View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2006, 07:37 PM
LowPost42's Avatar
My location
LowPost42 LowPost42 is offline
GTO Moderator
is a major contributor here at GTO, and is a valued member...
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,771
LowPost42 Has an unbeatable reputationLowPost42 Has an unbeatable reputation
Send a message via Yahoo to LowPost42
Re: Blades vs Cavity Backs

Well spoken, GoNavy. Sorry - I missed Gord's post near the top where he mentioned harder to work.

For both you fellas, you both make great points.

To re-word my position:

For cavs you have to make more noticable changes to your setup to work the ball, as opposed to blades or MB's, where the change isn't quite as extreme.

So I'll concede that from a 'change your setup' point of view, blades are easier to work.

However, it seems to me that if your method is to line up your feet away from target and your clubface towards it, then swing down your body line (a popular method); then the only thing that would change from blades to cavs is just how far you aimed yourself away from the target. What I fail to understand is how that's harder in all but the most extreme cases. In other words, where are you going to have to draw or fade the ball so hard that your ability to execute the shot is diminished by the equipment?

Now, as for offset and thick top lines: I have no arguement. Some of the prettiest clubs I've ever laid eyes on were some old-school Spalding Lynx. These tiny little heads with little pointy toes and a super thin top line.

Real GI clubs are tough to look at, for me. The Innovex clubs in my backup bag are great sticks, just tough to fall in love with, visually.
__________________
True Length Technology Fitter - www.truelengthtechnology.com
It's live! - www.ShipShapeClubs.com
PCS Class 'A' Clubfitter

A new highlight: Golfing the home course on Christmas Day.

I say it too often: If it's golf club shaped, you can play with it.

For the record, I'm a club doctor, not a swing doctor.
Reply With Quote