Connect with us

Equipment

Justin Rose tweets out TaylorMade “Rose Proto” irons

Published

on

On July 4th, while America was celebrating its Independence Day, Justin Rose dropped a firework of a Tweet; a photo of his new, shiny TaylorMade “Rose Proto” irons. They appear to have a similar construction to Rory McIlroy’s “Rors Proto” irons he put in the bag in 2017, although Rose’s have a different finish — chrome versus Rory’s satin.

With two seemingly similar sets of forged blade irons from TaylorMade, that certainly makes us wonder if the company is considering a public release of the irons. Here’s what a TaylorMade representative had to say about the “Rose Proto” irons.

“These are proto forged irons that we milled for Justin here in Carlsbad following Rory putting a set of his Rors Proto irons into play at The Players. We’ll continue to source feedback from the athletes before we make a decision on a potential market introduction.”

For comparison: Rose Proto (left) vs. Rory Proto

RoseRorsProto

Of course, GolfWRX members were quick to comment on the Rose Proto irons. Below is a collection of the notable takes on the matter.

  • thedurtydurden: Dare I say these look better than Rory’s satin heads.
  • noodle3872: I’m liking the chrome better. I guess I fall into the “blades should be chromed” camp.
  • JJBonyai: Looks like P730 on the hosel?
  • bladehunter: These look great! TM doing a nice job for sure.. only thing i could say as well is thats a wonky Font for the numbers.. BUT it wouldn’t stop me from hitting them!
  • Z1ggy16: I wonder if the retail version will be offered in the satin or chrome finish, and just say PROTO on them, or whatever TM officially names it.

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the Rose Proto irons

Your Reaction?
  • 131
  • LEGIT15
  • WOW15
  • LOL6
  • IDHT5
  • FLOP5
  • OB3
  • SHANK19

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.

19 Comments

19 Comments

  1. Mark Walgren

    Jul 17, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    gross

  2. Speedy

    Jul 9, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Nothings too original with the blades these days. The heads are made a little bigger, that’s all.

  3. Mike

    Jul 8, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    I could be mistaken but don’t these look a little like the Cobra blades from the 80’s They were thicker on the topline but same idea

  4. Matt

    Jul 7, 2017 at 9:08 pm

    Irons schmions, stuff all difference between anything made after 2000 or thereabouts. So long as they’re fit correctly, not worn out and make you feel good.

  5. Jacked_Loft

    Jul 7, 2017 at 8:52 am

    Only logical that TM needs to follow up on the discontinued 2014 MBs.

    I’d love to make a combo set with my P770s.

  6. Tom Duckworth

    Jul 6, 2017 at 7:28 pm

    They are some very pretty blades.
    We are going to see every manufacturer coming out with some “high end” special irons
    that will cost twice as much as their other products. I hope they are a giant flop as it would just make them bolder feeling they could creep up prices on their other products. Don’t think for one second they won’t if they feel like they can get away with it. I don’t have a problem with a company trying to make an honest buck but these luxury high end products tend to trickle down and raise prices across the line. If they can sell a $2000,00 set of irons why not just bump that $1000.00 set up to $1200.00

  7. rex235

    Jul 6, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    Its 2017-
    Another RH Only Prototype from TaylorMade.

    • setter02

      Jul 7, 2017 at 8:10 am

      The blade market is already tiny, add in that the lefty population is like 10% of the total golfers out there (like 50% in Quebec). The market for these is so tiny its not even close to worth it, not sure why the constant complaining.

      • rex235

        Jul 7, 2017 at 11:07 pm

        Because it is 2017.

        Anyway, don’t these TaylorMade Proto Blades look a lot like Mizuno MS-9s? RH Only.

  8. i bogey alot

    Jul 6, 2017 at 10:18 am

    so JR had to feel special too and tweet out “prototype” that are just like Rory clubs haha

  9. golfraven

    Jul 6, 2017 at 10:09 am

    TM is very generous with their Protos at this moment. Seems like the new management is taking things in their own hands. Treat your cattle well and then you can milk them.

  10. Za

    Jul 6, 2017 at 2:15 am

    Yeah, a nice turd color will you do great

  11. Gorden

    Jul 5, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Before going off the wall on these irons remember these were hand milled for one person.. unless you are on the payroll for Taylormade best you will ever see is an overpriced copy of these irons…

  12. Traj

    Jul 5, 2017 at 10:32 pm

    We’ll make one for you in turd

  13. Prime21

    Jul 5, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    It’s the replacement for the MB & will launch this summer.

  14. Ben Jones

    Jul 5, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    So what.

  15. golfbum

    Jul 5, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    TAYLORMADE…here is a sales and marketing tip for you.

    Create a web page that I can order personalized irons: GOLFBUM PROTO irons sound pretty good.

    • golfraven

      Jul 6, 2017 at 10:12 am

      That would be an easy one and they could close the gap between the “Japanese” premium brands and likes of PXG.

  16. jgpl001

    Jul 5, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Wow, these are gorgeous

    Yes, please TM – when, when, when?????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 30
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK5

Continue Reading

pga tour

Sergio Garcia WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Callaway Rogue Sub Zero (9 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi KuroKage Dual Core 70TX

3 Wood: Callaway Rogue 3+ (13.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi KuroKage XT 80TX

5 Wood: Callaway Rogue Sub Zero (18 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi KuroKage XT 80TX

Irons: Callaway Apex Pro 16 (3, 4), Callaway Apex MB 18 (5-9 iron)
Shafts: Nippon Modus Tour 130x

Wedges: Callaway Mack Daddy 4 (48-10S, 54-10S, 58-08C)
Shafts: Nippon Modus Tour 130x

Putter: Odyssey Toulon Azalea
Grip: Super Stroke 1.0 SGP

Golf Ball: Callaway Chrome Soft

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Garcia’s clubs.

Your Reaction?
  • 43
  • LEGIT5
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

pga tour

Gary Woodland WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/19/2018).

Driver: TaylorMade M3 440 (9 degrees)
Shaft: Acra Tour-Z RPG

Fairway Woods: TaylorMade M2 2017 (15 degrees)
Shafts: Accra Tour-Zx 4100

Driving Iron: Titleist 716 T-MB (2)
Shaft: KBS Tour C-Taper 130 X

Irons: Titleist 716 MB (4-9)
Shafts: KBS Tour C-Taper Limited Edition Black PVD 130 X

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (48-10F, 52-08F, 56-10S), Callaway Mack Daddy PM Grind (60-10)
Shafts: KBS Tour C-Taper Limited X (48), KBS Hi-Rev Black PVD S-Flex (52, 56, 60)

Putter: Scotty Cameron Circle T 009
Grip: Scotty Cameron Pistol

Golf Ball: Bridgestone Tour B X

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Woodland’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending