My last three sets
 

My first real set of golf clubs were Ping i3's. I loved them. Then I tried Baggers' MP14's and thought I might like a set for myself. So I bought a set of MP29's. When I went back to try the Pings for fun, couldn't stand the lack of feedback - so those got sold.

I had the MP29's in my bag for about a year and really liked them. A couple of months ago I hit some Titlest 704's on the range and liked them so much I bought a set. I sold the MP29's.

I've found the 704's to be a good mixture of feel and forgivability. I can work the ball just as easily as with the MP29's, yet they are more forgiving on mishits.

Btw, MP29's are really muscle-back forged irons, not really true blades.

Is it easier to 'drag' or feel the sweetspot with blades? I have Cleveland TA7s, about as forgiving as they come. Do people use blades out of ego, or does one achieve better ballstriking with a well struck shot from blades?

I agree with this. I play the original Snake Eyes Smith and Wesson blades which were designed as a game improvement blade. They were selling at about $1200 in the US and over £1000 in the UK. When Snake Eyes went bust I waited a bit a located the UK distributor and bought two sets at £200 each . I don't have any problems hitting them and don't hit game improvement long irons better. I find the real benefit with blades is in the short game . Game improvement clubs such as bulky Callaways just seem like clumsy implements when chipping and the blades feel like precision instruments around the green. Matched progressive sets with long irons with game improvement features and short iron blades makes a lot of sense to me.

What i find a little humorous about those who commented about themselves playing blades and now hue's comment about the bulky callaway's is that if, in a perfect world, there were not endorsement contracts on tour A LOT of players would be using those weird looking Ping Eye 2s :wink:

What do you think the odds are that so many tour players who, as earlier stated, play cavity back/game improvement-type clubs do so because of sponsorship. I would assume that these are the style of club most marketable to the ever-growing population of new golf enthusiasts and that OEM's might 'sweeten the pot' for tour players to use these over what they might actually prefer.

Back to the topic at hand...I play an old ('79) set of Wilson forged muscle backs and I will take them with me when I leave this world. Have played Eye2's and Titleist 962b's in the past. I liked both these sets, but now cannot stand to look at anything offset and large. To me, lots of these new clubs belong in a gardener's tool shed.

Because of reasons listed above, I have not tried going back to cavity-back irons. However, I do know that in the time I have played my 'blades', my game has improved immensely. Reason? I think it is the fact that blades reveal more symptoms of my less-than-perfect swing. This has pushed me to be more of a student of the game, to work harder and more productively to improve.

Conclusion: The clubs you play should depend on long term goals. If you are just looking for what will help you improve NOW, cavity backs probably are the ticket. For long-term improvement from a committed golfer, go with the blades.

Sorry for the length of this, but it will probably fall on deaf eyes because the thread is a bit old. Just wanted a little rant in my first post on the A1 golf forum.

I would not like to sacrifice the feel of compressing the ball with a good blade even if it it shaved off two strokes.

Another funky reason is this:

A bad hit with a forgiving clubhead will send the ball FURTHER into the forest 8)

GSED Chuck Evans stated that the only true game improvement clubs are blades. I am not sure what the other two resident GSEDs say about this.

I recently switched from Tommy Armour 845s to Mizuno MP 32
 

For the record, I have a HCP of 6.5 with a varying ball striking quality. It's the short game that regularly gets me under 80.

The MP 32s are not quite a blade but they do have a lower Maltby Playability factor then severeal of the Mizuno blades.

I've played the original 845s since 1990 so they have worked pretty well. But there were three things I didn't like about them. 1) Progressive offset. IMO, offset is just a disturbing factor at address. 2) Lie angle - too upright and 3) A slightly balooning tencency when I hit steeply down on the ball. The combination of fade and distance control was also very difficult to obtain. Also, hitting low punches was risky business unless I used a very easy stroke. A fourth moment that eventually developed, was a sense that the feedback was better than the result on certain shots.

The MP 32's have stiffer and heavier shafts, which probably accounts for several differences. There's probably a difference in center of gravity height as well. I bought them because of very good reviews - they looked slightly more forgiving than pure blades - and because Mizuno have a lie angle that suits me much better than for instance Titleist.

I haven't noticed any more penalty on off-center hits than before. But the feedback is corresponding better to the actual result than it used to be. At address, they look much better - so it's easier for me to do a good swing with these clubs. And fades and punches works much better. I've punched shots under trees with 6 iron that I previously would be anxious to do with a 3 iron. Also I can - and should - hit down more aggressively with these clubs - something I often was penalized for with the TA's

Only negative thing sofar - I haven't quite adjusted to chipping with the pitching wedge yeat. Whether it is due to stiffer shaft/heavier club or higher center of gravity I don't know, but I am struggling a bit with a low and hot trajectory on those little shots.

All in all I am very very very happy with the new clubs.

I believe he is right. The forgiveness of forgiving clubs are IMO overrated. They may have a forgiving feeling, but the result often tells another story. Better then with clubs that tell the truth.

I believe tip stiff shafts are very game improving. Better stability combined with a more harsh feeling on off center impact. I recently built a 3 wood with a Harrison Ti shaft (Titanium reinforced - especially in the tip) What I can do with this club from the rough is amazing compared to my previous experience. It seems to cut through the grass like a knife. And when I hit it in the "hard" spot I really get a sting in the hands. But the result is probably better than it would be with a more "forgiving" shaft installed.

I rather missed this topic somehow. But here is a good story about relative feel. Picture this, a master craftsman talking to a pro about feel in the workshop.

Pro, " Heck you cannot feel a graphite shafts feedback"
Clubbie, "Here Jed, stick your hand on the vice there"
Pro being a ball crusher duely puts hand on the vise and Clubbie slaps it with his hand.
Pro "Hey that was not very nice"
Clubbie "stick your hand back back on the vice"
Pro not being very smart puts his hand back there.
Clubbie picks up hammer.....
Pro "Hey I may look stupid but..."

The point here is that the feedback was just going to be very different.

The same can be said for blades vs cavity backs vs vibration dampening devises built into clubheads. If you want more feel then you want a head design that will vibrate more, muscle backs.

As training tools a muscle back will take no prisonsers but the are probably not most players PLAYING tool of choise.

I noticed the Snake Eyes and Mizuno's mentioned above. They are as most blades not that forgiving. Maltby's came out with a heel and toe weighted blade that made them play like a cavity back....now Ping have followed the design idea into the G2 as an extreme. Point here is that a blade is not just a blade. Its how it is designed that counts COG wise that makes them possible for anyone to play with with a bit of thought.

Training wise use a hard task master, a muscle back. For the money end of things give yourself any break you can muster.