OK, I think it's MP-32 time

[Fuzzifus]

Well, I think it's time. I have been eyeing up the Mizuno line for a while, and finally went and hit the 32's today, and to say the least I am in love. Man the feel those things gave me was wonderful. What does everybody think of 'em. I think Wednesday is gonna be their birthday, as long as I can make it that long...........

[VtDivot]

They're the best cavity back iron out there

[Fuzzifus]

Oh the Humanity, i'n off to the shop to pick em up, I just can't wait for opinions, they are on the mind which means the will be in the bag, pics to com............

[VtDivot]

You'll find them a little different than your RAC HT that's for sure, most likely the ball flight

[Fuzzifus]

The Rac Ht's were a stray away from the norm for me. I played the Rac Mb's when they came out, so the Ht's were a huge step back, was just trying the other end of the spectrum I guess . The Ht's were much too fat, with too much offset, sending the ball much to high. I scored decently with them, but they seemed to have no workability, but they were cheap, I tried them and now I know.........

[Rockford35]

I've started to re-kindle my love for my 33's, so if your 32's are half as sweet, you'll love them forever.

Or until your first bad game.

R35

[Fuzzifus]

I do have a question though, with all the talk of blades vs. cavity backs, what do we consider the 32? I think blade when I look at 'em, but what is the opinion of our most distinguished commentators?

[Jeff Gallo]

I find they compare best with clubs like the macgregor V-foil blades.
a category that doesnt seem to ever become that popular (dont ask me why) I would call them game improvment musclebacks. I have the macgregors and its a truely unique experience, ball flight characteristics of tiny cavitybacks (think 990B), setup offset and general appearance of traditional blades, all combined with almost more forgiveness than i want to have. I say theyre the best thing going no matter what you call em.

[Jeff Gallo]

And hey BTW fuzzy, I see 15 clubs on that list

[Fuzzifus]

My putter has a 10 inch sahft so I keep it tucked down under the rest of the clubs so you only see 14. Actually, when it counts and I can only have 14 clubs I lose the 5 wood...........

[VtDivot]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gallo

I find they compare best with clubs like the macgregor V-foil blades.
a category that doesnt seem to ever become that popular (dont ask me why) I would call them game improvment musclebacks. I have the macgregors and its a truely unique experience, ball flight characteristics of tiny cavitybacks (think 990B), setup offset and general appearance of traditional blades, all combined with almost more forgiveness than i want to have. I say theyre the best thing going no matter what you call em.

Whoa... down boy!

I play the VFoil 1025M's and they are blades, no cavity in there, and very little offset, comparable to any other MB's I've hit. Maybe we aren't talking about the same clubs???

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gallo

I find they compare best with clubs like the macgregor V-foil blades.
a category that doesnt seem to ever become that popular (dont ask me why) I would call them game improvment musclebacks. I have the macgregors and its a truely unique experience, ball flight characteristics of tiny cavitybacks (think 990B), setup offset and general appearance of traditional blades, all combined with almost more forgiveness than i want to have. I say theyre the best thing going no matter what you call em.

Hey Jeff...

Glad to see you here...

Do you ever want to weigh in on non-golf topics? We are looking for quality contributors like yourself.

Come on back...you only have 37 posts but good ones.

b

[Jeff Gallo]

I never said that that they have a cavity i said they play like cavities. it wasnt a totally unfounded marketing ploy when they said that they have "70% more directed mass" than traditional blades. Thats tech-speak for plays more like a cavity, they have a higher launch and if you've played real musclebacks before they are much more forgiving than your typical musclebacks because they have more weight low im the head, below the golfball.

PS
yeah i've been meaning to start posting a whole lot more than i have and thanks for the complement

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by Fuzzifus

I do have a question though, with all the talk of blades vs. cavity backs, what do we consider the 32? I think blade when I look at 'em, but what is the opinion of our most distinguished commentators?

I posted this for Rockford the other day but it might be worth a look for you if you haven't already given in. They are a muscle back and are now joined by a new version which I guess is a cavity muscle back. I think they're both beautiful.

http://www.cutmuscle.com/

[VtDivot]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gallo

I never said that that they have a cavity i said they play like cavities. it wasnt a totally unfounded marketing ploy when they said that they have "70% more directed mass" than traditional blades. Thats tech-speak for plays more like a cavity, they have a higher launch and if you've played real musclebacks before they are much more forgiving than your typical musclebacks because they have more weight low im the head, below the golfball.

PS
yeah i've been meaning to start posting a whole lot more than i have and thanks for the complement

I agree with everything you have said