What does forgiving actually mean in golf clubs?

[phillarrow]

So, I know what it's 'supposed' to mean - that mishits and off-centre strikes are 'punished' less. But what does 'punished less' actually mean?

In my mind, a forgiving club is one that gives the best front to back dispersion when hit at various points across the face. If that is correct, there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that blades are actually more forgiving than cavity backs. I've seen and read a few things recently about the 'hot' shot from the centre of forgiving golf clubs going far longer than the typical shot. There's also lots of YouTube videos out there suggesting that dispersion is tighter with blades than with cavity backs. Mark Crossfield even did one where he played left handed (i.e. his strikes were more like an average handicapper) and had a tighter dispersion with the blades.

So, in what way are the cavity backs more forgiving if they have a greater front to back dispersion and the occasional hot shot when you find the middle?

I'm not asking what people's opinions of forgiveness are, but wondering if anyone knows what it is supposed to actually mean?

 

[Beezerk]

For me it means off centre hits don’t lose as much distance. I’ve never thought of it as helping with dispersion.

 

[Orikoru]

For me it means off centre hits don’t lose as much distance. I’ve never thought of it as helping with dispersion.

Yeah, this. More forgiving means you can hit the ball pretty much anywhere on the face and still goes a reasonable distance. As opposed to a blade where it may only go half as far.

Dispersion can apply with drivers I think - e.g. heel weighting being more forgiving for a slice. But it doesn't really apply in irons so much.

 

[Jimaroid]

Mis hit blades rarely go short, they tend to go about 25 yards too far and never exceed 12 inches off the ground in my experience. The only time they go short is if you don't strike the ball first.

Try playing with a 4 iron blade in mid winter and you'll soon learn what forgiveness is.

 

[sweaty sock]

Its a marketing term with no quantifiable units, no measuable effect and is there only to sell golf clubs.

People are simple, confirmation bias is strong, forgiveness is made up.

All hail, Pepsi Max! Just diet pepsi, but with a name that boys will buy!!

 

[phillarrow]

For me it means off centre hits don’t lose as much distance. I’ve never thought of it as helping with dispersion.

I didn't mean left to right dispersion (although this was also tighter in MC's test), I was referring to front to back dispersion. There's quite a lot of stuff out there that I've watched which suggests that blades have tighter front to back dispersion, i.e. they don't lose as much distance as cavity backs.

I started playing with blades and when I switched to cavity backs I found the game easier, but I don't know if that was a mental thing and/or coincided with a general improvement in my swing because I was practising like mad at the time. You'd need to play a few rounds with each to see if there is a real difference for each person, so I wondered if there is actually an accepted 'definition'?

If it is - as I thought it was - that blades are meant to lose more distance than cavity backs for off-centred strikes, how come so many YouTubers are suggesting the opposite?

 

[Orikoru]

I didn't mean left to right dispersion (although this was also tighter in MC's test), I was referring to front to back dispersion. There's quite a lot of stuff out there that I've watched which suggests that blades have tighter front to back dispersion, i.e. they don't lose as much distance as cavity backs.

I started playing with blades and when I switched to cavity backs I found the game easier, but I don't know if that was a mental thing and/or coincided with a general improvement in my swing because I was practising like mad at the time. You'd need to play a few rounds with each to see if there is a real difference for each person, so I wondered if there is actually an accepted 'definition'?

If it is - as I thought it was - that blades are meant to lose more distance than cavity backs for off-centred strikes, how come so many YouTubers are suggesting the opposite?

Surely that's only if you strike them well in the first place?? Not if you're hitting out of the toe, heel, etc?

Even a lot of pros are not playing true blades anymore.

 

[phillarrow]

Its a marketing term with no quantifiable units, no measuable effect and is there only to sell golf clubs.

People are simple, confirmation bias is strong, forgiveness is made up.

All hail, Pepsi Max! Just diet pepsi, but with a name that boys will buy!!

This is why I am asking. If what you're saying is true, then it would appear that the only real 'benefit' of forgiving clubs is that they are stronger lofter and go further? Personally, I don't care if my 7 iron goes 140 yards, 150 yards or 160 yards, what I want it to do is go the same yardage each time (total mishits apart of course!). The videos I've seen would suggest that what I want is a blade...but ALL of the other marketing info suggests the opposites. Even people like MC, who have made videos dispelling the myths around cavity backs, still do talk about forgiving clubs.
None of it makes any sense to me!

 

[phillarrow]

Surely that's only if you strike them well in the first place?? Not if you're hitting out of the toe, heel, etc?

Even a lot of pros are not playing true blades anymore.

That's what I thought, until I watched MC's video where he played left handed. That seemed to 'prove' that it's all nonsense?!?!

 

[Wabinez]

I would say forgiveness would be the MOI (resistance to twisting), to try and keep the club face pointing where it was delivered (not necessarily straight!) when coming into impact with the ball.

it is measurable in some way

 

[RichA]

Its a marketing term with no quantifiable units, no measuable effect and is there only to sell golf clubs.

People are simple, confirmation bias is strong, forgiveness is made up.

All hail, Pepsi Max! Just diet pepsi, but with a name that boys will buy!!

I've got a set of Ping G425 irons and a half set of Mizuno Pro blades from the 80s.
On a good day the results are similar. On a bad day, the difference between them is measurable and significant. For me that is forgiveness.

 

[sweaty sock]

This is why I am asking. If what you're saying is true, then it would appear that the only real 'benefit' of forgiving clubs is that they are stronger lofter and go further? Personally, I don't care if my 7 iron goes 140 yards, 150 yards or 160 yards, what I want it to do is go the same yardage each time (total mishits apart of course!). The videos I've seen would suggest that what I want is a blade...but ALL of the other marketing info suggests the opposites. Even people like MC, who have made videos dispelling the myths around cavity backs, still do talk about forgiving clubs.
None of it makes any sense to me!

If your really interested, have a look at Roger Maltby's writings on his "playability factor". Its alot more susceptible to actual c of g location than it is to strike location....

And all his designs score very highly... obviously.... #marketing.

I will take all this back when a manufacturer proves (or even claims) a measurable difference in dispersion.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I've got a set of Ping G425 irons and a half set of Mizuno Pro blades from the 80s.
On a good day the results are similar. On a bad day, the difference between them is measurable and significant. For me that is forgiveness.

I also have G25's, previously tried some Mizuno blades from a similar era to yours that my BiL tried and failed with. I used them for about 4 rounds and then gave them back. If you catch the sweet spot, size of a small postage stamp, not the Christmas specials , then they were lovely. Anywhere but that sweet spot and the distance lost was noticeable. The G25's allow a more 'interesting' shot face allowance without losing too much distance.


Post #2 pretty much has it.

 

[Backsticks]

Yes, sweaty sock has it. It a meaningless term, unquantifiable, unprovable, and undisprovable. It only serves a purpose in the poetry of marketing, conveying a vague idea that you will play better. It is in the same realm as conveying the idea by association that, well, Jon Rahm plays them, so if you buy them, you might play as well as him.

 

[Foxholer]

This is why I am asking. If what you're saying is true, then it would appear that the only real 'benefit' of forgiving clubs is that they are stronger lofter and go further? ...
None of it makes any sense to me!

The bold bit is simply twaddle - and illogical. The implication would be that to make a club more forgiving, simply make the loft stronger - demonstrably false!
What might actually be happening is that, because a club design makes it more forgiving, the loft can be strengthened to increase the distance of a typical batch of strikes.

 

[RichA]

I didn't mean left to right dispersion (although this was also tighter in MC's test), I was referring to front to back dispersion. There's quite a lot of stuff out there that I've watched which suggests that blades have tighter front to back dispersion, i.e. they don't lose as much distance as cavity backs.

I started playing with blades and when I switched to cavity backs I found the game easier, but I don't know if that was a mental thing and/or coincided with a general improvement in my swing because I was practising like mad at the time. You'd need to play a few rounds with each to see if there is a real difference for each person, so I wondered if there is actually an accepted 'definition'?

If it is - as I thought it was - that blades are meant to lose more distance than cavity backs for off-centred strikes, how come so many YouTubers are suggesting the opposite?

The problem with YouTube material like you're describing, as I see it, is that a full time golf Pro can't emulate an average mid-handicap golfer's bad shots.

My experience tells me that flushed off the fairway, my 4i Mizuno blade and flushed 5i Ping will both end up around 200 yards away.
A badly hit Mizuno blade is going a little over 100 yards and probably way off to the right.
The badly hit Ping will usually get up wards of 150 yards and be less wayward.
I regularly hit good bad ones with the Pings that end up where I was aiming. Quite often, I'm the only one who knows the truth. Bad ones with the blades tend to stay bad.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I think there is something to be said for how GI clubs are much easier to launch than blades. That's certainly my feeling, don't know if it's real or just between the ears. Whatever the reason for it though, I think they go further and higher, which is a significant advantage, and for me part of what I would badge as "forgiveness", at least in terms of reducing the number of really bad shots I play.

I'd say that the confidence that the easier launching brings, in combination with the other factors listed above, is what makes them easier to use, with more consistent results (and therefore more forgiving).

 

[phillarrow]

The bold bit is simply twaddle - and illogical. The implication would be that to make a club more forgiving, simply make the loft stronger - demonstrably false!
What might actually be happening is that, because a club design makes it more forgiving, the loft can be strengthened to increase the distance of a typical batch of strikes.

No, you've misunderstood my post.

I'm not suggesting that stronger lofts = more forgiveness. I am saying that because forgiving irons are stronger lofted than traditional sets, the marketing side of golf has used the extra distance from the stronger lofts to sell clubs. They have moved mass so that a seven iron still flies like a seven iron, even though it is the loft of a six iron. This makes the consumer happy because they can now hit their seven iron as far as they used to hit their six iron. The psychology of people is such that they will feel more confident because it has a number 7 on the bottom, even when they know it's the same loft as their old six! But, is this actually a more forgiving club, or just one that is different from how clubs used to be?

 

[phillarrow]

The problem with YouTube material like you're describing, as I see it, is that a full time golf Pro can't emulate an average mid-handicap golfer's bad shots.

My experience tells me that flushed off the fairway, my 4i Mizuno blade and flushed 5i Ping will both end up around 200 yards away.
A badly hit Mizuno blade is going a little over 100 yards and probably way off to the right.
The badly hit Ping will usually get up wards of 150 yards and be less wayward.
I regularly hit good bad ones with the Pings that end up where I was aiming. Quite often, I'm the only one who knows the truth. Bad ones with the blades tend to stay bad.

I agree with you...or at least I did until I watched them in depth and, for example, MC played left handed. Clearly, playing wrong handed he is not going to be hitting the centre as often as playing right handed, but he still found the same thing??

 

[phillarrow]

I can't find the left handed one right now, but here's another one of his. Go to 8mins 30secs if you want to just see the results. I'm genuinely interested in the 'truth' here. Are they actually more forgiving or have we all bought into the marketing and using (as someone else suggested earlier) confirmation bias to believe something that's just not true?