The
lower irons are moderately easier with the cavity back - the
small lighter clubhead makes the sweet spot pretty small...

Also, clubs have gotten stronger in the last 20 years, I'd be
surprised if there were not a 3-4 degree loft difference between the
old Hogans and the new Armours.

I still wonder if I shouldn't have just put new shafts into the Apex
PCs...

-PA

Date: 12 Jan 2007 01:21:30
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Quick Comparison - Muscle Back vs. Players Cavity Back

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168564216.421544.191510@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > Several years ago I stumbled onto an old (1980'ish) set of Hogan blades
that
> > I had no intention of taking onto the course. I was playing Tommy Armour
> > 845's at the time and was really surprised to find that I like the
> > old/beat-up blades much better than the 845's.
> >
>
> I have an old set up Apex PCs, superceded by fairly new Titleist,
> I find no difference at all from the 5 iron through the wedge. The
> lower irons are moderately easier with the cavity back - the
> small lighter clubhead makes the sweet spot pretty small...
>
> Also, clubs have gotten stronger in the last 20 years, I'd be
> surprised if there were not a 3-4 degree loft difference between the
> old Hogans and the new Armours.
>
> I still wonder if I shouldn't have just put new shafts into the Apex
> PCs...
>
> -PA
>

I've got a friend who plays Apex PC's. He likes them and (being refinished)
they are very attractive if you care about that.

dave

Date: 11 Jan 2007 16:05:20
From: WW
Subject: Dave who?

You sound like Dave Pelz...... awful scientific. Just hit the damn
balls, what ever feels best. I think like any driver, there's a
learning curve to any irons.

Dave Lee wrote:

Date: 12 Jan 2007 00:16:30
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Dave who?

"WW" <dirtymm@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1168560320.307718.3060@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> You sound like Dave Pelz...... awful scientific. Just hit the damn
> balls, what ever feels best. I think like any driver, there's a
> learning curve to any irons.
>
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
>

Like Pelz, I also am an engineer. Different people benefit from different
levels of information.

dave