213 replies to this topic

[Caesar Palache]

 tdelam, on 21 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

I see, thanks! so essentially, this is optimal for the average joes who struggle to find that "zone"?

Yes and no, it is optimal for someone who doesnt launch the ball that well, that person who seems to hit it thin every time.  But for someone who normally launches and hit the ball high like myself (i tend not to have to much shaft lean at impact) these actually wont balloon too high for you, they still launch off the club very nicely and have a very nice trajectory.  Basically a better player can still hit these and not worry about losing the ball high into the wind.

 tdelam, on 21 November 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Interesting, thanks for the update. So, if I were to interpret this right working the ball flight with this game improvement distance iron requires more skill than working a players iron? I guess that's why everyone should get fitted properly and maybe that's why these hefty GI distance irons never worked for me in the past...

Its harder to keep these irons low, since they are meant to go high.  Thats as basic as I can say it.  But I was able to keep it low and when I tried to keep it low, it didn't balloon into the wind.  If you know how to hit a knockdown or keep it low, you wont have a problem.   Obviously it will take some getting used to and practice, but it can be done.  I know what you mean about trying to keep a 2.0 low.

It is much easier to work the trajectory (up or down) with my MC irons.  But that its because thats what those irons were designed to do, work the ball the way a player needs to.  Essentially these Rocketbladez are not made for the person looking to do that, I think the Tours would be the better club for that.

Edited by Caesar Palache, 21 November 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Stevens24]

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

 ProBowler, on 20 November 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

 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 !!!!

TMAG will always take advantage of the wallets of its consumers!!!  Technology has only advanced so far in recent years!!!

So I assume you drive a vehicle with a carbureted engine, no AC and a manual transmission because all of that Direct injection stuff is just marketing hype. What confuses me about this site is that most preach that it is the golfer and not the clubs. Yet they change shafts weekly and go through 5 drivers and 3 sets of blades in a year. So which is it? i find a set that works and really don't tinker with them for several years, my driver has a NV65 in it and has for 5 years. I just fail to understand the hypocrisy on here against any GI/SGI irons which they never tried yet there are people on here who have a driver in the bag for one round then go back and buy 3 others. My point was if these help you who cares. the technology dictates the lofts being what they are. the shaft length may be a small factor but 1/2 inch.

Like i said previously when you lower the center of gravity, the ball goes higher. TM is trying to keep the flight pattern of the ball consistent with what people need from a 7 iron. To do that they need to adjust the loft down by a few degrees. I don't know if these clubs are 20 yards longer or not as I haven't hit them but that is the science of the loft/ball flight. this also explains why the shorter clubs differ in loft less than the long irons. 45-47 is the standard loft for most PW. their's is 45, titleist ranges from 45-47, Clevelands are 44-47. This game is about putting a number on a scorecard, lowest score wins, and you can use whatever 14 clubs you wish as long as they are within the rules. i feel some on here just don't want some guy being successful at the game without"putting in the work".

[chickenpotpie]

Caesar, thanks for the review.  I used to own the CB's, and to me, they were very similar to the MC's, distance wise.  I was a little more accurate with the CB's, so I went with those.  Based on that experience, I find your review very helpful.

Personally, I find myself having "distance compression" issues at the top end of my bag, to the point that I don't carry a 5 iron.  I just go straight from 4 to 6.  This technology may offer me the ability to spread those gaps out and put the 5 iron back in the bag!  What I'm curious to see is whether putting a shaft like the CTapers will negate the effects, due to a lower ball flight?

Lastly, I'm sick of the fact that a lot of Wrx'ers here can't see past the usual Wrx "talking points"....i.e. 1) the lofts are jacked up, 2) that's a made for shaft and therefore is crap, 3) that's just a rebadged Anser putter, etc.  Get over it...there are new innovations, or tweaks on older technologies that happen all the time.  The fact that these launch higher irrespective of the lower stated loft is interesting to me.  And on top of that....you all know you are going to hit these.  I know I will.

[bph7]

 tdelam, on 21 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

 bph7, on 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

To those of you who for some reason think anyone interested in adding yardage to their irons is just an idiot and that it's going to hurt their games:  Get over yourselves.  If you don't want the extra distance or are convinced that there is no added distance and it's all smoke and mirrors, then don't buy them.  A lot of us are excited about this new technology and it appears that everyone who has seriously tried them has noticed great distance gains and improved dispersion.  Sure, the lofts may be stronger, but most are reporting a club and a half or more of distance, which the loft would not alone account for.  Also, TMAG has even said that they are longer than the Rocketballz, which HAVE THE SAME LOFTS.  Also, NOT A SINGLE PERSON YET has said "you know what, I hit the 7, but I could tell all along that it was really a 6", everyone has generally just noticed added distance and accuracy over the same club in their current set, which has more loft and so at the very least should have tighter dispersion.  So, even though this may be coming from some dumb idiot who is apparently going to need 7 wedges, let me just say, I don't need your help setting up my bag, I'll just try these for myself and see if they work.

Settle down with the childish name calling and aggressiveness, nobody is telling you how to set up your bag; relax. This is a discussion about the new irons and obviously technology in these irons play a HUGE role. Everyone is absolutely positively correct in regards to lashing out and pondering at them given the track record TMAG has with overhyping their products. These irons are no different. Nobody wants to tell you how to set up your bag, lol...

However, I'd like to point out that you're wrong when you say that not a single person has noticed odd distance changes and you might want to re-read some of the others who have demo'd these irons, there are a lot of negative feedback, just as much there are positives. To say this is NEW technology is also totally wrong http://www.golfwrx.c...dez-technology/

Back to the discussion; the irons. To me they look pretty ugly, the name is rather silly, and I don't buy the distance benefits stuff they're pushing. One of the reps agrees that the previous distance irons were inconsistently hot off the face and says that the "speed pocket" manages this but he couldn't fully explain why, I think he hard a time *really* understanding the product himself! I used to game the Burner 2.0's which were hyped up the same way these were. I found the distance so inconsistent on them to the point where I was using a 9i when I normally used a PW, and I used a 8i where I normally used a 6i!! None of it made any sense so I gave the irons away, that was my second set of "distance irons" from TM that they've hyped up and that have failed. I decided to give TM another chance and bought into their Tour Preferred line first with the TM CB and then to the TM MC's and have been happy simply because there is not all of this technology crap surrounding them. They're consistent, they look nice in simplicity, they don't have a silly name attached them and they sure as hell are not categorized as new technology from old technology; Wilson already had a "this little thing". I am not against technology but this "technology" is hard to swallow.

In any case, thanks for the comparison. I'll give them a shot at the range for a few weeks but I suspect they'll be like the burner 2.0's, rocketballz and the entire distance iron lines (burners) for every year their marketing is the same.

Disclaimer: I am not a TM hater; on the contrary. My entire bag is TM except my putter and the balls I play. What I am not a fan of is the hype they put into their products.

A few quotes of yours that need explaining:  " I'd like to point out that you're wrong when you say that not a single person has noticed odd distance changes and you might want to re-read some of the others who have demo'd these irons, there are a lot of negative feedback, just as much there are positives"-  I absolutely challenge this statement and would like you to show me the negative reviews that apparently are close to even in number to the positive ones.  Also, all the positive ones have been EXTREMELY positive whereas the only negative one I can remember was from someone who already had trashed the club before he hit them and his subsequent review was nowhere NEAR as thorough as the others.  So you can try to convince yourself all you want that there have been just as many negative posts made but if you do I have some oceanfront property in kansas I'd like to sell you.

"To say this is NEW technology is also totally wrong http://www.golfwrx.c...dez-technology/" :  I assume this was a joke because I don't like to assume that people are purposefully being obtuse, but if you are serious, come on, man.  Sure the fact that there is a slot is the same but to say that they are using the SAME technology as those wilsons is beyond ridiculous.   Believe it or not, there is more to designing a club than whether or not it has a speed slot.  TM's new irons probably have some different properties and (GOD FORBID!) maybe even IMPROVED the old wilson technology over the last few decades.  I don't know though, maybe you are right and they just directly copied that-decades old technology but these irons still are performing at least as well as the best that all the other OEM's are producing.

Other than that, good post bro.

[tdelam]

 bph7, on 21 November 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

 tdelam, on 21 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

 bph7, on 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

To those of you who for some reason think anyone interested in adding yardage to their irons is just an idiot and that it's going to hurt their games:  Get over yourselves.  If you don't want the extra distance or are convinced that there is no added distance and it's all smoke and mirrors, then don't buy them.  A lot of us are excited about this new technology and it appears that everyone who has seriously tried them has noticed great distance gains and improved dispersion.  Sure, the lofts may be stronger, but most are reporting a club and a half or more of distance, which the loft would not alone account for.  Also, TMAG has even said that they are longer than the Rocketballz, which HAVE THE SAME LOFTS.  Also, NOT A SINGLE PERSON YET has said "you know what, I hit the 7, but I could tell all along that it was really a 6", everyone has generally just noticed added distance and accuracy over the same club in their current set, which has more loft and so at the very least should have tighter dispersion.  So, even though this may be coming from some dumb idiot who is apparently going to need 7 wedges, let me just say, I don't need your help setting up my bag, I'll just try these for myself and see if they work.

Settle down with the childish name calling and aggressiveness, nobody is telling you how to set up your bag; relax. This is a discussion about the new irons and obviously technology in these irons play a HUGE role. Everyone is absolutely positively correct in regards to lashing out and pondering at them given the track record TMAG has with overhyping their products. These irons are no different. Nobody wants to tell you how to set up your bag, lol...

However, I'd like to point out that you're wrong when you say that not a single person has noticed odd distance changes and you might want to re-read some of the others who have demo'd these irons, there are a lot of negative feedback, just as much there are positives. To say this is NEW technology is also totally wrong http://www.golfwrx.c...dez-technology/

Back to the discussion; the irons. To me they look pretty ugly, the name is rather silly, and I don't buy the distance benefits stuff they're pushing. One of the reps agrees that the previous distance irons were inconsistently hot off the face and says that the "speed pocket" manages this but he couldn't fully explain why, I think he hard a time *really* understanding the product himself! I used to game the Burner 2.0's which were hyped up the same way these were. I found the distance so inconsistent on them to the point where I was using a 9i when I normally used a PW, and I used a 8i where I normally used a 6i!! None of it made any sense so I gave the irons away, that was my second set of "distance irons" from TM that they've hyped up and that have failed. I decided to give TM another chance and bought into their Tour Preferred line first with the TM CB and then to the TM MC's and have been happy simply because there is not all of this technology crap surrounding them. They're consistent, they look nice in simplicity, they don't have a silly name attached them and they sure as hell are not categorized as new technology from old technology; Wilson already had a "this little thing". I am not against technology but this "technology" is hard to swallow.

In any case, thanks for the comparison. I'll give them a shot at the range for a few weeks but I suspect they'll be like the burner 2.0's, rocketballz and the entire distance iron lines (burners) for every year their marketing is the same.

Disclaimer: I am not a TM hater; on the contrary. My entire bag is TM except my putter and the balls I play. What I am not a fan of is the hype they put into their products.

A few quotes of yours that need explaining:  " I'd like to point out that you're wrong when you say that not a single person has noticed odd distance changes and you might want to re-read some of the others who have demo'd these irons, there are a lot of negative feedback, just as much there are positives"-  I absolutely challenge this statement and would like you to show me the negative reviews that apparently are close to even in number to the positive ones.  Also, all the positive ones have been EXTREMELY positive whereas the only negative one I can remember was from someone who already had trashed the club before he hit them and his subsequent review was nowhere NEAR as thorough as the others.  So you can try to convince yourself all you want that there have been just as many negative posts made but if you do I have some oceanfront property in kansas I'd like to sell you.

"To say this is NEW technology is also totally wrong http://www.golfwrx.c...dez-technology/" :  I assume this was a joke because I don't like to assume that people are purposefully being obtuse, but if you are serious, come on, man.  Sure the fact that there is a slot is the same but to say that they are using the SAME technology as those wilsons is beyond ridiculous.   Believe it or not, there is more to designing a club than whether or not it has a speed slot.  TM's new irons probably have some different properties and (GOD FORBID!) maybe even IMPROVED the old wilson technology over the last few decades.  I don't know though, maybe you are right and they just directly copied that-decades old technology but these irons still are performing at least as well as the best that all the other OEM's are producing.

Other than that, good post bro.

"To say this is NEW technology is also totally wrong http://www.golfwrx.c...dez-technology/" :  I assume this was a joke because I don't like to assume that people are purposefully being obtuse, but if you are serious, come on, man. -- NO this is not a joke, that's a callout from Wilson to TM directly on Wilson golf's facebook page regarding the "RocketBladez speed pocket" (<- -lol, hard to even say silly name with giggling), they even posted the "YES JOHN, WE DID" as slogan on their revised "speed pocket" ad in response to John's questioning of the Wilson Reflex vs Speed pocket technology. https://www.facebook...&type=1 I'd hate to say it but if you can't see this then you've indulged a little too far into the kool-aid, "bro"

Anyway, this is getting off topic. Caesar answered a lot of the questions I had with his review and comparison and I've posted a more thorough answers to his review which are extremely important to me considering the review was GI vs Players, which he answered to the best of his ability, the rest is up to me when I demo them. I am going to demo them with an open mind as usual but if I had to speculate I would say there is a 90% chance that they'll perform just as their GI distance irons did, which were a fail for me.

P.S - No thanks on the house in Kansas it's too cold there, I'm one of those "snowbirds" who flock to my house in Florida, see ya there

[bph7]

tdelam,

I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I did see the wilson "speedpocket" thing and I was pretty clear that taylormade at the very least improved on this idea because, you know, that wilson iron ended up going into obscurity so I'm sure it did not perform as well this current rocketbladez.  Will you at least concede that the current rocketbladez can outperform those wilsons?  Because if you do, then TMAG has improved on the technology by definition so while the CONCEPT may not be new, the IMPLEMENTATION is better, and isn't that all that counts? So yes, I can see "this" but just don't see why it matters.  If you want to change your premise to "well i think the wilson would outperform the tm" than all of your logic follows, otherwise it does not.

And finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that I am drinking the koolaid.  I have almost no intention of getting these clubs (don't like the looks) and haven't even tried them (and probably won't anytime soon as I'm not in the market for new irons).  I just am tired of people being oversimplistic and the second they see jacked lofts saying "OMG jacked lofts thats the ONLY way they are going to get any more distance this is so stupid TMAG what a bunch of frauds."  Sure, jacking lofts does increase distance, but whats to say that maybe some distance comes from jacking the lofts, and maybe a few yards from other technology?  Is that possibility really that hard for you to accept?  That the top golf company in terms of revenue with a research team working for years can't eventually figure out a way to get a few extra yards out of an iron head?  Also, its been explained to you multiple times that they jacked the lofts for a specific reasons (to achieve optimal launch angles for given iron).  The OP has basically said that you can drop down an iron from your gamers and expect similar ballflight and results.  Assuming he is telling the truth (and I don't see why he wouldn't be) isn't that almost the ideal scenario for how to improve an iron set?  I just don't see how you, having not hit them, are so sure that it HAS to be just marketing and loft jacking and smoke and mirrors when there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary (sounds like the way one political party felt about the polls before a certain election).  On the other hand, I have not hit them, but am just intrigued and excited by the reviews.  Whose stance seems more reasonable?

[tdelam]

 bph7, on 21 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

tdelam,

I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I did see the wilson "speedpocket" thing and I was pretty clear that taylormade at the very least improved on this idea because, you know, that wilson iron ended up going into obscurity so I'm sure it did not perform as well this current rocketbladez.  Will you at least concede that the current rocketbladez can outperform those wilsons?  Because if you do, then TMAG has improved on the technology by definition so while the CONCEPT may not be new, the IMPLEMENTATION is better, and isn't that all that counts? So yes, I can see "this" but just don't see why it matters.  If you want to change your premise to "well i think the wilson would outperform the tm" than all of your logic follows, otherwise it does not.

No, I don't disagree with you at all in the fact that TM has only advanced the pocket technology, what bugs me is that their claim as "this little thing" as being a brand-new break through technology, I feel for this silly TM marketing hype 2 times before, it's pure crap. Don't get me wrong, the stuff they do is bleeding edge and it may work for some people.

 bph7, on 21 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

And finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that I am drinking the koolaid.  I have almost no intention of getting these clubs (don't like the looks) and haven't even tried them (and probably won't anytime soon as I'm not in the market for new irons).  I just am tired of people being oversimplistic and the second they see jacked lofts saying "OMG jacked lofts thats the ONLY way they are going to get any more distance this is so stupid TMAG what a bunch of frauds."  Sure, jacking lofts does increase distance, but whats to say that maybe some distance comes from jacking the lofts, and maybe a few yards from other technology?  Is that possibility really that hard for you to accept?  That the top golf company in terms of revenue with a research team working for years can't eventually figure out a way to get a few extra yards out of an iron head?  Also, its been explained to you multiple times that they jacked the lofts for a specific reasons (to achieve optimal launch angles for given iron).  The OP has basically said that you can drop down an iron from your gamers and expect similar ballflight and results.  Assuming he is telling the truth (and I don't see why he wouldn't be) isn't that almost the ideal scenario for how to improve an iron set?  I just don't see how you, having not hit them, are so sure that it HAS to be just marketing and loft jacking and smoke and mirrors when there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary (sounds like the way one political party felt about the polls before a certain election).  On the other hand, I have not hit them, but am just intrigued and excited by the reviews.  Whose stance seems more reasonable?

Jacked lofts don't increase distance, that's a myth and apparently that is hard for you to accept or undersand, as you say :p I won't respond to the rest of that paragraph as it appears to be nothing more than personal issues, I can't help you with that. I will say this though, the evidence you speak of happened in the RocketBallz, RBZ, Burner, Burner Plus, Burner 2.0 etc, or at least thats what their marketing said in the past. I will put money on it that the RocketBladez will slide right into this list, this happens every few months and the same reviews pop-up and the same marketing schemes slide right along with it. Like I said, I am not against TM, hell I love TM, my entire bag is TM and I LOVEEE my MC's, it took a few tries to find the right set from them but it bugs me when I see marketing giant pile crap up like this.

I'm not sure why you think either one of our stances are more reasonable. I am not trying to compare anything with you considering we haven't even hit the thing. What is with you and this attack-mode? lol. I am merely having a somewhat sane debate with you based on experience.

Anyway. That was my last response. This is getting nowhere and I can't seem to get a sane discussion without you taking them as a personal attack, I don't think I insulted you, if I did, I apologize.

Good evening,

Trevor

[bph7]

 tdelam, on 21 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

 bph7, on 21 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

tdelam,

I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I did see the wilson "speedpocket" thing and I was pretty clear that taylormade at the very least improved on this idea because, you know, that wilson iron ended up going into obscurity so I'm sure it did not perform as well this current rocketbladez.  Will you at least concede that the current rocketbladez can outperform those wilsons?  Because if you do, then TMAG has improved on the technology by definition so while the CONCEPT may not be new, the IMPLEMENTATION is better, and isn't that all that counts? So yes, I can see "this" but just don't see why it matters.  If you want to change your premise to "well i think the wilson would outperform the tm" than all of your logic follows, otherwise it does not.

No, I don't disagree with you at all in the fact that TM has only advanced the pocket technology, what bugs me is that their claim as "this little thing" as being a brand-new break through technology, I feel for this silly TM marketing hype 2 times before, it's pure crap. Don't get me wrong, the stuff they do is bleeding edge and it may work for some people.

 bph7, on 21 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

And finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that I am drinking the koolaid.  I have almost no intention of getting these clubs (don't like the looks) and haven't even tried them (and probably won't anytime soon as I'm not in the market for new irons).  I just am tired of people being oversimplistic and the second they see jacked lofts saying "OMG jacked lofts thats the ONLY way they are going to get any more distance this is so stupid TMAG what a bunch of frauds."  Sure, jacking lofts does increase distance, but whats to say that maybe some distance comes from jacking the lofts, and maybe a few yards from other technology?  Is that possibility really that hard for you to accept?  That the top golf company in terms of revenue with a research team working for years can't eventually figure out a way to get a few extra yards out of an iron head?  Also, its been explained to you multiple times that they jacked the lofts for a specific reasons (to achieve optimal launch angles for given iron).  The OP has basically said that you can drop down an iron from your gamers and expect similar ballflight and results.  Assuming he is telling the truth (and I don't see why he wouldn't be) isn't that almost the ideal scenario for how to improve an iron set?  I just don't see how you, having not hit them, are so sure that it HAS to be just marketing and loft jacking and smoke and mirrors when there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary (sounds like the way one political party felt about the polls before a certain election).  On the other hand, I have not hit them, but am just intrigued and excited by the reviews.  Whose stance seems more reasonable?

Jacked lofts don't increase distance, that's a myth and apparently that is hard for you to accept or undersand, as you say :p I won't respond to the rest of that paragraph as it appears to be nothing more than personal issues, I can't help you with that. I will say this though, the evidence you speak of happened in the RocketBallz, RBZ, Burner, Burner Plus, Burner 2.0 etc, or at least thats what their marketing said in the past. I will put money on it that the RocketBladez will slide right into this list, this happens every few months and the same reviews pop-up and the same marketing schemes slide right along with it. Like I said, I am not against TM, hell I love TM, my entire bag is TM and I LOVEEE my MC's, it took a few tries to find the right set from them but it bugs me when I see marketing giant pile crap up like this.

I'm not sure why you think either one of our stances are more reasonable. I am not trying to compare anything with you considering we haven't even hit the thing. What is with you and this attack-mode? lol. I am merely having a somewhat sane debate with you based on experience.

Anyway. That was my last response. This is getting nowhere and I can't seem to get a sane discussion without you taking them as a personal attack, I don't think I insulted you, if I did, I apologize.

Good evening,

Trevor

The reason why you won't respond to the "rest" of my paragraph is because that's the part that made you realize you were wrong lol.  There were no personal attacks, just some thoughts and facts (if you imply anything else its only as a result of your own insecurities because no attacks were intended).  As for the "reasonable" comment, I have zero doubt that my stance is more reasonable and would bet you 1000 dollars that if we conducted a poll I would win on that count.  You did not offend me so no worries there and I would love to continue this discussion because I haven't even gotten to all of my points yet, but I would see why you would want to stop so I guess this is it.

[bfrey64]

I am confused. I thought I hit a 6 iron further then a 7 iron but I might be mistake. Also the shaft is the engine of the club. The head is only part of it; I am sure most would agree with that statement but there have been some really good irons produced in the last twenty years. Golf isn't a game for those who are vain, I don't care what you play as long as it gets you The lowest score possible, but I think shaft is where your launch is changing. Not the club head. Have a happy gobble day and enjoy the weather in the northeast. I know I will.

[78blades]

I'll take the MC's all day long. IMO they are the best irons TM has made since the COIN forged irons. Funny thing, I still play a set of COIN forged TM's, (lol), and I'm a Mizuno fan.

[golfbum9]

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I am confused. I thought I hit a 6 iron further then a 7 iron but I might be mistake. Also the shaft is the engine of the club. The head is only part of it; I am sure most would agree with that statement but there have been some really good irons produced in the last twenty years. Golf isn't a game for those who are vain, I don't care what you play as long as it gets you The lowest score possible, but I think shaft is where your launch is changing. Not the club head. Have a happy gobble day and enjoy the weather in the northeast. I know I will.

The golfer is the engine, whereas the shaft would be the transmission- so to speak.

CoG to achieve some random "peak launch window" is not going to work the same for everyone. Each golfers' swing is unique to themselves. Swingspeed, transition, how they load the shaft, where they release the clubhead etc.- each and everyone are different. At the end of the day, loft is still king when it comes to distance. Plain and simple

[bfrey64]

 chickenpotpie, on 21 November 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Caesar, thanks for the review.  I used to own the CB's, and to me, they were very similar to the MC's, distance wise.  I was a little more accurate with the CB's, so I went with those.  Based on that experience, I find your review very helpful.

Personally, I find myself having "distance compression" issues at the top end of my bag, to the point that I don't carry a 5 iron.  I just go straight from 4 to 6.  This technology may offer me the ability to spread those gaps out and put the 5 iron back in the bag!  What I'm curious to see is whether putting a shaft like the CTapers will negate the effects, due to a lower ball flight?

Lastly, I'm sick of the fact that a lot of Wrx'ers here can't see past the usual Wrx "talking points"....i.e. 1) the lofts are jacked up, 2) that's a made for shaft and therefore is crap, 3) that's just a rebadged Anser putter, etc.  Get over it...there are new innovations, or tweaks on older technologies that happen all the time.  The fact that these launch higher irrespective of the lower stated loft is interesting to me.  And on top of that....you all know you are going to hit these.  I know I will.

You play what you play.  At the end of the day it's about what makes you happy, but wrx is becoming very bias. Newer is better and it seems that every time something new comes out its the greatest thing, but the reality is it isn't. I am not a typical wrx I can't afford a new set of irons every six months. I still play the same set that I have used for the past four seasons. If it works for you go for it, but if not, older doesn't mean bad. We bash those who can't afford to play on a budget. I am a muni golfer, but I feel more often then not you getting fools gold and your trying to buy a game.  By the way I love the senior tour and seeing the pros play irons and woods that many of us would consider outdated. It's great to see that, but that's my opinion.

[bfrey64]

 golfbum9, on 21 November 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I am confused. I thought I hit a 6 iron further then a 7 iron but I might be mistake. Also the shaft is the engine of the club. The head is only part of it; I am sure most would agree with that statement but there have been some really good irons produced in the last twenty years. Golf isn't a game for those who are vain, I don't care what you play as long as it gets you The lowest score possible, but I think shaft is where your launch is changing. Not the club head. Have a happy gobble day and enjoy the weather in the northeast. I know I will.

The golfer is the engine, whereas the shaft would be the transmission- so to speak.

CoG to achieve some random "peak launch window" is not going to work the same for everyone. Each golfers' swing is unique to themselves. Swingspeed, transition, how they load the shaft, where they release the clubhead etc.- each and everyone are different. At the end of the day, loft is still king when it comes to distance. Plain and simple

I agree about loft equalling distance, but you have to play with what works for you. We worry about numbers on launch and distance and not our score. I would put my set of irons against anything out today, but that just me.

[golfbum9]

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

 golfbum9, on 21 November 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I am confused. I thought I hit a 6 iron further then a 7 iron but I might be mistake. Also the shaft is the engine of the club. The head is only part of it; I am sure most would agree with that statement but there have been some really good irons produced in the last twenty years. Golf isn't a game for those who are vain, I don't care what you play as long as it gets you The lowest score possible, but I think shaft is where your launch is changing. Not the club head. Have a happy gobble day and enjoy the weather in the northeast. I know I will.

The golfer is the engine, whereas the shaft would be the transmission- so to speak.

CoG to achieve some random "peak launch window" is not going to work the same for everyone. Each golfers' swing is unique to themselves. Swingspeed, transition, how they load the shaft, where they release the clubhead etc.- each and everyone are different. At the end of the day, loft is still king when it comes to distance. Plain and simple

I agree about loft equalling distance, but you have to play with what works for you. We worry about numbers on launch and distance and not our score. I would put my set of irons against anything out today, but that just me.

So would I. In fact, happen to do so all the time- not to tinker, just because. To each their own but I use what I know and they work just fine for me. Because they fit. Frankly in my opinion, technology or not, nothing feels better than a hand forged iron. And we have to make a good pass on the ball regardless to get the results we want.

[bfrey64]

 golfbum9, on 21 November 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

 golfbum9, on 21 November 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

 bfrey64, on 21 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I am confused. I thought I hit a 6 iron further then a 7 iron but I might be mistake. Also the shaft is the engine of the club. The head is only part of it; I am sure most would agree with that statement but there have been some really good irons produced in the last twenty years. Golf isn't a game for those who are vain, I don't care what you play as long as it gets you The lowest score possible, but I think shaft is where your launch is changing. Not the club head. Have a happy gobble day and enjoy the weather in the northeast. I know I will.

The golfer is the engine, whereas the shaft would be the transmission- so to speak.

CoG to achieve some random "peak launch window" is not going to work the same for everyone. Each golfers' swing is unique to themselves. Swingspeed, transition, how they load the shaft, where they release the clubhead etc.- each and everyone are different. At the end of the day, loft is still king when it comes to distance. Plain and simple

I agree about loft equalling distance, but you have to play with what works for you. We worry about numbers on launch and distance and not our score. I would put my set of irons against anything out today, but that just me.

So would I. In fact, happen to do so all the time- not to tinker, just because. To each their own but I use what I know and they work just fine for me. Because they fit. Frankly in my opinion, technology or not, nothing feels better than a hand forged iron. And we have to make a good pass on the ball regardless to get the results we want.

Great point!!!

[Jaenuwine]

Don't wanna hate but this is a totally worthless review!!!

Everyone knows Rocketbladez will be easier to hit, go higher, go longer, blah blah blah compared to the MC.
Thanks Captain Obvious!!!

If you're going to do a comparison review, then do it with these clubs:
VS RBZ (not that popular due to look, same level GI)
VS Burner 2.0 (very popular club, same level GI)
VS R11 (very popular club, slightly less GI)

Otherwise, just do a straight review.

There are boat loads of people looking at golfwrx that Don't Post and Are Not Single Digit Handicapers.
And I'd bet many of them own Burner 2.0 or R11 irons.
And I'd bet many of them are thinking of upgrading to Rocketbladez.
Is it worth it?

[Qegurezi]

 Jaenuwine, on 21 November 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Don't wanna hate but this is a totally worthless review!!!

Everyone knows Rocketbladez will be easier to hit, go higher, go longer, blah blah blah compared to the MC.
Thanks Captain Obvious!!!

If you're going to do a comparison review, then do it with these clubs:
VS RBZ (not that popular due to look, same level GI)
VS Burner 2.0 (very popular club, same level GI)
VS R11 (very popular club, slightly less GI)

Otherwise, just do a straight review.

There are boat loads of people looking at golfwrx that Don't Post and Are Not Single Digit Handicapers.
And I'd bet many of them own Burner 2.0 or R11 irons.
And I'd bet many of them are thinking of upgrading to Rocketbladez.
Is it worth it?

Sounds like you would be the perfect reviewer!! Any links to some of your own reviews, i look forward to the read.

[knallerich]

when i picked up my new driver yesterday, the guy at my favorite golf shop asked me to hit a couple with my own 6 iron to calibrate the trackman as it had some kind of new update or whatever.
so i hit 10 shots with my mp-59 6 iron, averaging at 184 yards which is my normal 6 iron  distance on the course.
then my fitter grinned at me and handed me a rocketballz 6 iron(it was with a reg shaft as he didnt have another one, so that might have a bit to do with the distance increase) to try for fun.
after 10 shots i had an average 6 iron length of 209 yards. there were 195 yards shots and 220 yards shots in the mix but generally it is crazy long. ofc the shaft and the loft have to do with maybe 10-15 yards of the distance increase but the other 10-15 yards increase seem to come from the technology.

ofc i wouldnt wanna play an iron that i sometimes hit 190 yards and sometime 220 but i think for the average golfer, the distance increase could defenitly help!

[Cooper]

Were you able to hit knock downs?

[odshot68]

I have had the the TM MC with C-taper stiff shafts in my bag over a year.  They are the best set of irons I have ever used (play to almost scratch).  I heavily rely on flighting the ball and hitting controlled shots (low punches, draws, low cuts etc..).  As most of you agree, very few times on a course are you left with a stock distance.  You have to choke down or hit a preferred shape, especially with the wind.  This is where these clubs have shined.  If these new clubs are designed to be hit high how good can they be in the wind?  Also, how good is trajectory control and distance control with feel shots?  I would be curious on how they work with a C-taper in the heads.  My only caveat with my set is I don't always have the 200 yard shot to carry the bunker on longer par 4s and a higher lofted hybrid( >21 degrees) spins too much for me with wind and I lose a little accuracy and shot making control.  If I miss my 4 iron a little thin I loose 10 yards and comes up just short (which can be trouble at my course) but online.

[Caesar Palache]

 knallerich, on 22 November 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

when i picked up my new driver yesterday, the guy at my favorite golf shop asked me to hit a couple with my own 6 iron to calibrate the trackman as it had some kind of new update or whatever.
so i hit 10 shots with my mp-59 6 iron, averaging at 184 yards which is my normal 6 iron  distance on the course.
then my fitter grinned at me and handed me a rocketballz 6 iron(it was with a reg shaft as he didnt have another one, so that might have a bit to do with the distance increase) to try for fun.
after 10 shots i had an average 6 iron length of 209 yards. there were 195 yards shots and 220 yards shots in the mix but generally it is crazy long. ofc the shaft and the loft have to do with maybe 10-15 yards of the distance increase but the other 10-15 yards increase seem to come from the technology.

ofc i wouldnt wanna play an iron that i sometimes hit 190 yards and sometime 220 but i think for the average golfer, the distance increase could defenitly help!

i did a review of the Rocketbladez irons not Rocketballz. the bladez dispersion was 3-6 yards. not 30 yards like you hit the rocketballz

Edited by Caesar Palache, 22 November 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[Caesar Palache]

 Cooper, on 22 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Were you able to hit knock downs?

I addressed this a little earlier so i just copied and pasted what i wrote before.

Surprisingly it was quite easy to hit a knock down shot.  It wasn't like a hybrid or wood where it's hard to hit it low and long (unless you are Tiger or very skilled).  I hit a few shots where I tried to keep them low and straight and it was quite easy not to launch them to high.  They did what you'd expect of a knockdown, they went a touch shorter and sat down fairly well instead of running out and over a green. Of course hitting a knockdown with my MC iron feels much, much better.  That being said if you want to hit a knockdown...your going to have to know how to high a knockdown.  The weaker player who doesn't know how to keep it low won't quite be able to hit a consistent knockdown as I'm afraid they may lose it high and right as they bail out.



Its harder to keep these irons low, since they are meant to go high.  Thats as basic as I can say it.  But I was able to keep it low and when I tried to keep it low, it didn't balloon into the wind.  If you know how to hit a knockdown or keep it low, you wont have a problem.   Obviously it will take some getting used to and practice, but it can be done.  

It is much easier to work the trajectory (up or down) with my MC irons.  But that its because thats what those irons were designed to do, work the ball the way a player needs to.  Essentially these Rocketbladez are not made for the person looking to do that, I think the Tours would be the better club for that.

[Caesar Palache]

 Jaenuwine, on 21 November 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Don't wanna hate but this is a totally worthless review!!!

Everyone knows Rocketbladez will be easier to hit, go higher, go longer, blah blah blah compared to the MC.
Thanks Captain Obvious!!!

If you're going to do a comparison review, then do it with these clubs:
VS RBZ (not that popular due to look, same level GI)
VS Burner 2.0 (very popular club, same level GI)
VS R11 (very popular club, slightly less GI)

Otherwise, just do a straight review.

There are boat loads of people looking at golfwrx that Don't Post and Are Not Single Digit Handicapers.
And I'd bet many of them own Burner 2.0 or R11 irons.
And I'd bet many of them are thinking of upgrading to Rocketbladez.
Is it worth it?

exactly why i didnt do GI iron vs Rocketbladez. They already play a game improvement iron and dont need any encouragement to try to the Rocketbladez. they will try them regardless of my review. if they play a game improvement iron they will have an open mind about this new iron and think hmmm more technology easier to hit ill try it.

as for a low handicapper, they would normally just write this iron off as i did before i hit it. this review was to help the low handicapper keep an open mind and try these irons out.

sorry for my pointless review that apparently didn't seem to help anybody out there

-Captain Obvious

Edited by Caesar Palache, 22 November 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Caesar Palache]

 odshot68, on 22 November 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

I have had the the TM MC with C-taper stiff shafts in my bag over a year.  They are the best set of irons I have ever used (play to almost scratch).  I heavily rely on flighting the ball and hitting controlled shots (low punches, draws, low cuts etc..).  As most of you agree, very few times on a course are you left with a stock distance.  You have to choke down or hit a preferred shape, especially with the wind.  This is where these clubs have shined.  If these new clubs are designed to be hit high how good can they be in the wind?  Also, how good is trajectory control and distance control with feel shots?  I would be curious on how they work with a C-taper in the heads.  My only caveat with my set is I don't always have the 200 yard shot to carry the bunker on longer par 4s and a higher lofted hybrid( >21 degrees) spins too much for me with wind and I lose a little accuracy and shot making control.  If I miss my 4 iron a little thin I loose 10 yards and comes up just short (which can be trouble at my course) but online.

im very excited to try the Rocketbladez and the Rocketbladez tour with C-tapers because i think that may just be the perfect iron. i love love love my MC with C-tapers just like you. easy to flight and work the ball. i wrote early how i was able to flight these down and control the distance without much dispersion. but obviously its easy to flight the ball with my MC irons.

As for the wind, this review was done straight into the wind on my range and the ball had a wonderful trajectory through the wind. which was surprising considering the lighter shaft i thought would spin it up into the wind to much. the ball didnt seem to get knocked down by the wind as my MC irons do when i get them to high into the wind. i will take them on the course next week and get a better idea of what can be done flighting the ball and hitting into the wind.

[madaboutgolf]

a good review, not had my burner 2 crome irons long but will look at Rocketbladez for sure in the future, 2 degrees upright for me !!
have noticed the faces on the burner 2 chrome also mark up quite quickly, the old  x 14's never did..

[DocHogan]

I appreciated the review.  Just ignore the trolls.  I would like to see a side by side of the 6 iron with the burner 2.0 if able.

Doc

[Caesar Palache]

 DocHogan, on 22 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I appreciated the review.  Just ignore the trolls.  I would like to see a side by side of the 6 iron with the burner 2.0 if able.

Doc

I'll post one Saturday

[2659edward]

Thanks for the review. I am currently playing a set of R11 irons so, probably right in the middle of the target group. I have in the past played R7TP, JDM Forged TP's, R9TP and a set of Tour Preferred CB's. I have found the R11 to be a great iron for me and my current game. As sexy as the Rocketbladez Tours will be, the regular Rocketbladez may be the right choice.

[BirdieBob]

 DocHogan, on 22 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I appreciated the review.  Just ignore the trolls.  I would like to see a side by side of the 6 iron with the burner 2.0 if able.

Doc

From the Q&A with TM:

http://www.golfwrx.c...ost__p__5845777


What is the difference in distance between the burner 2.0, rocketbladez and the rocketbladez tour?

The main difference in the RocketBladez will be the higher launch, steeper angle of descent and overall more distance. The RocketBladez 6-iron will be about a club longer than burner 2.0. A RocketBladez Tour 6-iron would be a couple yards shorter than burner 2.0, but will deliver the exact distance more often over a much larger area of the face.

[bph7]

Thank you, BirdieBob, for pointing this out to everyone who can't seem to get it through their head that there is more to these clubs than jacked lofts.  TM is directly comparing the rocketbladez to other GI irons with jacked lofts and STILL saying they are a club longer.  If you think TM is lying about that claim, then I guess you are entitled to challenge them on it, but otherwise the conclusion (they are longer) seems inescapable.