213 replies to this topic

[Caesar Palache]

OspreyCI, on 20 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

The regular Bladez should be compared to the TM CB's and the Tours should be compared to the MC's. That's a fair head to head due to lofts.

Talking to a TM tour van guy that plays MC's and now Tours, he said the Tours were about 7 yds (ish) longer. That's probably an honest and accurate assessment from a TM guy.

I don't have CB's to compare them so I went with the MC's since those are my gamer clubs.

Alright, one more time. Forget the lofts, its not about the lofts. Its about the launch angle and consistency, it's not really about distance but how easy it is to hit the exact same distance each time.

My MC irons were flying at a dispersion of 10-15 yards in the wind/cold yesterday.  The Rocketbladez were within 3-6 yards of each other, not to mention higher through the wind. Thats what I like.

[MNoonan]

How do the RBladez compare to Burner 2.0? The soles on my burners are quite chunky. Im more of a digger and those big soles dont like going through the ground very well.

Also i thought the C-taper was the stock shaft? Which should be fairly heavy right?

[BirdieBob]

dan250yds, on 20 November 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Wow. Those are beast. I got the MC's and i love them. I just cannot look at a big bulky head. Are the rocketbladez big and bulky? Sure looks like it?

Here ya go......
Did you see Caesars photos on page 1?  comparison of RBladez vs MCs.

Edited by BirdieBob, 20 November 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Caesar Palache]

MNoonan, on 20 November 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

How do the RBladez compare to Burner 2.0? The soles on my burners are quite chunky. Im more of a digger and those big soles dont like going through the ground very well.

Also i thought the C-taper was the stock shaft? Which should be fairly heavy right?

The sole is quite smaller, almost as thin at my MC irons. Which is very nice, as I said I expected something large.  I found the 2.0 soles to be chunky like you said, but these soles were very agreeable.  They don't cut through the turf quite as well as my MC's but as I said, I do like the width of the soles very much.

Aso for the c-taper. No they are not the stock shaft, the stock shaft is the Rocketbladez is the Rocketfuel 85g flighted shaft.  The stock shaft in the Rocketbladez Tour is the KBS Tour, not the c-taper. C-taper is an upcharge shaft, sadly.

Edited by Caesar Palache, 20 November 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[1puttwoods]

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

yes and no.....sure the Rocket Blades are stronger lofts but when I hit them, I was actually launching them higher than my MC's.

[golfbum9]

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Exactly. Compare loft vs loft- not the # stamped on the sole.

That 'POP' sound comes from the Maraging Steel face.- imagine how loud they would be without the cushion....

[BirdieBob]

Caesar,

It would be great to get a LM view of the RB 3,or 4, or 5 vs the MC, etc same irons and.......

Swing Speed, Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Carry Distance

You said this is outside on turf...great!  Real world stuff then
Thanks

PS thanks for continuing to point out that "its not the loft that determines launch height and carry, it has to do with the iron head design and center of gravity of a head.  The RB is very low CG and that promotes and very high launch that is countered with a stronger loft to bring the height back down to normal levels.

[Troyefl]

Thanks for the review, I am looking forward to a demo w/ these clubs.  More interested in the tour verison but nontheless, excited to see how much distance would be added!

[BirdieBob]

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Exactly. Compare loft vs loft- not the # stamped on the sole.

That 'POP' sound comes from the Maraging Steel face.- imagine how loud they would be without the cushion....

Iron vs Iron has nothing to do with loft but all to do with the # on the bottom sole.
The various iron designs, ie muscleback vs. SGI all have differing center of gravity locations.  That is why the MBs have weaker lofts than the GI irons.  Especially the RBladez irons need stronger lofts to keep the ball from ballooning.

[golfbum9]

BirdieBob, on 20 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Exactly. Compare loft vs loft- not the # stamped on the sole.

That 'POP' sound comes from the Maraging Steel face.- imagine how loud they would be without the cushion....

Iron vs Iron has nothing to do with loft but all to do with the # on the bottom sole.
The various iron designs, ie muscleback vs. SGI all have differing center of gravity locations.  That is why the MBs have weaker lofts than the GI irons.  Especially the RBladez irons need stronger lofts to keep the ball from ballooning.

You can't be serio0us. Loft has everything to do with distance. Sure CoG and design play into it, but the degree of loft is key

[BirdieBob]

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

BirdieBob, on 20 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Exactly. Compare loft vs loft- not the # stamped on the sole.

That 'POP' sound comes from the Maraging Steel face.- imagine how loud they would be without the cushion....

Iron vs Iron has nothing to do with loft but all to do with the # on the bottom sole.
The various iron designs, ie muscleback vs. SGI all have differing center of gravity locations.  That is why the MBs have weaker lofts than the GI irons.  Especially the RBladez irons need stronger lofts to keep the ball from ballooning.

You can't be serio0us. Loft has everything to do with distance. Sure CoG and design play into it, but the degree of loft is key

Many factors enter into the design of the iron head and loft is just one factor that determines distance.
Do you  understand why the loft of a GI iron is stronger than that of a MB iron?
If so, then that is why the RB irons have stronger lofts but yet hit the ball at similar heights of other same # irons....they are designed to do that....
lets see how TM explains it here:

Good questions. Regarding the first, here's the deal on the yardage gaps between each club, even though there isn’t a Speed Pocket in the 8-iron through wedges. We have a variety of variables to work with in each iron head that we used to “tune” and control the distance. In TaylorMade irons those variables include the face thickness, the Inverted Cone shape, the undercut depth, the CG location, the loft degree, and size of the Speed Pocket. Our ability to precisely control and coordinate these variables in each iron head allows us to regulate the performance of each iron so that the distance gaps are even across the entire set.

Most players’ have smaller distance gaps between their long-irons compared to the gaps between their middle- and short-irons. Because of that, we designed the RocketBladez 3-iron and 4-irons with maximum distance enhancement, including the thinnest/fastest faces, the deepest undercuts and the deepest Speed Pocket, all of which combine to deliver the highest COR to promote high ball speed and distance. As you progress downward through the middle-irons and short-irons, where you distance gaps are naturally more evenly spaced (as opposed to the long-irons) we’ve again balanced the variables in RocketBladez irons to deliver increased distance while keeping those gaps consistent. When you get down to the 7- and 8-irons, we took great care to coordinate the variables in each clubhead to create a distance gap between them that’s consistent with the rest of the set, even though the 7-iron has a Speed Pocket and the 8-iron doesn’t. To do that, we don’t put as much “juice” in the 7-iron as we do in the 3- and 4-irons by carefully controlling the 7-iron’s face thickness, Inverted Cone shape, CG location and loft. That allows us to ensure a consistent distance gap between the 7- and 8-iron. The RocketBladez set is “anchored” with the pitching wedge (PW), which delivers similar distance to our previous game-improvement, distance-oriented irons. As you work your way up from short- to long-irons and the loft of each club gradually increases, the flex of the face does more to promote ball speed and influence distance.

As for your second question, our Speed Pocket technology and advanced face design are primarily designed to deliver greater ball speed and consistency across the face. An additional benefit is a high launch angle. However, due to the way that the mechanism is activated, there isn’t a significant spin increase. This leads to a higher yet penetrating flight that’s not prone to ballooning. If your launch angle is too high from this effect, you have the option to use a shaft that promotes a lower trajectory such as a Dynamic Gold, or you can tweak the lofts. However, if you choose to do this, we recommend making the change consistently throughout your set.

[Caesar Palache]

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

BirdieBob, on 20 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

golfbum9, on 20 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Exactly. Compare loft vs loft- not the # stamped on the sole.

That 'POP' sound comes from the Maraging Steel face.- imagine how loud they would be without the cushion....

Iron vs Iron has nothing to do with loft but all to do with the # on the bottom sole.
The various iron designs, ie muscleback vs. SGI all have differing center of gravity locations.  That is why the MBs have weaker lofts than the GI irons.  Especially the RBladez irons need stronger lofts to keep the ball from ballooning.

You can't be serio0us. Loft has everything to do with distance. Sure CoG and design play into it, but the degree of loft is key

Loft does not, launch does.

The Rocketbladez 7 iron is 30.5* loft, it launches at 22*
My MC 6 iron is 30* launches at around 19*

So you see, it may have the same loft, but its launches quite higher. so the loft does not make it go longer, the launch does.

[Caesar Palache]

BirdieBob, on 20 November 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Caesar,

It would be great to get a LM view of the RB 3,or 4, or 5 vs the MC, etc same irons and.......

Swing Speed, Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Carry Distance

You said this is outside on turf...great!  Real world stuff then
Thanks

PS thanks for continuing to point out that "its not the loft that determines launch height and carry, it has to do with the iron head design and center of gravity of a head.  The RB is very low CG and that promotes and very high launch that is countered with a stronger loft to bring the height back down to normal levels.

I'll give it a try next week after Thanksgiving when I have some time. I'll include the R11 irons as well. Hopefully this will help put an end to the "its all about loft!!!" delusion.

Edited by Caesar Palache, 20 November 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Ranger Rick]

Taking into account the fact that the RBladez has a light high launch shaft in it where as the C taper is a really low launch shaft? I have no doubt they provide more distance. I think if you compared a 30*, same length shaft and same shaft the distance difference would be minimal. 5 yards perhaps. As you get to the 5,4 and 3 irons perhaps a larger increase but still.

[BirdieBob]

Ranger Rick, on 20 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Taking into account the fact that the RBladez has a light high launch shaft in it where as the C taper is a really low launch shaft? I have no doubt they provide more distance. I think if you compared a 30*, same length shaft and same shaft the distance difference would be minimal. 5 yards perhaps. As you get to the 5,4 and 3 irons perhaps a larger increase but still.

TM says the RBladez is about one club longer than the TM Burner 2.0 irons....with same shafts.  Primarily due to the tuned IC (Inverted Cone), CG placement, and the new Speed Pocket.

[Curlly311]

Question for someone who is planning on playing these next year.  What are you planning on doing when your PW is going ~140 yards plus and the next club in your bag is a 52 degree GW?  For me I would almost have to go into another iron set at the 9 iron and work down from there.

[Caesar Palache]

Curlly311, on 20 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Question for someone who is planning on playing these next year.  What are you planning on doing when your PW is going ~140 yards plus and the next club in your bag is a 52 degree GW?  For me I would almost have to go into another iron set at the 9 iron and work down from there.

TMag already spoke on this, and BirdieBob quoted there post if you scroll up you can read it.

The PW will not be 15 yards further, it will be in line with a normal game improvement club, as you go down the set the clubs gradually get longer and the 3-5 irons really shine and show the increased distance.

[Stevens24]

Man some of you are stubborn. This isn't the 1970's where you just have a piece of metal on the end of a shaft. The technology behind these has do with launch angle and center of gravity. by lowering the center of gravity and adjusting the launch angle the 7 iron launches at a similar angle to a 7 iron but do to changes in construction to maintain that launch the club needs less loft. As the set get closer to the PW this isn't as exaggerated. So I would not expect that the 45 degree PW is that much longer than my CG16 tour at 46 degrees. I will carry a 50,54,58 like always. If you don't like it don't buy them but if i can take a smooth swing and hit my 4 iron 205 and get forgiveness, i am probably in. My loyalty is to one thing, the number on my card.

[2659edward]

Stevens24, on 20 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Man some of you are stubborn. This isn't the 1970's where you just have a piece of metal on the end of a shaft. The technology behind these has do with launch angle and center of gravity. by lowering the center of gravity and adjusting the launch angle the 7 iron launches at a similar angle to a 7 iron but do to changes in construction to maintain that launch the club needs less loft. As the set get closer to the PW this isn't as exaggerated. So I would not expect that the 45 degree PW is that much longer than my CG16 tour at 46 degrees. I will carry a 50,54,58 like always. If you don't like it don't buy them but if i can take a smooth swing and hit my 4 iron 205 and get forgiveness, i am probably in. My loyalty is to one thing, the number on my card.

...you seem to be smarter than most......

[bev]

awesome job thanks for your time. well written

[ProBowler]

Stevens24, on 20 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Man some of you are stubborn. This isn't the 1970's where you just have a piece of metal on the end of a shaft. The technology behind these has do with launch angle and center of gravity. by lowering the center of gravity and adjusting the launch angle the 7 iron launches at a similar angle to a 7 iron but do to changes in construction to maintain that launch the club needs less loft. As the set get closer to the PW this isn't as exaggerated. So I would not expect that the 45 degree PW is that much longer than my CG16 tour at 46 degrees. I will carry a 50,54,58 like always. If you don't like it don't buy them but if i can take a smooth swing and hit my 4 iron 205 and get forgiveness, i am probably in. My loyalty is to one thing, the number on my card.

Stevens24, on 20 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Man some of you are stubborn. This isn't the 1970's where you just have a piece of metal on the end of a shaft. The technology behind these has do with launch angle and center of gravity. by lowering the center of gravity and adjusting the launch angle the 7 iron launches at a similar angle to a 7 iron but do to changes in construction to maintain that launch the club needs less loft. As the set get closer to the PW this isn't as exaggerated. So I would not expect that the 45 degree PW is that much longer than my CG16 tour at 46 degrees. I will carry a 50,54,58 like always. If you don't like it don't buy them but if i can take a smooth swing and hit my 4 iron 205 and get forgiveness, i am probably in. My loyalty is to one thing, the number on my card.

Haters will always have their minds made up ....... Smarter people will take advantage of technology and use it !!!!

Edited by ProBowler, 20 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[dirthead]

I've hit them and yes they do launch higher and carry longer.  I normally hit a 7 iron about 165.  I was hitting the RBladez 7 iron almost 190 yds.  I wouldn't really be interested in gaming a set of those personally, but for someone who doesn't have the clubhead speed and hits a 7 iron 120, I can see it as a big improvement for their game.

[ProForceX]

Lol. Another fail at labeling a blade club? In 20 years people are going to call Eye2s blades.

What a sad realization for someone that likes looking at traditional clubs.

[Tyke]

As a high handicapper looking at replacing clubs this year, how would the Bladez compare to the Rocketbalz? I just dont like the look  of the Balz, but looking for a SGI or a GI club. Any feed back would be awesome.

Thanks

[dmael]

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Absolutely!  I have been playing a second-hand set of RocketBALLZ irons recently (not my primary irons -- I generally game a mixed set of Mizunos ... JPX800 Tour 5 through 7 and MP-53 8-PW).  I had a chance to demo the RocketBLADEZ on Saturday, and hit several shots side-by-side with the corresponding RocketBALLZ irons (steel shafts ... R-flex).  The launch, trajectory, and distance was virtually IDENTICAL for both iron models, and although the RocketBLADEZ look a bit better, I would not spend the money to get them, as I am pretty happy with the RocketBALLZ irons.  For the record, I have birdied all but two par-3s since putting the RocketBALLZ irons in my bag, and I have been closer to making aces on about five occasions using these irons than I have ever been in the past.

Doug

[ProForceX]

Caesar Palache, on 20 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

OspreyCI, on 20 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

The regular Bladez should be compared to the TM CB's and the Tours should be compared to the MC's. That's a fair head to head due to lofts.

Talking to a TM tour van guy that plays MC's and now Tours, he said the Tours were about 7 yds (ish) longer. That's probably an honest and accurate assessment from a TM guy.

I don't have CB's to compare them so I went with the MC's since those are my gamer clubs.

Alright, one more time. Forget the lofts, its not about the lofts. Its about the launch angle and consistency, it's not really about distance but how easy it is to hit the exact same distance each time.

My MC irons were flying at a dispersion of 10-15 yards in the wind/cold yesterday.  The Rocketbladez were within 3-6 yards of each other, not to mention higher through the wind. Thats what I like.

Wanting clubs to fly higher through the wind...? Am I missing something here that makes this an advantage? I've played knockdown shots in the wind all my life...

[trumb1mj1]

I game the MP-57s and love the feel but would love to find a 3i replacement that's easy to hit--this might be that club.  Anyone consider trying these in the long irons only?

[Caesar Palache]

ProForceX, on 20 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Caesar Palache, on 20 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

OspreyCI, on 20 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

The regular Bladez should be compared to the TM CB's and the Tours should be compared to the MC's. That's a fair head to head due to lofts.

Talking to a TM tour van guy that plays MC's and now Tours, he said the Tours were about 7 yds (ish) longer. That's probably an honest and accurate assessment from a TM guy.

I don't have CB's to compare them so I went with the MC's since those are my gamer clubs.

Alright, one more time. Forget the lofts, its not about the lofts. Its about the launch angle and consistency, it's not really about distance but how easy it is to hit the exact same distance each time.

My MC irons were flying at a dispersion of 10-15 yards in the wind/cold yesterday.  The Rocketbladez were within 3-6 yards of each other, not to mention higher through the wind. Thats what I like.

Wanting clubs to fly higher through the wind...? Am I missing something here that makes this an advantage? I've played knockdown shots in the wind all my life...

Sorry let me rephrase that.

I like the dispersion, the fact that my shots were 3-6 yards apart, after flying high into and through the wind.  With my MC irons, some ballooned, some got knocked down, some just didnt carry through it.  With the Rocketbladez they got through the wind very easily and weren't adversely affected by the wind as much as the MC irons.  All in all what I mean is these clubs are very easy to hit the same distance, over and over again.

[Caesar Palache]

Tyke, on 20 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

As a high handicapper looking at replacing clubs this year, how would the Bladez compare to the Rocketbalz? I just dont like the look  of the Balz, but looking for a SGI or a GI club. Any feed back would be awesome.

Thanks

I very very much disliked the look, feel, and sound of the Rocketballz, so much so that I only ever hit the 7 iron a grand total of 6 times. So I cannot compare on performance.

I very much do like the look, feel, and sound of the Rocketbladez irons. They are not as big and offset as the Rocketballz irons.  The Rocketbladez passes the eye test, as the Rocketballz does not.  They feel and sound much better then the Rocketballz.

Did I mention they go high?

[BirdieBob]

dmael, on 20 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

mosesgolf, on 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

MC 6 iron loft 30*  RBZ Blade 6 iron loft 26.5*
MC 7 irons loft 34* RBZ Blade 7 iron loft 30.5*

Do you get the picture?
You're really not hitting it longer imo.  The difference is marginal.  You hit a MC 6iron vs an RBZ Blade 7 iron which are essentially the same lofts and you'll hit them pretty close as far as distance is concerned.  Not and apples to apples comparison when there is 3.5* difference in lofts.

Absolutely!  I have been playing a second-hand set of RocketBALLZ irons recently (not my primary irons -- I generally game a mixed set of Mizunos ... JPX800 Tour 5 through 7 and MP-53 8-PW).  I had a chance to demo the RocketBLADEZ on Saturday, and hit several shots side-by-side with the corresponding RocketBALLZ irons (steel shafts ... R-flex).  The launch, trajectory, and distance was virtually IDENTICAL for both iron models, and although the RocketBLADEZ look a bit better, I would not spend the money to get them, as I am pretty happy with the RocketBALLZ irons.  For the record, I have birdied all but two par-3s since putting the RocketBALLZ irons in my bag, and I have been closer to making aces on about five occasions using these irons than I have ever been in the past.

Doug

What iron did you try side by side?
Keep in mind that the 3,4,5 irons in the RBladez get the most improvement in distance due to the speed pocket that the RBallz don't have.

Here is a side by side profile of the RBallz on left vs the RBladez on right...some definite design changes with the Speed Pocket!