Rocketbladez Irons - what a con

[BTatHome]

An awful lot of people don't know what those yardages are though.

Some people have no idea of their yardages, and some people have the yardages in their head but don't hit them

 

[Imurg]

Most people's "yardages" are estimations anyway - not to say it's not a good way of doing it...

BUt how do you work out your carry yardage if you don't have access to an accurate launch monitor?
Using a GPS or laser, pitching the ball into sand or very soft ground so there's no run is all very well but even that isn't available to many...You even have to do it off grass to make it worthwhile - again, many don't have this access.
On the course? Many courses don't allow "practicing" so getting a figure from 1 shot isn't the best.

It's a very (pardon the pun) hit and miss science unless you have a launch monitor.

 

[Fader]

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

I really lilke this idea of having clubs for yardages rather than looking at the number on the sole. But then some will always want the more distance regardless, even though its not distance imo that lowers scores.

 

[Rory130911]

I THINK we have moved off the point.

The issue is that DISTANCE improvement claims are not justified when you have just RE-NUMBERED the clubs to get them I think?

Personnaly I carry a laser and use the same balls all the time.

These two things mean that with wedges & short irons I am never very far from pin-high on approaches...... THATS the distance that counts not which iron I take to get there.

Now I just have to sort the DIRECTION out!

 

[duncan mackie]

I THINK we have moved off the point.

The issue is that DISTANCE improvement claims are not justified when you have just RE-NUMBERED the clubs to get them I think?

Personnaly I carry a laser and use the same balls all the time.

These two things mean that with wedges & short irons I am never very far from pin-high on approaches...... THATS the distance that counts not which iron I take to get there.

you can shout all you like (although it is a little rude) but it's entirely the point.

if you compare the RBladez to, say, the JPX825 which are in the same market, you will find that in the shorter irons the lofts/lengths are the same and it's only as you go to the longer clubs that you get some (small in this case and certainly not enough to consider it a re-number) decrease in loft and increase in length. In association with this transition you also (apparently) get an increased launch angle for the loft ie the 5 is designed to deliver a 'normal' 5 launch angle but with a distance benefit. All the opinions I have seen also suggest that the longer clubs really do 'play' to the number rather than the loft ie the 5 is actually an easy 5 to hit from a variety of lies rather than becoming more difficult because of the loft and length.

So the question for most people is whether or not they find these clubs easier to hit longer, and whether the gapping they provide them is appropriate to their play.

btw you probably should change your signature if you use the same balls all the time - it shows 2 very different ones.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I assume the disadvantage of these stronger clubs is that instead of dropping a 3 and 4 iron as you would for a "standard" set for hybrids you now need hybrids replacing down to the 6 iron...

IMO a number on a club is just a number, its how far it goes that is important, if I have 150 I pick my 150 club. That simple really, the rest is just marketing terms and any seasoned golfer should build their set around the lofts and distances they hit the clubs, not by the designated number.

 

[duncan mackie]

I assume the disadvantage of these stronger clubs is that instead of dropping a 3 and 4 iron as you would for a "standard" set for hybrids you now need hybrids replacing down to the 6 iron...

you could look at it that way - or you could just order 3 to LW (unless you are LH in which case there's no LW) to go with your D, 3w and putter.... it will be really interesting to see how mid handicappers react to (for example) a 4i that feels easier to play than a 4h and goes as far (allegedly)

not a lot of point musing over it though - time will tell how it plays out.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I don't agree. Wilson in particular were notorious for cranking up the loft a few years back. It really doesn't matter who makes what. It is about knowing how far you hit it and whether you hit them consistently enough. Nothing else matters.