Blade length is not the only dimension that might indicate a model is a “mid-size” and honestly I’m not sure why we used that term to describe the Sti2. It’s the proper size for the design and what we wanted to accomplish with regards to playability. What you see with our blade lengths is a consistency of dimension to create very stable design. The term mid-size is probably only relatable to other models on the market that do not have blade lengths to the same dimensions. I really don’t consider any of the models you listed as mid size. Let’s be clear, there are specific dimensions that help create stable and highly playable clubs. We know what those dimensions are. When you deviate from the base dimensions, like making blades shorter, or soles narrower or toe heights higher or hosel’s longer, it effects cg location and ultimately how the design will perform.
Finally, and I comment on this all the time. The workability or lack there of of a golf club has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is a mid size, compact, cavity back or muscle back etc. etc. If we assume a center hit on the face, the only thing that effects the “workability” is the club head path and face angle at impact. If you have a low playability design, or less forgiving design, or less stable design and you hit the ball off center, it will move more, but not go as far. If you have a higher playability, more stable, more forgiving design and you hit it off center, the ball will not move as much and go more the intended distance. That is the only scenario where a more forgiving iron will not move the ball as much, which is a good thing.
Britt Lindsey