[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GomerPile

Are they a true blade? Do you like them better then a comparable muscle back?

MBs are true blades. Bladed irons are a style of club that are usually one piece forged construction, featuring a a thin top line, little to no offset, small head/face, and an even smaller sweet spot.

Traditional blades featured a center of gravity that was in the middle of the club face, offering the highest degree of control but making them exceptionally difficult to hit for all but the most proficient players. There was not much mass to these clubs, and no offset, which made the player work the shot.

About 20ish years ago Acushnet brought out the CB series in their clubs, which were advertised as blades because they were forged CBs. They were the first "players" club - that step between the game improvement and the pro quality clubs. The CBs provided additional sole weight and shifted the center of gravity lower and toward the rear of the club, making them easier to get the ball up in the air, but still providing the same control with traditional blades. The traditional blades were renamed MBs and then redesigned to feature more weight to the rear of the club (the muscle back bulge) providing the similar effect of shifting center of gravity to help get the ball up in the air. All manufacturers have followed this trend, even the traditionalists like Hogan with the Apex butter knives.

More and more tour pros are using muscle backs compared to a true blade, I currently have a set of the Sub 70 Muscle Backs and quite enjoy them.

There aren't many traditional blades around any more. The last set of traditional blades I've come across are the Rickie Fowler KING RF Protos from Cobra. They are stunningly beautiful clubs. TINY heads with no offset and as little mass behind them as you can imagine. Still a slight MB engineered in, but tiny heads that made you work the ball. Because of the traditional size and no mass, off center hits went nowhere and gave tons of negative feedback. Even Hogan has shelved the traditional design and has gone to a larger head with more mass. This is the evolution of the bladed clubs and has been subtle over the years. I have a set of 1988ish Cleveland 588 blades, and a set of 2013 588MB blades, and the difference is quite subtle. Only when you place each next to each other do you see the extra size of the later design. They are both difficult to hit, but the 2013s are much easier.

Originally Posted by Rutuu

My gut tells me hitting blades is likely a function of swing speed as well. If you've got a lower swing speed you've gotta get the centre of gravity down and get the smash factor up.

And yeah I'd rather my snap hook or block shots land short.

This is mostly accurate. There is a reason why blades are referred to as "workable" clubs - you have to work your ass off to make them perform! Different clubs are designed for different players. Blades are definitely for your advanced players as off center hits receive no correction from the club and bleed distance quickly. This is a result of the lack of mass and the functions of the design. Just like with a five piece golf ball, to make a blade perform you need to have good clubhead speed and find the center of the face. The sweet spot on blades is smaller so you need a consistent swing.

An interesting term you just threw out there is smash factor. This stat is the ball speed divided by the clubhead speed at launch. Also referred to as efficiency factor, it determines how much energy you getting out of your swing and transferring into the ball. The higher the better. Swinging harder doesn't necessarily mean greater smash factor, but it does move the needle for clubhead speed. Still need to find center of the club face and drive through the ball to get the maximum smash factor. Important stat to track if you're focused on bombing it.