Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[DeNinny]

I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that good contact is better with the bladiest of blades. The other side of the coin is what is easiest with minimal play and practice? That, to me is the crux at this point in my yet to fully blossom career as a dog flog.

 

The easiest is still a blade. All a "forgiving" club does better than a blade is make a miss hit FEEL less harsh. In all other cases, both solid good contact and "forgiveness" on miss hits a blade is the better design. The laws of physics supports all of this. Until you understand and accept this, you will never blossom with playing blades.

[dog flog]

I blame BF Skinner. Mister Negatori.

[dog flog]

Blades are shocking and the most shocking blades are the smallest. I fear the baby.

[dog flog]

I guess you could say I'm a baby that fears the act of falling down. Without which, we'd never learn to walk, I spose.

[DeNinny]

Blades are shocking and the most shocking blades are the smallest. I fear the baby.

 

You really have no idea if that is what you think about the BBs.

 

If the standard scale of harsh to bladey bliss is 1-10 for a standard vanilla blade. The BB scale is 3-15. Miss hits feel overall LESS harsh AND the bladey bliss shots are even more blissful. And again, this is by design BECAUSE of the relatively smaller head. But it matters not if you are scurred like a wet puppy dog. Get over the fear. Harsh miss hit feel is really over played and not that bad. It's actually the point. High Definition golf. You see the entire spectrum of your swing quality in detail. That painful miss hit is just exposing your $hitty swing in excruciating detail. You should be thankful for the brutal honesty of it.

[wmblake2000]

I can feel the love...Had to change scrubs three times...ebony and ivory!!!!

 

My BB piano:

 

 

 

I draw the line here.

 

You are forbidden to post you singing 'ebony and ivory'

[dog flog]

My last round had nothing to do with golf clubs or their design and everything to do with I got physically tired on the way home. Don't worry, I'm pumping myself up like a helium balloon. The next time the pencil talks, it says seventy seven in Soprano voce. Because that's what I want. Even if I have to pump my SGI through the ceiling, I'm going to do everything in my power to get that job done. Even if it means being scratched by a grumpy black, cabin cat...That's my take. If you don't...OK, Ok, I'll stop now. Keep it in the short hairs and whatever you do, never - ever, stop swinigng the club.

[bervin]

I forget who here said that you find the COG with your irons when I talked about toe missing on the staffs which I rarely do in general, but in general is Blades and my small blades. Seeing deninny's inside marks made me think of that. Mine look similar, but with more hosel wear....

 

What is the black boron finish and where did you have them done? How is it different from black ox?

 

Biggie I have challenged the notion before and I still say with a blade that CG location is secondary and that you can simply hit a blade anywhere along the muscle and it will be OK (...big caveat here ->) provided that you can hold the face square at impact. And it is simply easier on the hands per the torque equation (T = force x distance) to hit the ball as close to the hosel as possible without hitting it. Regardless of CG location, the physics and math behind it supports all this. So yeah I'm not surprised at your findings with your BBs being worn at the hosel and yeah my (preliminary) wear marks indicate this too.

 

Also I will say again that I have hit my BBs out at the toe with half the ball off the grooves and the results aren't that penal. It feels like a toe hit for sure but result is acceptable.

 

So with a blade in particular I'm not so sure that CG location defines the sweetspot. Not saying it isn't important in a head design at all and that it doesn't play a role at all, but I am saying that a good strike along the blade muscle doesn't need to be defined by its CG location alone.

 

I know others may be up in arms about me posting this, but I challenge anyone to provide the theoretical refutation about how it is NOT theoretically sound to just hit the ball as close to the hosel on the face without actually hitting it. CG location does NOT come into the math equations behind any of this so therefore it is not a primary variable. (And yes I understand the concept of center of percussion vs center of gravity.)

 

Biggie you can get the black boron finish ordered as such new from Miura direct. I don't think they do it retroactively. I'm not sure if the process is 100% the same as black oxide, but I'm guessing it is similar but there is boron added to the process because it helps make the oxide layer last longer somehow.

 

My 62s are worn (major browning) from the center with a slight run towards the hosel. Most really good players I know have similar wear patterns. Some will say that our clubs need to be better fitted. I disagree. I've always believed there must be something to this...

 

...and that something is pure unbiased physics. At its core, impact is a torque physics problem. The golfer is powering the shot by rotating the clubhead at the end of a shaft with tremendous centrifugal force at the moment of impact. As soon as impact starts, the ball itself puts a force on the face of the club as it is accelerated from a still position. As this force pushes on the face, you then have to evaluate what is there to resist that force. And what is there to resist it is the shaft that is held by the hands. The hands at the grip are the base of support that prevent the clubface from twisting open by the force from the ball. And since this force is offset to the side of the shaft, by the laws of physics, it will put a torque on the shaft based on the formula for torque, T = force x distance the force was applied from the fulcrum of rotation. Since the force is the same, the only way the torque gets bigger is by increasing that distance. So, based on this alone, the least amount of torque on the hands is when impact is as close to the hosel as possible but still on the flat clubface.

 

So yes absolutely the laws of physics support that a good face wear pattern for a blade is at the CG and anywhere from there to the hosel. In this zone of contact, there will be minimal torque on the hands and so they will have an easier time staying square during impact. Ultimately because of this there will be minimal side spin on the ball and minimal loss of energy transfer from clubhead to ball. For every bit of force that the hands need to keep the face square, there will be every bit of loss of energy transfer from clubface to ball.

 

LOL this is the pure unbiased physics. And note that CG does not come into play in any of this. I'm NOT saying it doesn't have any affect either, but the more important driver, especially in the physics of a blade design, is the torque put on the clubface from impact.

 

Think of a diving board analogy. The base of the diving board is like the hosel connection to the head and thus the blade muscle. The farther from the base the diver jumps, the more the board bends and it bends the most when the diver jumps at the very end, the farthest point from the base. This same thing is happening at impact on a blade's face. Closer to the hosel without hitting it will be a more solid and supported surface for impact with the ball. And simply the farther away from the hosel the more the hands will need to work to keep the face square or else the face will twist open just like the diving board bends more and more.

 

Totally off-topic in relation to golf; but, as a professional who has to deal with folks in the engineering world on a daily basis, I really appreciate how simply you explained this, lol. Some of these guys and gals (chemical, mechanical, nuclear, etc. engineering backgrounds) have such a "better than thou" and "they don't understand" way of thinking and operating. It definitely makes me want to stay in my own swim-lane most of the time!! Lol, nice people usually, but difficult to work with at times. I mean literally, you articulated a physics concept better in a damn online golf forum than some of these folks articulate concepts in a brief specifically meant to be simplified for we "simpletons"!!

 

Sorry, rant over... but really that makes perfect sense. I always assumed there was something to this apart from just needing a flatter or more upright clubhead. Honestly, when my black pearls come in, I'm going to kind of miss the 62 wear patterns!

[DeNinny]

I draw the line here.

 

You are forbidden to post you singing 'ebony and ivory'

I double dog flog dare you to click this!

[dog flog]

My last round had nothing to do with golf clubs or their design and everything to do with I got physically tired on the way home. Don't worry, I'm pumping myself up like a helium balloon. The next time the pencil talks, it says seventy seven in Soprano voce. Because that's what I want. Even if I have to pump my SGI through the ceiling, I'm going to do everything in my power to get that job done. Even if it means being scratched by a grumpy black, cabin cat...That's my take. If you don't...OK, Ok, I'll stop now. Keep it in the short hairs and whatever you do, never - ever, stop swinigng the club.

If I may, D is the worst, which translates to the best of my worst world.

[dog flog]

Perhaps it's a black cat and a yellow dogl

[dog flog]

Exclamation point.

[dog flog]

Who needs these thoughts? Golfers. Mentalists.

[Kingcat990]

I liked "cabin cat". Would make a damn good band name. Or a wildcat cartridge name :)

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

dog flog,

Put the bong down, man :cheesy:

[dog flog]

dog flog,

Put the bong down, man :cheesy:

I'd use one if I wasn't naturally excited enough.

[Jonesy]

Is anyone else excited about the upcoming Mizuno, Callaway and Taylormade blades? I am actually genuinely excited about an equipment release and that hasn't been the case for awhile! I'd say the Mizuno's have my attaention the most out of the 3, but it's such a close call...

[craz-e]

Yeah looking forward to seeing and testing the new stuff

Not sure if they will make me want to replace what I have

 

But still tempted with the baby blades

I will hopefully get the chance to hit them in a few months so I am not making any rushed decisions

[Bigmean]

dog flog,

Put the bong down, man :cheesy:

.

 

This is winning. I was thinking same thing, like really good Canadian weed + really Canadian humor = dogflog........and I am ok with that!

[Sir Slicealot]

Deninny and his cat. If I didn't know you, I'd say you were a villain. Dr. Evil

 

LOL FWIW his name is Diablo.

Clearly Diablo is baited into some pictures. Or is he the greatest helper a man could have?

[Nard_S]

I forget who here said that you find the COG with your irons when I talked about toe missing on the staffs which I rarely do in general, but in general is Blades and my small blades. Seeing deninny's inside marks made me think of that. Mine look similar, but with more hosel wear....

 

What is the black boron finish and where did you have them done? How is it different from black ox?

 

Biggie I have challenged the notion before and I still say with a blade that CG location is secondary and that you can simply hit a blade anywhere along the muscle and it will be OK (...big caveat here ->) provided that you can hold the face square at impact. And it is simply easier on the hands per the torque equation (T = force x distance) to hit the ball as close to the hosel as possible without hitting it. Regardless of CG location, the physics and math behind it supports all this. So yeah I'm not surprised at your findings with your BBs being worn at the hosel and yeah my (preliminary) wear marks indicate this too.

 

Also I will say again that I have hit my BBs out at the toe with half the ball off the grooves and the results aren't that penal. It feels like a toe hit for sure but result is acceptable.

 

So with a blade in particular I'm not so sure that CG location defines the sweetspot. Not saying it isn't important in a head design at all and that it doesn't play a role at all, but I am saying that a good strike along the blade muscle doesn't need to be defined by its CG location alone.

 

I know others may be up in arms about me posting this, but I challenge anyone to provide the theoretical refutation about how it is NOT theoretically sound to just hit the ball as close to the hosel on the face without actually hitting it. CG location does NOT come into the math equations behind any of this so therefore it is not a primary variable. (And yes I understand the concept of center of percussion vs center of gravity.)

 

Biggie you can get the black boron finish ordered as such new from Miura direct. I don't think they do it retroactively. I'm not sure if the process is 100% the same as black oxide, but I'm guessing it is similar but there is boron added to the process because it helps make the oxide layer last longer somehow.

 

My 62s are worn (major browning) from the center with a slight run towards the hosel. Most really good players I know have similar wear patterns. Some will say that our clubs need to be better fitted. I disagree. I've always believed there must be something to this...

 

...and that something is pure unbiased physics. At its core, impact is a torque physics problem. The golfer is powering the shot by rotating the clubhead at the end of a shaft with tremendous centrifugal force at the moment of impact. As soon as impact starts, the ball itself puts a force on the face of the club as it is accelerated from a still position. As this force pushes on the face, you then have to evaluate what is there to resist that force. And what is there to resist it is the shaft that is held by the hands. The hands at the grip are the base of support that prevent the clubface from twisting open by the force from the ball. And since this force is offset to the side of the shaft, by the laws of physics, it will put a torque on the shaft based on the formula for torque, T = force x distance the force was applied from the fulcrum of rotation. Since the force is the same, the only way the torque gets bigger is by increasing that distance. So, based on this alone, the least amount of torque on the hands is when impact is as close to the hosel as possible but still on the flat clubface.

 

So yes absolutely the laws of physics support that a good face wear pattern for a blade is at the CG and anywhere from there to the hosel. In this zone of contact, there will be minimal torque on the hands and so they will have an easier time staying square during impact. Ultimately because of this there will be minimal side spin on the ball and minimal loss of energy transfer from clubhead to ball. For every bit of force that the hands need to keep the face square, there will be every bit of loss of energy transfer from clubface to ball.

 

LOL this is the pure unbiased physics. And note that CG does not come into play in any of this. I'm NOT saying it doesn't have any affect either, but the more important driver, especially in the physics of a blade design, is the torque put on the clubface from impact.

 

Think of a diving board analogy. The base of the diving board is like the hosel connection to the head and thus the blade muscle. The farther from the base the diver jumps, the more the board bends and it bends the most when the diver jumps at the very end, the farthest point from the base. This same thing is happening at impact on a blade's face. Closer to the hosel without hitting it will be a more solid and supported surface for impact with the ball. And simply the farther away from the hosel the more the hands will need to work to keep the face square or else the face will twist open just like the diving board bends more and more.

 

Sorry it most certainly does. Moving CG away from axial point increases resistance to turning of head around shaft. It increases MOI , it increases a force to be overcome with the hands. It is much of why a Ping Eye 2 is unlike a Hogan Precision. Saying CG does not matter in blade design is like saying offset or loft does not matter. I have V-Foils collecting dust because they launch too high, I have Maruman CS's that will be gamers because they are the lowest launching irons I've ever hit.................but CG has nothing to do with it, LOL.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

dog flog,

Put the bong down, man :cheesy:

.

 

This is winning. I was thinking same thing, like really good Canadian weed + really Canadian humor = dogflog........and I am ok with that!

 

Nothing like a little Canadian humor, eh? Did I tell you I grew up in the world capital of grow houses? High school was literally just that. You ever played golf, on weed?

[DeNinny]

I forget who here said that you find the COG with your irons when I talked about toe missing on the staffs which I rarely do in general, but in general is Blades and my small blades. Seeing deninny's inside marks made me think of that. Mine look similar, but with more hosel wear....

 

What is the black boron finish and where did you have them done? How is it different from black ox?

 

Biggie I have challenged the notion before and I still say with a blade that CG location is secondary and that you can simply hit a blade anywhere along the muscle and it will be OK (...big caveat here ->) provided that you can hold the face square at impact. And it is simply easier on the hands per the torque equation (T = force x distance) to hit the ball as close to the hosel as possible without hitting it. Regardless of CG location, the physics and math behind it supports all this. So yeah I'm not surprised at your findings with your BBs being worn at the hosel and yeah my (preliminary) wear marks indicate this too.

 

Also I will say again that I have hit my BBs out at the toe with half the ball off the grooves and the results aren't that penal. It feels like a toe hit for sure but result is acceptable.

 

So with a blade in particular I'm not so sure that CG location defines the sweetspot. Not saying it isn't important in a head design at all and that it doesn't play a role at all, but I am saying that a good strike along the blade muscle doesn't need to be defined by its CG location alone.

 

I know others may be up in arms about me posting this, but I challenge anyone to provide the theoretical refutation about how it is NOT theoretically sound to just hit the ball as close to the hosel on the face without actually hitting it. CG location does NOT come into the math equations behind any of this so therefore it is not a primary variable. (And yes I understand the concept of center of percussion vs center of gravity.)

 

Biggie you can get the black boron finish ordered as such new from Miura direct. I don't think they do it retroactively. I'm not sure if the process is 100% the same as black oxide, but I'm guessing it is similar but there is boron added to the process because it helps make the oxide layer last longer somehow.

 

My 62s are worn (major browning) from the center with a slight run towards the hosel. Most really good players I know have similar wear patterns. Some will say that our clubs need to be better fitted. I disagree. I've always believed there must be something to this...

 

...and that something is pure unbiased physics. At its core, impact is a torque physics problem. The golfer is powering the shot by rotating the clubhead at the end of a shaft with tremendous centrifugal force at the moment of impact. As soon as impact starts, the ball itself puts a force on the face of the club as it is accelerated from a still position. As this force pushes on the face, you then have to evaluate what is there to resist that force. And what is there to resist it is the shaft that is held by the hands. The hands at the grip are the base of support that prevent the clubface from twisting open by the force from the ball. And since this force is offset to the side of the shaft, by the laws of physics, it will put a torque on the shaft based on the formula for torque, T = force x distance the force was applied from the fulcrum of rotation. Since the force is the same, the only way the torque gets bigger is by increasing that distance. So, based on this alone, the least amount of torque on the hands is when impact is as close to the hosel as possible but still on the flat clubface.

 

So yes absolutely the laws of physics support that a good face wear pattern for a blade is at the CG and anywhere from there to the hosel. In this zone of contact, there will be minimal torque on the hands and so they will have an easier time staying square during impact. Ultimately because of this there will be minimal side spin on the ball and minimal loss of energy transfer from clubhead to ball. For every bit of force that the hands need to keep the face square, there will be every bit of loss of energy transfer from clubface to ball.

 

LOL this is the pure unbiased physics. And note that CG does not come into play in any of this. I'm NOT saying it doesn't have any affect either, but the more important driver, especially in the physics of a blade design, is the torque put on the clubface from impact.

 

Think of a diving board analogy. The base of the diving board is like the hosel connection to the head and thus the blade muscle. The farther from the base the diver jumps, the more the board bends and it bends the most when the diver jumps at the very end, the farthest point from the base. This same thing is happening at impact on a blade's face. Closer to the hosel without hitting it will be a more solid and supported surface for impact with the ball. And simply the farther away from the hosel the more the hands will need to work to keep the face square or else the face will twist open just like the diving board bends more and more.

 

Sorry it most certainly does. Moving CG away from axial point increases resistance to turning of head around shaft. It increases MOI , it increases a force to be overcome with the hands. It is much of why a Ping Eye 2 is unlike a Hogan Precision. Saying CG does not matter in blade design is like saying offset or loft does not matter. I have V-Foils collecting dust because they launch too high, I have Maruman CS's that will be gamers because they are the lowest launching irons I've ever hit.................but CG has nothing to do with it, LOL.

 

LOL reread my entire post again instead of cherry picking and then making a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Seriously. If you read my post more clearly you will see that I don't disagree with what you are saying.

 

LOL you argue for no reason.

[NRJyzr]

Sorry it most certainly does. Moving CG away from axial point increases resistance to turning of head around shaft. It increases MOI , it increases a force to be overcome with the hands. It is much of why a Ping Eye 2 is unlike a Hogan Precision. Saying CG does not matter in blade design is like saying offset or loft does not matter. I have V-Foils collecting dust because they launch too high, I have Maruman CS's that will be gamers because they are the lowest launching irons I've ever hit.................but CG has nothing to do with it, LOL.

 

The MOI involved in moving the CG farther from the hosel is different from the MOI that makes an Eye2 different from a Hogan Precision. The former is related to the ease of swinging the club, the latter is about the resistance to twisting on off center hits. Lateral CG location has nothing to do with the latter (clubhead MOI).

 

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but it seemed from your post you were mixing and matching the two.

[Nard_S]

Sorry it most certainly does. Moving CG away from axial point increases resistance to turning of head around shaft. It increases MOI , it increases a force to be overcome with the hands. It is much of why a Ping Eye 2 is unlike a Hogan Precision. Saying CG does not matter in blade design is like saying offset or loft does not matter. I have V-Foils collecting dust because they launch too high, I have Maruman CS's that will be gamers because they are the lowest launching irons I've ever hit.................but CG has nothing to do with it, LOL.

 

The MOI involved in moving the CG farther from the hosel is different from the MOI that makes an Eye2 different from a Hogan Precision. The former is related to the ease of swinging the club, the latter is about the resistance to twisting on off center hits. Lateral CG location has nothing to do with the latter (clubhead MOI).

 

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but it seemed from your post you were mixing and matching the two.

 

They are both the same, it is just the degree of how much it is applied.

[Doaner84]

I can feel the love...Had to change scrubs three times...ebony and ivory!!!!

 

My BB piano:

 

 

 

I'm running out of clean drawers!!!

[Nard_S]

 

LOL reread my entire post again instead of cherry picking and then making a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Seriously. If you read my post more clearly you will see that I don't disagree with what you are saying.

 

LOL you argue for no reason.

 

I read it all and fully aware.

[DeNinny]

 

LOL reread my entire post again instead of cherry picking and then making a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Seriously. If you read my post more clearly you will see that I don't disagree with what you are saying.

 

LOL you argue for no reason.

 

I read it all and fully aware.

 

Well then it should be clear that I made a completely different point to bervin that was separate from the argument you made. Hence it was a strawman argument in a thread where we should avoid debating things. bervin was on the same page with what I'm saying and that is all that matters.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

dog flog,

Put the bong down, man :cheesy:

.

 

This is winning. I was thinking same thing, like really good Canadian weed + really Canadian humor = dogflog........and I am ok with that!

 

Nothing like a little Canadian humor, eh? Did I tell you I grew up in the world capital of grow houses? High school was literally just that. You ever played golf, on weed?

 

I play most of my golf from the weeds. Does that count?

 

And while we're on the subject of drugs and golf, the right of practice area at the course I played at as a junior was apparently a great spot for magic mushrooms. Come the season, there'd usually be one or two crusty types rooting around for 'shrooms while I hit 6 irons at them. Come to think of it, they may have helped me developed my draw, as I tried to avoid hitting them.

Also, they rarely helped me find my practice balls, but one or two did ask me if I'd seen any good 'shrooms. Quid pro quo, guys. Quid pro quo.

[NRJyzr]

Sorry it most certainly does. Moving CG away from axial point increases resistance to turning of head around shaft. It increases MOI , it increases a force to be overcome with the hands. It is much of why a Ping Eye 2 is unlike a Hogan Precision. Saying CG does not matter in blade design is like saying offset or loft does not matter. I have V-Foils collecting dust because they launch too high, I have Maruman CS's that will be gamers because they are the lowest launching irons I've ever hit.................but CG has nothing to do with it, LOL.

 

The MOI involved in moving the CG farther from the hosel is different from the MOI that makes an Eye2 different from a Hogan Precision. The former is related to the ease of swinging the club, the latter is about the resistance to twisting on off center hits. Lateral CG location has nothing to do with the latter (clubhead MOI).

 

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but it seemed from your post you were mixing and matching the two.

 

They are both the same, it is just the degree of how much it is applied.

 

 

No, they are completely independent. You can have a club that helps to create a low swing MOI but has a high clubhead MOI. And, vice versa, a club with a higher swing MOI with a low clubhead MOI.

 

Though it's not a blade related analogy ;), Tommy Armour's 845 Oversize clubhead from the mid-90s is an example of this. They made a larger clubhead, the clubhead MOI increased, but the CG wound up closer to the hosel. Not just relatively with the larger clubhead, but in terms of actual distance.