Which shafts best suited for traditional lofted blades

[Spoon]

Just curious too see everyones thoughts. Which one and why?

Just gathering some data

[RIduffer]

I don't think the loft of the head makes the deciding factor. Worst case you are playing a longer iron. Play shafts that agree with yor swing and interact with the head design best.

Voted for Other, but as all your selections are steel I would opt for the Peening line....

[Eca]

Modus 3 (courtesy of Steve :))

I learnt proper ball striking with this shaft, I was a natural high ball hitter, now strong trajectory & real quality smooth & consistency shaft. Huge difference in my scoring since getting used to them. I was nearly blown to 10hcp last October lol.

[vincent]

Yea c, put modus 3 in there. That might go really well!

[daamartin]

I have started playing with a set of PRGR blades with the old Rifle 6.0 fitted (see sig) and forgot how good these shafts are!

Also have a soft spot for Peening Blues...

[MoreBeerBetterGolf]

I'm a little confused as to the goal.

Traditional high CG blades had traditional lofts to create a certain ball flight per iron.

As technology has improved and CG made lower to improve launch and forgiveness, lofts were made stronger to keep the same launch height and shape per iron, but with the added result of more distance for the average player.

If you're trying to so a traditional thing and let the designed CG and loft work as it was intended, I'd use a more traditional profile shaft.

If you're trying to adjust the original tendencies of the head to better suit modern day expectations, then I'd go with a more low kick/high launch distance shaft which will more or less swap places with the low CG/low lofted combos we see today. You've got high CG and high loft head with a low kick high launch shaft, rather than a low CG low loft head with a mid launch shaft.

[Spoon]

im going to put some monacos. if the monacos are anything like the DPs then they will launch

too high. i ideally would like peening flight with monaco feel. dont like the feel of peenings

. im trying to hit 2 birds with one stone. feel and flight or at best compromise and meet at the

middle.

[supo]

i remeber having a set of SP blue in my kyoei v muscles, they didnt really feel good. which were 48* pw.

they played really well. but .. i cudda used a softer feeling shaft .would have felt much more enjoyment from them

i think the monaccos would have made a great shaft in them. like they do in the tourtsages 905. which are the same loft maybe 1* stronger.

or NS 1150,, they go really well. bit high adn light for me but love the feel,

modus????

[coops1967]

Whatever shafts suit you.

Only difference is the old lofts will have a different number stamped on the sole.

Only difference, apart from forgiveness of better design of modern clubs - higher MOI.

The whole blades have a higher COG is a MYTH - that is, it is entirely wrong. Put a blade next to any SGI club of same loft, and there will be a very, very large difference in clubhead height - with the blade being shallower.

If you make centre contact on the face, blades are perfectly easy to 'get up in the air' - just off centre they are not as forgiving as cavity backs etc.

of course, why believe me... some random guy on the world wide webz denying a long held belief... that happens to be 98% utter b@llocks.

Perhaps you'll believe a club designer. Well known, and has desgined blades thru to SGI...

Thread here

http://golf wrx/forums/topic/704348-why-are-some-people-so-mad-at-the-new-jacked-lofts-on-irons/page__st__120

and i quote

"

Now this observation is completely untrue. Everyone assumes that the CG on a muscle back blade is higher than a cavity back because you have all that thickness of metal centered on the back of the head, vs the big cavity in the back of the GI head.

Not true at all because it is the iron head's HEIGHT that controls the CG location far more than another other design element. All clubheads have to be designed to end up a specific weight so they can all be built to a specific swingweight based on a specific length, shaft weight and grip weight.

Let's take a 5 iron, just for an example - it's the same with every iron. Most 5-irons, whether blade or cavity, are made to be around 253 grams in weight. So if you are making a blade 5 iron, you can't make the height of that head as tall because you have all that thickness of metal on the lower 2/3's of the back which is pushing the weight up and up to that 253g level. On the cavity back, because you have this big hole on the back of the head, to get to that same 253g headweight, the only way you can get enough metal in the head to do that is either 1) make the sole extremely wide, 2) make the entire head taller.

98% of all cavity backs are much taller in head height than musclebacks for this very reason of head weight. And from this, you would find if you really did measure the vertical CG position that it is actually LOWER on most blade muscleback iron heads than it is on most cavity back irons. I know it doesn't seem that way when you look at the weight on the back of the heads, but I can quite assure you after 26 yrs of being a clubhead designer that this is what happens because in irons, head height is so influential in terms of head weight.

Once in a blue moon you can see a GI or SGI iron that actually does have a lower CG than a blade. Not often though because to do this requires some very different design elements to be on the GI/SGI head - things like, 1) an extraordinarily wide sole, and many golfers have a limit for how wide of a sole they'll accept; 2) gobs of tungsten stuck down on the sole or lower back, and that adds some serious cost to the head - not to mention you have no idea how much tungsten is really on that head. Tear most irons apart that have a tungsten weight on the sole or lower back and you will find a few that are quite substantial in how much tungsten was put on the head - but you will find many that the tungsten is just a thin shell, is there more as a marketing thing, and does not comprise all that much weight to lower the CG.

Bottom line: 98% of the claims that say "we had to make the lofts lower to counteract the effect of the low CG" are bogus - the company is saying this to cover up the fact that the real reason they lowered the lofts was to sell more clubs on the basis of this model hits the ball farther.

"

NOTE :- my first clubs were Sam Snead Blue Ridge blades.. with old leather grips and matching persimmon woods. BUT ever since I've bought my own clubs they've always been cavity backs... just nit with a thick topline or large Ping like offset, as that freaks me out ;-). .... because i started on old style clubs.

Edited February 11, 2013 by coops1967

[Spoon]

Whatever shafts suit you.

Only difference is the old lofts will have a different number stamped on the sole.

Only difference, apart from forgiveness of better design of modern clubs - higher MOI.

The whole blades have a higher COG is a MYTH - that is, it is entirely wrong. Put a blade next to any SGI club of same loft, and there will be a very, very large difference in clubhead height - with the blade being shallower.

If you make centre contact on the face, blades are perfectly easy to 'get up in the air' - just off centre they are not as forgiving as cavity backs etc.

of course, why believe me... some random guy on the world wide webz denying a long held belief... that happens to be 98% utter b@llocks.

Perhaps you'll believe a club designer. Well known, and has desgined blades thru to SGI...

Thread here

http://golf wrx/forums/topic/704348-why-are-some-people-so-mad-at-the-new-jacked-lofts-on-irons/page__st__120

and i quote

"

Now this observation is completely untrue. Everyone assumes that the CG on a muscle back blade is higher than a cavity back because you have all that thickness of metal centered on the back of the head, vs the big cavity in the back of the GI head.

Not true at all because it is the iron head's HEIGHT that controls the CG location far more than another other design element. All clubheads have to be designed to end up a specific weight so they can all be built to a specific swingweight based on a specific length, shaft weight and grip weight.

Let's take a 5 iron, just for an example - it's the same with every iron. Most 5-irons, whether blade or cavity, are made to be around 253 grams in weight. So if you are making a blade 5 iron, you can't make the height of that head as tall because you have all that thickness of metal on the lower 2/3's of the back which is pushing the weight up and up to that 253g level. On the cavity back, because you have this big hole on the back of the head, to get to that same 253g headweight, the only way you can get enough metal in the head to do that is either 1) make the sole extremely wide, 2) make the entire head taller.

98% of all cavity backs are much taller in head height than musclebacks for this very reason of head weight. And from this, you would find if you really did measure the vertical CG position that it is actually LOWER on most blade muscleback iron heads than it is on most cavity back irons. I know it doesn't seem that way when you look at the weight on the back of the heads, but I can quite assure you after 26 yrs of being a clubhead designer that this is what happens because in irons, head height is so influential in terms of head weight.

Once in a blue moon you can see a GI or SGI iron that actually does have a lower CG than a blade. Not often though because to do this requires some very different design elements to be on the GI/SGI head - things like, 1) an extraordinarily wide sole, and many golfers have a limit for how wide of a sole they'll accept; 2) gobs of tungsten stuck down on the sole or lower back, and that adds some serious cost to the head - not to mention you have no idea how much tungsten is really on that head. Tear most irons apart that have a tungsten weight on the sole or lower back and you will find a few that are quite substantial in how much tungsten was put on the head - but you will find many that the tungsten is just a thin shell, is there more as a marketing thing, and does not comprise all that much weight to lower the CG.

Bottom line: 98% of the claims that say "we had to make the lofts lower to counteract the effect of the low CG" are bogus - the company is saying this to cover up the fact that the real reason they lowered the lofts was to sell more clubs on the basis of this model hits the ball farther.

"

NOTE :- my first clubs were Sam Snead Blue Ridge blades.. with old leather grips and matching persimmon woods. BUT ever since I've bought my own clubs they've always been cavity backs... just nit with a thick topline or large Ping like offset, as that freaks me out ;-). .... because i started on old style clubs.

this is one good read coops thanks for posting this. read this a few months back. mr wishon is the truth!

[supo]

hes not a real big fan of JDM irons tho

nooooooo sireeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[chiromikey]

hes not a real big fan of JDM irons tho

nooooooo sireeeeeeeeeeeeee.

yeah, his agenda gets a little transparent at times which, regardless of his reputation, tends to take away from his credibility. at least that's the way i see it...

[Blader-X]

Can anyone comment from personal experience on KBS vs. Shimadas in a blade iron?

[jaygolf]

Can anyone comment from personal experience on KBS vs. Shimadas in a blade iron?

I detest KBS, but I did enjoy shimada's. Shimada pro's are what I would call S300/X100 with a bit more kick and feel. Very nice

[jaygolf]

I've only ever owned blades so I can't compare. Personals were my first non blades and I lost those in a bet last week so that's it for those... But blade wise, a shaft fits you whether it's a blade or not...doesn't it?

Perhaps some people have a harder time getting the ball up...but in that case, maybe they shouldn't be playing blades in the first place. Dunno, your question is an interesting one that has me slightly confused.

What's your favorite shaft? Put those in.

[Blader-X]

I've only ever owned blades so I can't compare. Personals were my first non blades and I lost those in a bet last week so that's it for those... But blade wise, a shaft fits you whether it's a blade or not...doesn't it?

Perhaps some people have a harder time getting the ball up...but in that case, maybe they shouldn't be playing blades in the first place. Dunno, your question is an interesting one that has me slightly confused.

What's your favorite shaft? Put those in.

Yes a shaft fits, so maybe didn't phrase the question well enough. Just trying to gain some insight on Shimada. I'm very familiar with KBS and I do like them. But, I want to know how they compare along the lines of KBS.

[RIduffer]

I've only ever owned blades so I can't compare. Personals were my first non blades and I lost those in a bet last week so that's it for those... But blade wise, a shaft fits you whether it's a blade or not...doesn't it?

Perhaps some people have a harder time getting the ball up...but in that case, maybe they shouldn't be playing blades in the first place. Dunno, your question is an interesting one that has me slightly confused.

What's your favorite shaft? Put those in.

You lost your Epon Personals in a bet? You gonna have a chance to win them back?

[jaygolf]

You lost your Epon Personals in a bet? You gonna have a chance to win them back?

I hope not, who knows what I could lose trying to get them back. It was a drunk bet, my drunken pride got the best of me...and I am now covered in shame.

[jaygolf]

Yes a shaft fits, so maybe didn't phrase the question well enough. Just trying to gain some insight on Shimada. I'm very familiar with KBS and I do like them. But, I want to know how they compare along the lines of KBS.

KBS tour has a low kick point so it feels completely different to me. KBS would be similar to the new modus 130 I guess. Shimada pro's have a mid/high kick point.

KBS tour's traj is high, shimada pro mid/low.

Those are pretty much the only things I pay attention to spec wise along with the weight. For anything else you'd have to ask one of our loyal oracles. :)

[Ian-500]

I hope not, who knows what I could lose trying to get them back. It was a drunk bet, my drunken pride got the best of me...and I am now covered in shame.

That is some funny sh*t Jay :)

[RIduffer]

I hope not, who knows what I could lose trying to get them back. It was a drunk bet, my drunken pride got the best of me...and I am now covered in shame.

Need to get in a game with you and Free...

[jaygolf]

Need to get in a game with you and Free...

That would be nice. Just no betting more than a C note please.