Thanks for the comments and the support. The TS-1 and TS-2 irons are really good.
It is fascinating to me, with all the resources the OEM’s have from a design and engineering standpoint, that some of the clubs they produce for most of their tour staff players are usually the least playable of their models with regards to the MPF. You might say, well of course, tour players want blades and those are going to be less playable. The problem(s) with that is that not all tour players want blades (obviously) and more importantly, blades do not have to be less playable. One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that many designers put the category of a “blade” or “players profile” in this box that says the blade has to be short, the hosel has to be long, the sole has to be narrow, etc. Those are characteristics that quite simply should have been moth balled a long time ago. With what we know now, why a person would design a club (or a player play a club) that if you mishit it ever so slightly the performance would suffer significantly, is something I can’t understand. Simple, timeless concepts of design that Ralph Maltby developed years ago and that we still adhere to, still hold true. Blade, cavity back, hollow, whatever the design, the true “Playability” comes down to the mass and dimensional characteristics of the clubhead. I have said this many times before, the ball does not know whether it was struck by a cavity back, a muscle back, a hollow iron, etc. It only knows it was struck with a mass that has a cg whose location is determined by its own mass and dimensional characteristics. If it is done well, the playability goes up. If it is not, it is not as playable. Understand, those guys on all tours are really good and can play anything. That being said, they miss hit shots just like the rest of us. You would think they would want the most stable club possible so when they did mishit it slightly, the results could still be acceptable.
I just finished the preliminary measurements of 25 new models for 2019. Those companies that have “players” models all are still in the Conventional or Classic categories, mainly because of the blade length. Cobra’s King Forged MB and CB are both in the Classic category, Callaway Apex Pro and Apex Pro Forged are both in the Conventional category. The Taylor Made P760 is in the Conventional category. Srixon Z Forged in the Classic category, the Z585 and Z785 in the Conventional category. So, to answer your question, I don’t see anyone of the Major companies with tour representation making players category clubs with Game Improvement are higher playability. I should have all the MPF’s for 2019 clubs posted within the next few weeks
There are models these companies are making that are Game Improvement and higher, but of course they are not characterized as “players” models. So, they do have a level of understanding of what makes clubs more playable. It is a misconception that you cannot design a players club that is also Game Improvement.
You can go to the list by manufacture and find a few clubs with the “Pro” tag to a model that do make the GI or SGI, UGI catagories. However, you would not consider any of these “blades”. I would call them Players cavity backs. Examples are 2018 Callaway Rogue Pro (GI), 2017 Steelhead XR Pro (UGI), Callway Epic Pro (GI), 2018 Titleist T-MB GI, AP3 (GI), 2014 Ping S55 (GI), 2015 Ping I E1 (GI), 2016 TaylorMade M2 Tour (GI). May be more, but that was my quick look list.
Sorry for the long post. Hope I answered your question.