Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

TM Burner Irons -- 1.0 VS 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 PKMillerJr

PKMillerJr

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20032
  • Joined: 09/29/2006
  • Location:PA
GolfWRX Likes : 21

Posted 01 January 2011 - 09:15 PM

Need a little help guys.

Thinking of buying some TM Burner irons.  Prefer the 1.0 appearance but do not want to lose out if the 2.0 version is really superior.  Prefer the chrome finish of the 1.0 to the black of the 2.0.  Any major difference in the playability?  Also, any way to get the offset removed in the irons?  I really hate offset.  Please chime in.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

1

#2 parpar41

parpar41

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21432
  • Joined: 11/06/2006
  • Location:Montreal, QC
GolfWRX Likes : 33

Posted 01 January 2011 - 11:17 PM

Bump - I would also like to know the answer.  

Seems the differences are merely cosmetic?  

( Although I think the black looks a little better than the chrome)

2

#3 gdb99

gdb99

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 12032
  • Joined: 02/15/2006
  • Location:Kensington, CT.
  • Handicap:5.4
  • Ebay ID:burrdie99
GolfWRX Likes : 98

Posted 01 January 2011 - 11:37 PM

You are much better off finding another set of irons, than to hammer out the off-set on the TaylorMades.

I don't have either set, so I can not comment of the differences between them, other than the 2.0's short irons look a little bit smaller than the 1.0's.
Cobra King LTD, Diamana Redboard, 50 gr. Stiff
Cobra King LTD, 16*
Cleveland DST 3 hybrid, Diamana Redboard, Regular
Cobra F6 4 hybrid, Diamana Blueboard still
Titliest 712 AP1, 5-GW, Dynalite XP R300
Cleveland Rotex 2.0 54* + 58*
Odyssey #2

3

#4 golferlaird

golferlaird

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 64154
  • Joined: 08/25/2008
  • Location:Savannah,Ga
  • Ebay ID:golferlaird
GolfWRX Likes : 8

Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:59 AM

The 2.0 short irons are smaller and have a little less offset. Much better to my eye. Love em. I had the 09s.

4

#5 DrSchteeve

DrSchteeve

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,900 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 3417
  • Joined: 07/27/2005
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ
  • Handicap:9.5
  • Ebay ID:sstclairs
GolfWRX Likes : 519

Posted 02 January 2011 - 12:52 PM

I have both.  Right now the 2.0's are in the bag.  I do think the head size is slightly smaller in the 2.0's.  I think the 2.0's look better, but the black finish may not hold up (it's fine so far after some range time and one round).  The 2.0's feel "harder" than the '09's - when flushed feel better, however.  Distances seem a bit more consistent with the 2.0's.  If money was an issue, the '09's are great irons - my index dropped from 10 to 8 with one season of using them, and iron play became my strong suit.  There are a lot of people who think the 2.0's are far better than the '09's - I think they are a little better, but I'm still hanging on to my '09's, just in case.

BTW, the R9's are great looking sticks and the predominant difference from the Burner's is less offset in the R9's, so the OP might want to look at the R9's instead of trying to
press offset from the Burner's.  I had my R9's bent one degree strong so the lofts matched up with the Burner's, and I found distance to be very similar between them.  I actually wanted more offset than the R9's.

Callaway Epic Driver and 3 wood Matrix Red Tie 65Q4
Callaway GBB 3 wood clocked to 17 KK Silver Tini
TM Burner Rescue 19* and 25* KK Silver
Steelhead XR Pro 6-AW Matrix Program
Scratch 1018 53* DS and 58*
TM Tour Spider Day
OUUL stand bag
Titleist Velocity

5

#6 PKMillerJr

PKMillerJr

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20032
  • Joined: 09/29/2006
  • Location:PA
GolfWRX Likes : 21

Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:08 PM

View PostDrSchteeve, on 02 January 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

I have both.  Right now the 2.0's are in the bag.  I do think the head size is slightly smaller in the 2.0's.  I think the 2.0's look better, but the black finish may not hold up (it's fine so far after some range time and one round).  The 2.0's feel "harder" than the '09's - when flushed feel better, however.  Distances seem a bit more consistent with the 2.0's.  If money was an issue, the '09's are great irons - my index dropped from 10 to 8 with one season of using them, and iron play became my strong suit.  There are a lot of people who think the 2.0's are far better than the '09's - I think they are a little better, but I'm still hanging on to my '09's, just in case.

BTW, the R9's are great looking sticks and the predominant difference from the Burner's is less offset in the R9's, so the OP might want to look at the R9's instead of trying to
press offset from the Burner's.  I had my R9's bent one degree strong so the lofts matched up with the Burner's, and I found distance to be very similar between them.  I actually wanted more offset than the R9's.

Thanks for the info.  I am thinking if I get them that I will go with TT DG SL's for the shaft.

6



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors