The Real Reason Pros Play Blades

[Hamachi Style]

So... pretty much every 'justification or explanation' of the benefits of blade style irons I've seen/heard/read seems to refer back to the same old boiler plate: Workability.

 

No doubt workability is part of the equation, but I'm not convinced it's the whole story, or even the main reason.

In my personal experience with different styles of irons, the main difference I've noticed is this. Bigger, game improvement or super game improvement style irons do have a longer maximum distance. But to achieve that maximum distance, it must be hit properly (square, flush..) The 'forgiveness' people talk about is the distance on mishits. But those two numbers are always going to be different, depending on the nature and severity of the mishit. And I'd say that even minor mishits clearly do not go the maximum distance of those flush hits. This is a known fact for those of us who play game improvement irons.

 

This is true with all clubs of course, but during my testing of blades (I'm not good enough to game them, yet, but I have some old Nike VR's and Mizunos that are fun to practice with) blades have a more reliable total distance. In other words, when you catch one nice and square, it's not going to take off like a rocket.

 

 

So everyone says the reason pros play blades is workability, but I think it might be more distance control. When you factor in front to back as well as side to side in dispersion and accuracy assessments, it does seem like blades are more accurate. Otherwise, pros would play game improvement irons. Sure there would be a little bit of pride at stake, but if they were really better, and once someone was clearly using them to get a competitive advantage, the field would soon follow.

 

Thoughts?

[DiscipleofPenick]

I think there's a few reasons.

1. I think you are on to something. That's something that makes sense to your thoughts on the smaller clubhead. The sweet spot is larger on a larger clubhead, but that can just increase misses. Pros aren't missing the sweet spot as often as a 18, or even 5 handicap. In a smaller clubhead the sweet spot is larger RELATIVE to the size of the club head.

2. Even blades today are not true forgings the way we think about a blade when we see dad or grandpa's MacGregor or Spalding set in the back of the garage. These new clubs are all multi peice, hollow body, polymer filled, etc. Pick your innovation. They are incredibly easy to hit compared to what we think of as traditional.

Take Dead Aim

[DPattGolf]

Arguably the biggest reason to play blades (and why so many pros play them) is because the mass properties better encourage a more piercing ball flight. Those guys typically don't need any help getting enough launch and already spin the ball plenty. There is a reason that the "game improvement" club on tour is a compact CB or a "Tech CB" with minimal Tungsten in the heal and toe. Last thing most of those guys need is tons on mass low in the head

[braincramp]

48 minutes ago, Tsmithjr9 said:

I think there's a few reasons.

1. I think you are on to something. That's something that makes sense to your thoughts on the smaller clubhead. The sweet spot is larger on a larger clubhead, but that can just increase misses. Pros aren't missing the sweet spot as often as a 18, or even 5 handicap. In a smaller clubhead the sweet spot is larger RELATIVE to the size of the club head.

2. Even blades today are not true forgings the way we think about a blade when we see dad or grandpa's MacGregor or Spalding set in the back of the garage. These new clubs are all multi peice, hollow body, polymer filled, etc. Pick your innovation. They are incredibly easy to hit compared to what we think of as traditional.

Take Dead Aim
 

There are still a bunch of solid one piece forgings being made.

[Hamachi Style]

23 hours ago, Tsmithjr9 said:

1. I think you are on to something. That's something that makes sense to your thoughts on the smaller clubhead. The sweet spot is larger on a larger clubhead, but that can just increase misses. Pros aren't missing the sweet spot as often as a 18, or even 5 handicap. In a smaller clubhead the sweet spot is larger RELATIVE to the size of the club head.

That's a good point. I also think it's just the tech factors of game improvement irons.. the thin, springy faces. They do launch farther but only when you get maximum springiness. If the face is not so thin and easily movable, you take that variable out of the equation.

 

Just my two cents..

[Micah T]

Pro’s definitely don’t need that hot rocket that happens when you flush a players distance iron. But with their ball striking, would they be surprised by that distance, or would it just be a stock yardage for them? And there are plenty of pro’s that don’t play blades. Look at Titleist, who plays muscle-backs? Just Adam Scott. Who plays Ap2’s? Jordan Speith. Everyone else is in cb’s or something close, but I believe Kevin Na was quoted as saying he would never game blades, because even pro’s benefit from technology advancing club design. I think it’s mid-low handicap mortals like us that suffer from players distance “jumpers” that make us consider blades in order to be able to trust a close to max effort swing not going 20 yards farther than we expected.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, Micah T said:

And there are plenty of pro’s that don’t play blades.

True, and I think the reason for that is a better balance of workability, forgiveness, and distance.  Viktor plays the i210 and Harris the Blueprints.  Absolutely no doubt either can competently play either iron but they see some slight advantage a particular design has with their specific game.  @DPattGolf's comment about more piercing ball flight I cannot confirm but it makes sense. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Pros play what works for what they want to achieve with flight window. The #1 iron on tour for years was the titleist AP2.

[Hamachi Style]

All good points, but I'm not trying to draw distinction between very similar clubs, ie 'pure' blades vs 'modern blades vs 'tour' cavity backs.

 

More a blade style vs game improvement style.

[CRW]

3 hours ago, Micah T said:

Pro’s definitely don’t need that hot rocket that happens when you flush a players distance iron. But with their ball striking, would they be surprised by that distance, or would it just be a stock yardage for them? And there are plenty of pro’s that don’t play blades. Look at Titleist, who plays muscle-backs? Just Adam Scott. Who plays Ap2’s? Jordan Speith. Everyone else is in cb’s or something close, but I believe Kevin Na was quoted as saying he would never game blades, because even pro’s benefit from technology advancing club design. I think it’s mid-low handicap mortals like us that suffer from players distance “jumpers” that make us consider blades in order to be able to trust a close to max effort swing not going 20 yards farther than we expected.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

I’m sure the majority of Titleist tour staff use either AP2 or T100, but there are many using MB’s. This is just from the first few rows of their listed players. A few do have something like a T-MB or T-100 in one or two long iron spots. 
 

Scott - 680 MBs (older model)

JT - 620 MBs

Webb - 620 MBs

Wiesberger - Combo w/620 MBs

Byeong-Hun - 620 MBs

Homa- 620 MBs

Rafa - 620 MBs

Hoge - 620 CB/MB Combo

Hubbard - 620 MBs

Charley Hoffman - 714 MBs

Werenski- 620 MBs

This isn’t secret info, and most of it is easy to find. What you posted is either disingenuous or you didn’t bother to look.   

 

[Micah T]

I’m sure the majority of Titleist tour staff use either AP2 or T100, but there are many using MB’s. This is just from the first few rows of their listed players. A few do have something like a T-MB or T-100 in one or two long iron spots. 
 
Scott - 680 MBs (older model)
JT - 620 MBs
Webb - 620 MBs
Wiesberger - Combo w/620 MBs
Byeong-Hun - 620 MBs
Homa- 620 MBs
Rafa - 620 MBs
Hoge - 620 CB/MB Combo
Hubbard - 620 MBs
Charley Hoffman - 714 MBs
Werenski- 620 MBs
This isn’t secret info, and most of it is easy to find. What you posted is either disingenuous or you didn’t bother to look.   
 

I didn’t bother to look, and me missing JT is a huge omission, but the point is still the same. All pro’s do not play blades.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

Also lots of mixed bag arrangements.  Looking at the PING staff bags, some are a potpourri of different club designs - though pretty much follow the common recipe. 

[revkev]

It's not even close to the majority of pros that play blades.  In fact counting combo sets the majority of the top ball strikers do not play blades.  And whoever wrote it is correct, the irons that they play are not GI's or Player's Distance irons but they do go for some help.

 

Why wouldn't they?  If your livelihood depending upon it wouldn't you like that 6 iron that you caught a groove down to finish on the front of the green rather than in the trap?

They play what they play including the lofts to hit certain windows and carry distances that fit their particularly gapping concerns.  We would do well to learn from their equipment choices, not that we should do the same thing but rather that we should pick what fits those same criterea for us.

[GregGarner]

On 1/9/2021 at 1:37 PM, DPattGolf said:

Arguably the biggest reason to play blades (and why so many pros play them) is because the mass properties better encourage a more piercing ball flight. Those guys typically don't need any help getting enough launch and already spin the ball plenty. There is a reason that the "game improvement" club on tour is a compact CB or a "Tech CB" with minimal Tungsten in the heal and toe. Last thing most of those guys need is tons on mass low in the head

+1 on this. In my Titleist virtual ball fitting, he was getting frustrated trying to fit me and finally just said, "what irons do you play?" When I told him Ping i210s were my main gamers, he said, "OH! THAT HELPS SO MUCH. You're playing the wrong irons." Now, I am not going to put a lot of stock in the opinion of someone who's never actually seen my swing, but his rationale was pretty solid: Pings are "heavy" irons that do a great job getting the ball up and I should have been fit into something more like a Srixon or even a blade to get that 'piercing' flight. (I told him Mizunos were the fitters' runner-up suggestion and he said I would have been so much happier with them...)

Live and learn, I suppose. In any case, There are enough players who do play "players' cavity" irons and they're all guys that need some help getting the ball higher. Tiger, Rory, JT all have naturally high flights and don't need the help

[BNewton51]

On 1/9/2021 at 12:57 PM, Hamachi Style said:

So... pretty much every 'justification or explanation' of the benefits of blade style irons I've seen/heard/read seems to refer back to the same old boiler plate: Workability.

 

No doubt workability is part of the equation, but I'm not convinced it's the whole story, or even the main reason.

In my personal experience with different styles of irons, the main difference I've noticed is this. Bigger, game improvement or super game improvement style irons do have a longer maximum distance. But to achieve that maximum distance, it must be hit properly (square, flush..) The 'forgiveness' people talk about is the distance on mishits. But those two numbers are always going to be different, depending on the nature and severity of the mishit. And I'd say that even minor mishits clearly do not go the maximum distance of those flush hits. This is a known fact for those of us who play game improvement irons.

 

This is true with all clubs of course, but during my testing of blades (I'm not good enough to game them, yet, but I have some old Nike VR's and Mizunos that are fun to practice with) blades have a more reliable total distance. In other words, when you catch one nice and square, it's not going to take off like a rocket.

 

 

So everyone says the reason pros play blades is workability, but I think it might be more distance control. When you factor in front to back as well as side to side in dispersion and accuracy assessments, it does seem like blades are more accurate. Otherwise, pros would play game improvement irons. Sure there would be a little bit of pride at stake, but if they were really better, and once someone was clearly using them to get a competitive advantage, the field would soon follow.

 

Thoughts?

My opinion would boil down to two different reason. 

1.  With a bladed iron you have total control over the ball.  Meaning, you have control over the fade, draw, high, low and to a certain extent distance.  Overall, they provide your better ball strikers the reliability and consistency that MOST CB irons do not. 

2. If you have the ball striking ability, Blades provide you with consistency.  Much as the same in statement one, the main point to this category is reliability and consistency.  With almost all CB's the probability to hit fliers or "hot shots" exists a far greater clip than it does with any form of a blade. (The hollow back iron's don't count for blade imo)

While I can get on with a set of blades, I'm not the ball striker to be able to sport them full time.  Frankly, I don't practice enough to constitute going that route.  Your swing really needs to be dialed in so that you perform at your best when swinging those butter knives and frankly I'm not on enough to justify it.  However, I will say that there are a number of players irons out there (forged and cast alike) that will give you almost the same abilities to work the ball and get almost what you would out of a blade.  

Golf's hard... I guess I'd say I'm not a fan of making it harder!

Play well all!  

[BNewton51]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:35 PM, Hamachi Style said:

All good points, but I'm not trying to draw distinction between very similar clubs, ie 'pure' blades vs 'modern blades vs 'tour' cavity backs.

 

More a blade style vs game improvement style.

One point that does strike me in that discussion is that a LOT of pro's carry a GI or SUPER GI in their long iron.  Typically like a 3 iron or even a 4.  I believe Ricky F went with a 3 iron that was a GI and I believe Phil went with a 3 and a 4 in some cases I think I read.  So while the bulk of their sets are true players irons (some blades some just a forged players cb) they even see the benefit of the help you can get in those things.  If not, for the distance alone. 

[Hamachi Style]

5 hours ago, BNewton51 said:

One point that does strike me in that discussion is that a LOT of pro's carry a GI or SUPER GI in their long iron.  Typically like a 3 iron or even a 4.  I believe Ricky F went with a 3 iron that was a GI and I believe Phil went with a 3 and a 4 in some cases I think I read.  So while the bulk of their sets are true players irons (some blades some just a forged players cb) they even see the benefit of the help you can get in those things.  If not, for the distance alone. 

Yes, almost like a mini hybrid, or a crossover as Ping calls it.

 

I feel like this goes back to my original hypothesis however, that they are not afraid to play whatever works. All those game improvement technologies in the beefier three irons outweigh having more distance control. Just as people want the longest driver, not the driver that's going to have the most distance control. But once you get into the mid and short irons (scoring), distance control becomes increasingly important. Maybe 'The Real Reason Pros Play Blades' wasn't the most accurate title.. something more like 'The Real Reason Skilled Golfers With a Consistent Swing Play More Stable/ Less Springy Irons' (Not the catchiest thread title ). But the crux of my argument is that distance control is the number one reason. Other reasons like turf interaction, workability, form factor are probably not far behind.

 

Again, just one man's opinion. But interesting discussion!

[braincramp]

I think the real reason Pros play blades is because they can.

[RickyBobby_PR]

DJ had a 7w in the bag this past week. Pros play what fits their needs. 
 

Last year at the event he had a high lofted hybrid because the 19* hybrid went to far.

[txgolfjunkie]

I think sa big piece as to why some pros play true blades/muscle backs...

Most of these guys grew up (teen years) in the early 90s through early 2000s. What was around during that time? Either chunky CBs like 845s or Mizuno/Titleist butter knives. These guys matured their game with small footprint irons that featured thin top lines. Aside from a few exceptions, most of these guys need a thin top line, a thinner sole and workability because that's what they're accustomed to in their day. I think you see more blended sets these days than ever before because they're shrinking the size of some of these more forgiving cavity backs but you'll see the majority of guys with a muscle back 7/8i-PW. 

What's crazy is how different this is on the LPGA tour where the most popular iron is...a cavity back...Ping i210. 

[NRJyzr]

On 1/9/2021 at 11:57 AM, Hamachi Style said:

So... pretty much every 'justification or explanation' of the benefits of blade style irons I've seen/heard/read seems to refer back to the same old boiler plate: Workability.

 

No doubt workability is part of the equation, but I'm not convinced it's the whole story, or even the main reason.

In my personal experience with different styles of irons, the main difference I've noticed is this. Bigger, game improvement or super game improvement style irons do have a longer maximum distance. But to achieve that maximum distance, it must be hit properly (square, flush..) The 'forgiveness' people talk about is the distance on mishits. But those two numbers are always going to be different, depending on the nature and severity of the mishit. And I'd say that even minor mishits clearly do not go the maximum distance of those flush hits. This is a known fact for those of us who play game improvement irons.

 

This is true with all clubs of course, but during my testing of blades (I'm not good enough to game them, yet, but I have some old Nike VR's and Mizunos that are fun to practice with) blades have a more reliable total distance. In other words, when you catch one nice and square, it's not going to take off like a rocket.

 

 

So everyone says the reason pros play blades is workability, but I think it might be more distance control. When you factor in front to back as well as side to side in dispersion and accuracy assessments, it does seem like blades are more accurate. Otherwise, pros would play game improvement irons. Sure there would be a little bit of pride at stake, but if they were really better, and once someone was clearly using them to get a competitive advantage, the field would soon follow.

 

Thoughts?

It's not especially appreciated by some, but Terry Koehler's blog post quite a few years ago typifies what I think is a primary reason to use them.  He recounted robot testing of blades vs various CBs, which showed a considerably smaller dispersion area on good hits for blades than the area that resulted on similar contact with the CBs tested.

Personally speaking, it's something I found especially true for one of my sets of Ram Tour Grinds, in a session where I was trying to buy something else at 2nd Swing.  LOL

Ironically, I don't try working the ball all that often...

Edited January 12, 2021 by NRJyzr

[Middler]

Pros play blades or forged CB's for distance control and work-ability as the OP noted. However, they also play them for superior feel, not noted in this thread so far? They don't need more distance, higher launch/spin or much forgiveness.

[ZenGolfer]

On 1/9/2021 at 12:57 PM, Hamachi Style said:

So... pretty much every 'justification or explanation' of the benefits of blade style irons I've seen/heard/read seems to refer back to the same old boiler plate: Workability.

 

No doubt workability is part of the equation, but I'm not convinced it's the whole story, or even the main reason.

In my personal experience with different styles of irons, the main difference I've noticed is this. Bigger, game improvement or super game improvement style irons do have a longer maximum distance. But to achieve that maximum distance, it must be hit properly (square, flush..) The 'forgiveness' people talk about is the distance on mishits. But those two numbers are always going to be different, depending on the nature and severity of the mishit. And I'd say that even minor mishits clearly do not go the maximum distance of those flush hits. This is a known fact for those of us who play game improvement irons.

 

This is true with all clubs of course, but during my testing of blades (I'm not good enough to game them, yet, but I have some old Nike VR's and Mizunos that are fun to practice with) blades have a more reliable total distance. In other words, when you catch one nice and square, it's not going to take off like a rocket.

 

 

So everyone says the reason pros play blades is workability, but I think it might be more distance control. When you factor in front to back as well as side to side in dispersion and accuracy assessments, it does seem like blades are more accurate. Otherwise, pros would play game improvement irons. Sure there would be a little bit of pride at stake, but if they were really better, and once someone was clearly using them to get a competitive advantage, the field would soon follow.

 

Thoughts?

Id say its really more feel, distance control and consistency than it is workability.  With blades, the distance is more consistent and you instantly know whether you hit it solidly or not.

I go back and forth between blades and CBs and I find that when I practice and play enough to hit the blades well, they are a much more consistent club.  I still find with CBs that I sometimes will have a weird shot where I hit the ball way farther than I should.  Its actually something that I really struggled with when I tested the Tommy Armour Atomic irons and eventually caused me to turn away from them.

[Hamachi Style]

On 1/12/2021 at 3:27 PM, NRJyzr said:

It's not especially appreciated by some, but Terry Koehler's blog post quite a few years ago typifies what I think is a primary reason to use them.  He recounted robot testing of blades vs various CBs, which showed a considerably smaller dispersion area on good hits for blades than the area that resulted on similar contact with the CBs tested.

Personally speaking, it's something I found especially true for one of my sets of Ram Tour Grinds, in a session where I was trying to buy something else at 2nd Swing.  LOL

Ironically, I don't try working the ball all that often...

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Smaller dispersion area on good hits with blades. And I guess I just made the leap that 'good hit' equals 'straight', so then mostly looking at distance control.

[Skillet]

First MGS post:

Not a pro by any means here and its difficult to speak for them unless you here their opinion directly. I play between a 1 and 4 hdcp, currently a 1.7.

I have played blades or tiny cb's my whole life. Another poster eluded to the age of current pros and what was available to them growing up. I think there is absolutely something to that statement.

I am 35 now and started playing at 9 with a set of cut down northwestern blades and was upgraded to a set of ben hogan blades in my early teen years then to Cleveland ta-3's from 2000 to 2017. I have experimented with various irons since then with AP2's as the chunkiest of all of them and finally sticking with the MP18mb's. 

There is NO REPLACEMENT for learning to strike the ball well and the feedback a blade will give you when you don't. My dad taught me how to detect strike location on the club face with drills by predicting the flight path and carry distance w/o looking at the ball in the air.

For me, its a lot of things, not just distance dispersion. The feel off the face, how the sole gets through the turf, launch window consistency, top line look, minimal offset, weaker lofts, blade length, consistent gapping, and workability. All of these features deserve a topic of their own. 

I have hit GI and super GI irons and a 28* 200 yd 7i does me no good.

[Scottyrocket53]

How many LPGA players play blades? Most am men's swing speeds and distances will compare better to the pro woman's game. I don't know the answer but I bet it's almost none. Over the years I have tried playing with a Miura blade and then "players cavities" like AP2 etc. I found that a GI club like the regular Cally Apex is a good mix for me.

Back to the original topic, the PGA pros probably play blades to be able to hit irons in specific windows and spin control out of various lies. The limitation of my Apex clubs is flighting it down, they just want to go in the air. Also, I think "jumpers" happen as spin is taken off out of the rough or mishits on GI clubs. Mishits on GI clubs can feel flush but they aren't and then they go over the green and we think they have a hotspot. The pros want that feedback of the missed shot and don't need the help that most of us need.

[bens197]

I don’t think most truly understand how good Professional Golfers are at their craft. 
 

If you’ve ever played with a CC scratch golfer, we could all agree they’re good. 
 

Now, take that golfer and knock off 4-6 shots from that scratch handicap. 
 

Now, consider they’re playing courses with 13-14 stimp greens at 7,300 yards at their peak condition. 
 

Professionals play blades because they expect to hit the center of the face every single time. 

[ZenGolfer]

6 hours ago, bens197 said:

I don’t think most truly understand how good Professional Golfers are at their craft. 
 

If you’ve ever played with a CC scratch golfer, we could all agree they’re good. 
 

Now, take that golfer and knock off 4-6 shots from that scratch handicap. 
 

Now, consider they’re playing courses with 13-14 stimp greens at 7,300 yards at their peak condition. 
 

Professionals play blades because they expect to hit the center of the face every single time. 

No pro expects to hit the center of the face every time.  They all mishit it.  They play blades because the distances are more consistent and because they want to flight the ball down.

[Cbfodalo]

I buy and sell and constantly rotate equipment in and out of my bag.

I think the lines between players clubs and super game improvement are getting more blurred by mfgs making so many variations of same clubs.

For instance. 

Mizuno jpx-919

Tour is a a forged iron, minimal offset small head, designed for tour players. 

 

Forged, slightly larger head, a little more offset designed for low handicappers with pretty consistent ball striking. Still very workable club for both distance and shot shaping. (I play these irons)

 

Hot metal pro, now this is interesting. It is a cast head with all the tech of the hot metals gi irons, but head similar to forged and offset of tour.  So these are supposed to be just as forgiving as hot metals, but with smaller head and less offset will they be workable?

I will find out soon enough, as I just picked up a set to test. 

After reading through these posts, I find one theme that I am not necessarily buying. 

I do not believe the hotter face of gi irons are the reason behind the rocket shot that blasts 20-30 yards long, but rather a poor strike, yes you crushed it. But you did not hit it where you want it, you did not hit it correctly.  I think the reason better players do kot.play gi irons is because they are more dificult to shape your shot. The larger head, with more offset and chunkier soles make it more difficult to shape the shot the way you can with a forged iron. 

So I play the jpx-919 forged.  They are significantly smaller and have smaller sole and offset then the gi irons. 

I hit my 7i just about 165, with forged and 170 with hotmetals.  

I was playing a 160 yard up hill approach the other day, it was cold and I was tired.  My approach was supposed to be a mid High fade to front of green.  Well I absolutely crushed it, I hit what looked like a pure golf shot, nice and high,  too high to be honest right over pin, over green, over tee box behind. I hit the damn thing almost 200 yards.  So it was not a hot face or a club issue it was a swing issues.

 

With a good swing I can hit it high , low,  long or short, I can hit a fade and a draw. I can hit a line drive, or u can hit a balloon.  I can still do those things qith a gi iron, just not as reliable.  So 

[tbonedavid]

I think another reason (sorry if it's been said and I missed it) is that blades actually spin more that cavity backs. The CG gives lower launch but higher spin. Tiger is documented saying he likes his stock shot spinning high as its easier to take spin off than add more. I often think this is actually what is meant by workability, controlling launch characteristics rather than left/right curvature.

Of course you have the other reasons such as appearance (Ricky and the Rev33) and turf interaction from a thinner sole too.