News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom Huckaby

Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2006, 04:36:53 PM »
JV:

Aha.  Muchas gracias.  I see this as a win-win-win, especially for us.  I love course rating!

 ;D

TH

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2006, 06:41:30 PM »
...
I know a lot of 10 handis who play blades. They would hit a lot more greens with any number of more forgiving irons, and thus, "get better". ...
Do you have any empirical evidence that demonstrates this conclusion?


No.
Do you really think that I need any?

-Ted


Golf Digest did an article on this a few years back I saw a link to (I don't get the magazine)  They found that for off center but not way off center hits, the blades got slightly BETTER results than cavity back game improvement clubs.  They said the players they tested with all said the impact on misses felt much worse with the blades and their expectation was that the misses would be much worse, but it didn't turn out that way.  It was just one study, and it was with real golfers and not a machine so maybe it was done wrong or an abberation, and I remember being kind of skeptical when I read it.  But I think maybe we shouldn't just assume that small misses of say less than 1/2" will be helped more by cavity backs than blades without some evidence.

Now once you miss the sweet spot by an inch a blade is twisting in your hands pretty good so I'm sure there's a limit to this.  But swinging blades is probably going to teach you to not to do that very often.  I borrow a set of all-the-way cavity backs like Pings and I can't even tell where the hell I hit the ball on the clubface, I have to look at the clubface for a clue!  That doesn't seem like a good route to improvement if you aren't getting any proper feedback to know when you are missing it on the heel or toe or hitting it pure.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2006, 06:44:54 PM »
How many people bought the Tiger Woods ball, even though it was repeatedly said that few people other than Tiger could use it effectively? Heck, didn't Nike put out a David Duval ball briefly? Can't imagine that sold anywhere near what a tournament ball would, yet it didn't bankrupt them.


I remember finding some of those Nike "DD" Duval balls back then, so someone must have been buying them.  Maybe they were purchased by people who believed they would benefit from a tour ball but decided their swing was closer to that of Duval than Tiger (which is really true for almost all of us, especially in the last few years ;))
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2006, 06:48:30 PM »
Quote

Now once you miss the sweet spot by an inch a blade is twisting in your hands pretty good so I'm sure there's a limit to this.  But swinging blades is probably going to teach you to not to do that very often.  I borrow a set of all-the-way cavity backs like Pings and I can't even tell where the hell I hit the ball on the clubface, I have to look at the clubface for a clue!  That doesn't seem like a good route to improvement if you aren't getting any proper feedback to know when you are missing it on the heel or toe or hitting it pure.

Great point Doug. I think the feedback you get from missing the sweetspot on blades will help you improve much more that the supposed correction factor of cavity backed irons. Anybody who thinks the ball will go further on a miss hit because there is less mass directly behind the ball at impact doesn't really understand what's going on. Cavity backed irons do one thing: they get the ball in the air for people who have low clubhead speed. I totally disagree with Ted's comment that 10 handicappers need to put away their blades in order to improve.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 06:52:55 PM by Pete Lavallee »
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2006, 07:11:32 PM »
Quote

Now once you miss the sweet spot by an inch a blade is twisting in your hands pretty good so I'm sure there's a limit to this.  But swinging blades is probably going to teach you to not to do that very often.  I borrow a set of all-the-way cavity backs like Pings and I can't even tell where the hell I hit the ball on the clubface, I have to look at the clubface for a clue!  That doesn't seem like a good route to improvement if you aren't getting any proper feedback to know when you are missing it on the heel or toe or hitting it pure.

Great point Doug. I think the feedback you get from missing the sweetspot on blades will help you improve much more that the supposed correction factor of cavity backed irons. Anybody who thinks the ball will go further on a miss hit because there is less mass directly behind the ball at impact doesn't really understand what's going on. Cavity backed irons do one thing: they get the ball in the air for people who have low clubhead speed. I totally disagree with Ted's comment that 10 handicappers need to put away their blades in order to improve.

Nothing wrong with different opinions. . .

-Ted

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Titleist Applies to Patent Reduced Distance Ball . . .
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2006, 04:32:29 PM »
...
I know a lot of 10 handis who play blades. They would hit a lot more greens with any number of more forgiving irons, and thus, "get better". ...
Do you have any empirical evidence that demonstrates this conclusion?


No.
Do you really think that I need any?

-Ted


Golf Digest did an article on this a few years back I saw a link to (I don't get the magazine)  They found that for off center but not way off center hits, the blades got slightly BETTER results than cavity back game improvement clubs.  They said the players they tested with all said the impact on misses felt much worse with the blades and their expectation was that the misses would be much worse, but it didn't turn out that way.  It was just one study, and it was with real golfers and not a machine so maybe it was done wrong or an abberation, and I remember being kind of skeptical when I read it.  But I think maybe we shouldn't just assume that small misses of say less than 1/2" will be helped more by cavity backs than blades without some evidence.

Now once you miss the sweet spot by an inch a blade is twisting in your hands pretty good so I'm sure there's a limit to this.  But swinging blades is probably going to teach you to not to do that very often.  I borrow a set of all-the-way cavity backs like Pings and I can't even tell where the hell I hit the ball on the clubface, I have to look at the clubface for a clue!  That doesn't seem like a good route to improvement if you aren't getting any proper feedback to know when you are missing it on the heel or toe or hitting it pure.
Thanks Doug,
I missed the replies to this thread when they happened. You provided evidence of the data that I suspected existed somewhere, and your opinion of "game improvement irons" coincides with mine.
Blades may actually be game improvement irons for those that play a lot and the so called "game improvement irons" are really game rescue irons for those that play seldom.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags: