• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Rocketbladez Irons - what a con

Twire said:
Had a fitting with Mark this afternoon, I should have asked for a go.

Still, happy with my final choice of 825 pro's :cool:
Click to expand...

You going to do a post for us about your fitting? I would be interested in how good he was and what you tried!
 
Last edited:
Kellfire said:
I can't find the rule that says a certain iron must be a certain loft, can the OP please point me towards it? ;)
Click to expand...

I realise there's a smilie in there but I think there is a valid point hidden somewhere in the (normal) TM slap.

If there is anything that should be related to the number on an iron it's probably the initial launch angle that a ball will have against a set of fixed parameters; closely followed by the length of the shaft. Before perimiter weighting, large soles etc this was simply 'loft', but this is no longer the case.

Finally, we seem to get a lot of posts about how far some clubs hit the ball, or have stronger lofts - but remarkably few about people who get them and immediately drop 6 shots on their handicap because of this extra 'whatever'!
 
duncan mackie said:
I realise there's a smilie in there but I think there is a valid point hidden somewhere in the (normal) TM slap.

If there is anything that should be related to the number on an iron it's probably the initial launch angle that a ball will have against a set of fixed parameters; closely followed by the length of the shaft. Before perimiter weighting, large soles etc this was simply 'loft', but this is no longer the case.

Finally, we seem to get a lot of posts about how far some clubs hit the ball, or have stronger lofts - but remarkably few about people who get them and immediately drop 6 shots on their handicap because of this extra 'whatever'!
Click to expand...

This was my first full season with my 42 degree PW and I won two competitions, dropping five shots. :)


ps. I also had my first proper lessons.
 
Valentino said:
It doesn't matter what number is on the bottom it matters knowing how far it goes.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was about to say as I scrolled down to here.

Its no different to someone taking an 8 iron to go 150 yards but me using a 6 and so forth. The number is irrelevant to me as I don't subscribe to what I see and hear sometimes as the macho-ism shows its face at times on short par 3's where some can't wait to tell you they hit their gap wedge to the green but I hit my 8 iron! But the end result was, they were no nearer to the pin than me!

As long as I know how far (roughly) I get from each of my clubs, the number in relation to loft is rightly or wrongly, irrelevant.

If I changed clubs or just like when I buy a new club, I soon know how far I hit that particular club and chose it accordingly.

May not be politically correct, but it works for me.
 
I agree that getting to know how far you can reasonably reach with each of your clubs is the key point.

Know your own game rather than worrying about what club your playing partners hit or the manufacturers marketing
 
Valentino said:
It doesn't matter what number is on the bottom it matters knowing how far it goes.
Click to expand...

Spot on. What I do whenever I buy new clubs is go to the practice ground and hit 10 balls per club and measure the average distance via Sky Caddy. I tend to do it down wind and into to get a good idea of how far I hit it and go from there. I couldn't care less about the number on the bottom as long as it gets the ball where I want it. Same with the loft. As long as I can trust how far it goes and the flight suits me then I'm happy
 
There is a club maker that use the same shaft length for all irons, I think they are called 'one iron' I think there is something to this system that could help a lot of golfers.
 
I've nabbed this review from a thread on Golfwrx, I thought it was the most coherent and fact based critique of the Rbaldez irons that I've seen yet so I thought it bears repeating.

(It is not my review).

I found it really interesting that he compared the clubs like with like, based on length and loft, rather than the number written on the sole. The results, predictably, were the same.

Here is my grain of salt review of the Rocketbladez. I went to my local PGA Tour Superstore today to hit the MP59 and S56. The iron I play now is the Callaway X-16 Pro Series with Rifle 6.0 shafts. I got on the simulator to warm up with my 6 iron (30*) and was hitting it around 170-180 yards, which also seems to be the case on the course. I then alternated the MP59 and S56 and I got similar results with the exception of the MP59s feeling sooooooo good. Right around 170-180. The MP59 had the PX 6.0 and the S56 had the CBS stiff. What I didn't know was TMAG would have a demo with the Rocketbladez today, and with all of the hype, I couldn't pass it up. I compared the 7 iron to my 6 iron. About the same length and about the same loft. This was the steel RocketFuel 85 stiff shaft. On the simulator, I was swinging my own 6 iron around 90-95mph swing speed and launching it around 20*. When I hit the Rocketbladez 7 iron, I got very similar results. 90-95mph with a 20* launch. And it went around, wait for it....170 yards. Not what I expected. I haven't given up on the Rocketbladez yet since the tour version comes out in February. I will hit these again, where it should be more of an apples to apples comparison, but if I would have compared my 7 iron (34*) to the Rocketbladez 7 iron, then I would have gained about 10 yards. Maybe I'm missing something. I was hitting all of the irons well, so I couldn't really tell how they would have done on mis*****, but all 4 different irons were going about the same distance with the same dispersion. YMMV, but the Rocketbladez didn't do a whole lot for me. The MP59s on the other hand will probably haunt my dreams.
Click to expand...
 
Stuey01 said:
I've nabbed this review from a thread on Golfwrx, I thought it was the most coherent and fact based critique of the Rbaldez irons that I've seen yet so I thought it bears repeating.

(It is not my review).

I found it really interesting that he compared the clubs like with like, based on length and loft, rather than the number written on the sole. The results, predictably, were the same.
Click to expand...


Nice one!
 
Earlier this year I nearly bought some Wilson Ci9 or Ci11 irons - they added 10-15yards.

When I checked the lofts, its the same story as the RBZ irons, they have just fiddled with the lofts making their 7 iron the equivolent loft of my 6 iron.

There is only so far they can go with this design strategy or we'll all end up with 3 irons labelled as pitching wedges!
 
Rory130911 said:
Earlier this year I nearly bought some Wilson Ci9 or Ci11 irons - they added 10-15yards.

When I checked the lofts, its the same story as the RBZ irons, they have just fiddled with the lofts making their 7 iron the equivolent loft of my 6 iron.

There is only so far they can go with this design strategy or we'll all end up with 3 irons labelled as pitching wedges!
Click to expand...
Dunno about anyone else, but I carry 4 wedges already, and that's with the i20s in the bag, which are not that strong compared to some.

46° PW, 50° U, & 54° & 58° Gorge wedges.

I now go driver, 3 wood, 21° hybrid, then 4-U. The bottom end of the bag is the scoring end, if you're so far from the green you're hitting 3 wood anyway, whether u carry a 5 wood or not is irrelevant I feel, whereas hitting full shots from 70 yds or so is much more important to me.
 
HughJars said:
Dunno about anyone else, but I carry 4 wedges already, and that's with the i20s in the bag, which are not that strong compared to some.

46° PW, 50° U, & 54° & 58° Gorge wedges.

I now go driver, 3 wood, 21° hybrid, then 4-U. The bottom end of the bag is the scoring end, if you're so far from the green you're hitting 3 wood anyway, whether u carry a 5 wood or not is irrelevant I feel, whereas hitting full shots from 70 yds or so is much more important to me.
Click to expand...

In such discussions you also have to consider that a lot of people can play round their course without even having a shot between 50 and 100 yds; or ceartainly so few that the odds of it being from exactly a full shot range for the clubs carried that the full shot argument falls apart.

Anyhow, back to the underlying issue under discussion, I don't think it really matters what the club is at all, the only relavant factors are their carry distances and how easy they are to deliver that consistently (for you) through a range of conditons etc

So rather than listing clubs, or debating hybrids, wedges, woods or iron gaps, I wonder if there is any agreement amongst those here on what constitutes a well gapped bag ?

As a 'straw man' I would put forward -

250, 225, 210, 195, 180, 165, 150, 140, 130, 120, 105, 90, 75 (putter)

which happens to be my normal bag, and for shorter courses with smaller scoring targets I might swap out the 210 for a 65.

as has already been pointed out, what printed on the bottom has no relevance
 
duncan mackie said:
In such discussions you also have to consider that a lot of people can play round their course without even having a shot between 50 and 100 yds; or ceartainly so few that the odds of it being from exactly a full shot range for the clubs carried that the full shot argument falls apart.

Anyhow, back to the underlying issue under discussion, I don't think it really matters what the club is at all, the only relavant factors are their carry distances and how easy they are to deliver that consistently (for you) through a range of conditons etc

So rather than listing clubs, or debating hybrids, wedges, woods or iron gaps, I wonder if there is any agreement amongst those here on what constitutes a well gapped bag ?

As a 'straw man' I would put forward -

250, 225, 210, 195, 180, 165, 150, 140, 130, 120, 105, 90, 75 (putter)

which happens to be my normal bag, and for shorter courses with smaller scoring targets I might swap out the 210 for a 65.

as has already been pointed out, what printed on the bottom has no relevance
Click to expand...

Good post, thats a much better way of considering clubs.
 
duncan mackie said:
In such discussions you also have to consider that a lot of people can play round their course without even having a shot between 50 and 100 yds; or ceartainly so few that the odds of it being from exactly a full shot range for the clubs carried that the full shot argument falls apart.

Anyhow, back to the underlying issue under discussion, I don't think it really matters what the club is at all, the only relavant factors are their carry distances and how easy they are to deliver that consistently (for you) through a range of conditons etc

So rather than listing clubs, or debating hybrids, wedges, woods or iron gaps, I wonder if there is any agreement amongst those here on what constitutes a well gapped bag ?

As a 'straw man' I would put forward -

250, 225, 210, 195, 180, 165, 150, 140, 130, 120, 105, 90, 75 (putter)

which happens to be my normal bag, and for shorter courses with smaller scoring targets I might swap out the 210 for a 65.

as has already been pointed out, what printed on the bottom has no relevance
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said, which was an argument that had fallen apart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top