The "Tour Tempo" training regimen involves swinging to a series of beeps, spaced at a 3:1 ratio and at whatever total speed best fit your personality. Though the practice undoubtedly helped some golfers, I personally found swinging to beeps to be annoying and ungratifying. Plus, so long as you hit the beeps at the right time, your swing was deemed to have good tempo, regardless of how quickly you snatched the club away at the start of your swing or how smoothly you accelerated from the top.

As a decent golfer, I realize the importance of tempo, but I've yet to discover a great way to teach and learn tempo. I was excited the first time I heard about Ph.D. scientist Dr. Bob Grober's Sonic Golf system, which converts the rotational movement of the club into a sound gradient. Vijay Singh used it to win the 2008 Deutsche Bank tournament and the FedExCup, making the Sonic Golf system a legitimate $10M idea.

Read on to see what we thought of the Sonic Golf system.

The Equipment
The Sonic golf system is comprised of two main pieces: a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter, or "SX-1," slips inside of the butt end of your golf grips where it measures the rotation of your club and transmits the data to the "RX-1" receiver. The RX-1, which clips to your belt or slides into your pocket, has a minijack for headphones and translates the data received from the SX-1 into realtime audio.

The Sonic Golf system currently comes in two configurations. The "System-1 Solo Edition" comes with one each of the SX-1 and the RX-1 as well as three special Golf Pride Tour Velvet grips. The "System-1 Pro Edition" adds three grips (for a total of six) and a second RX-1. Both come with tape and headphones, a screwdriver, batteries, a roll of tape, a carrying case, and a training DVD. The Solo edition runs $399 and the Pro edition $599, but both have been offered for $100 off for quite some time ($299 and $499). Additional grips, tape, receivers, and transmitters are all available separately as well.

The Pro edition comes with six grips, two receivers, one transmitter, and all the little extras you'll need. The Pro edition is intended for teachers who will want to listen to their students' swings.

The Sonic Golf system comes with special Golf Pride Tour Velvet grips because the transmitter - the long, blue piece of equipment in the image above - won't fit inside a normal golf grip. Instead, Sonic Golf worked with Golf Pride to produce grips with a special molded butt that receives the SX-1 transmitter.

If you normally play Tour Velvet grips, you won't mind installing the special grips on your normal set of clubs at all. Unfortunately I use Golf Pride's New Decade Multicompound grips, so I installed three of my six grips on a backup wedge, 6-iron, and driver. It's less than an ideal solution, but perhaps Sonic Golf will one day become so large that they can talk Golf Pride into making a full line of specialized grips.

Operating the Sonic Golf system is simple: you turn the transmitter on by pressing the power button, set the channel to any one of the eight available, and do the same on as many receivers as you'd like to listen. You slide the transmitter into the special Golf Pride grip, clip the receiver to your belt or slip it into a back pocket, and put the headphones in your ears.

The size of the receiver presents a minor issue. It's noticeably bulky (4.5 x 2.8 x 1") and noticeably heavy at 5.58 ounces. Compare this with an iPod Nano at 3.6" x 1.5" x 0.24" and 1.28 ounces and you'll start to understand how bulky the Sonic Golf receiver is in comparison (while having a much shorter list of features).

Performance and Practicality
The size of the receiver is but one of a few stumbling blocks apparent in this first-generation product. Each issue is small, but depending on how sensitive you are to these types of things and how you use your Sonic Golf system, they can add up.

The first and second I've already mentioned: you've got to install custom grips on your clubs, and if you don't use Tour Velvet grips, you may be installing them on a backup set, and the size and weight of the receiver.

The third involves the roll of tape that comes with each system. You're supposed to wrap tape around four places on the transmitter so that it fits snugly into your shaft(s). Unfortunately, the inner diameter of your shafts likely changes from club to club, so as you swap the transmitter from your driver to your six-iron, you're regularly adding tape, removing tape, and checking the fit. It's a time-intensive operation that interrupts practice sessions. Why couldn't the smart folks at Sonic Golf build in some sort of foam or spring-loaded system?

The transmitter and the custom-made Golf Pride Tour Velvet grip. The transmitter clicks into the notch on the butt end of the grip which, along with the tape, holds the transmitter securely in the club.

Once you've got your grips installed and the transmitter taped up, you're ready to start swinging. The premise is simple: you're supposed to use the sound produced by the Sonic Golf system to fine-tune your overall tempo as well as a few key spots in the golf swing. Your tempo is translated into realtime sounds in a practical fashion: slower movements produce a lower-pitched, quieter sound. Faster movements produce a higher-pitched, louder sound. Easy.

Though at first it was disconcerting hitting balls while I a shifting tonal gradient played in my ears, I quickly adapted and began focusing on producing a proper "swing sound" - a term my instructor and I came up with to describe the sounds.

Prior to working with the Sonic Golf system, my instructor and I identified several areas where tempo could be measured and improved upon fairly easily. We came up with three key areas - one at each phase of the golf swing - and began testing the efficacy of the Sonic Golf system at identifying and eliminating problems in these areas.

The RX-1 receiver requires two AA batteries. Though it fits into a pants pocket, the size is quite a bit larger than you'd expect, particularly when you consider how small cell phones can be.

Takeaway
The first potential problem area is the takeaway. I've always had a fairly fast tempo, and we weren't looking to change that. But sometimes I take the club away from the ball a bit too quickly. I've tried a lot of things to fix this problem, but none work for very long because it's incredibly boring to practice a slow takeaway and incredibly easy to forget while you're working on something else or out on the course.

With the Sonic Golf system, I didn't have to remember anything. Instead, I simply worked on something else in my golf swing while listening for a good takeaway "in the background." With a good takeaway - a gradual building of pitch and volume - I'd simply ignore the sounds and hit the golf ball. But if the volume and pitch shot up too quickly, I could stop the swing immediately and re-start thanks to the instant feedback.

Transition at the Top
The second area we identified was at the top of the backswing. Some players pause longer than others at the top, but nearly every player will see a substantial drop in volume and pitch as their club reaches the top of their swing. My pause - though brief again thanks to my faster tempo - was pretty good, so we tried out a few other swing flaws and the practicality of the Sonic Golf system became evident.

Specifically, the system helps to identify two major problems with this portion of the swing: the loop and the jerk. The "loop" occurs when a golfer takes the club to the top and, rather than simply reverse the direction, loops the clubhead around. The shaft is still rotating (though not on the "proper" swing plane), so the Sonic Golf system still puts out sound. The "jerk" is a bit more obvious and is essentially the same as my takeaway problem. If you don't accelerate smoothly from the top of the backswing, you'll hear it a louder, higher-pitched noise than the ideal.

The third area we identified is impact, and specifically, achieving the loudest, highest-pitched sound right at the golf ball. Worse golfers tend to have the highest volume and pitch - and thus the highest clubhead speed - somewhere to their right, behind the golf ball. They're casting and decelerating into the golf ball.

The RX-1 receiver with attached (and included) headphones and the SX-1 sensor/transmitter.

Lower handicappers, on the other hand, tend to get overdo the old "accelerate through the ball" swing thought. We've all seen the drill where you turn your driver around and make the grip go "whoosh" the loudest somewhere in front of the ball, right? It's a great swing thought, but inefficient all the same - you want to accelerate to your maximum clubhead speed at the ball, not after the ball.

The Sonic Golf system makes finding and fixing problems in this stage of the swing easy. I discovered that my swing was reaching maximum speed at the golf ball pretty well, but my instructor wasn't reaching his maximum speed until about 12 or 14 inches after the ball. Through practice, he adjusted and gained a few yards with his 6-iron, which might translate to eight to ten yards with his driver.

The Sonic Golf system works outside of the full swing as well. For 50-100 yard pitch shots, it can work wonders. A lot of golfers have reasonably good tempo with their full swings, then resort to jerking and pulling the club around with their less-than-full swings. If you lack consistency in the longer sections of the scoring zone, the Sonic Golf system may help you to diagnose any tempo problems that exist.

Inside of about 50 yards, you'll find that you simply don't move the club enough to get much sound from the Sonic Golf system. If you suffer from poor tempo in your shorter pitches, your chip shots, or your putting, you're out of luck. Sonic Golf has developed a separate putting transmitter - I assume it will work with existing receivers - and is accepting pre-orders for shipment in early 2010. It's disappointing that there's not simply a switch to enable a shorter swing mode on the existing transmitter/sensor.

Conclusion
I'm a relatively good golfer, and I understand the importance of a good tempo. Though I believe the Sonic Golf system is the best tempo training aid on the market, and despite wanting to like it, I came out of the experience rather unexcited. At $299 even the Solo system is fairly costly, and the transmitter requires too much fiddling - backup clubs because of the special grips, messing with the tape - for my taste. It only really works on reasonably full swings and will require an additional few hundred dollars in the future (the current transmitter costs $219) if you want to work on your putting and short-game tempo.

The SX-1 is easy to control. One button turns it on and off and two others change the channel.

My instructor is a bit more upbeat. At $500, he only has to use the Sonic Golf system in a few lessons per year to justify the cost. He can install a few grips on a few different 6-irons to suit the taste and ability of various golfers. He can plug the RX-1 receiver into his high-speed digital video camera to record the "swing sound" right along with video of his student's swings to show them yet another dimension in which they're improving (or need improvement).

Dr. Bob Grober seems to have taken a "do-it-yourself" approach to this invention, and though I admire the desire to go it alone, I'm left wondering if perhaps the approach isn't hurting the product a little bit. The product still feels a bit like a technical demo or a proof of concept and not a finished product. I can't help but feel that if Dr. Bob Grober had paired with an established golf company he might have a sleeker, easier-to-use, less costly device that might sell easily to individual golfers and instructors alike. Imagine how well an iPod Nano-sized receiver with a transmitter/sensor that worked on putting strokes and full swings and cost $199 for Solo and $329 for the Pro system might sell!

Though the Sonic Golf system is good start I believe the product may need a few revisions before it's ready for the masses. The concept is good - the technology works and can help golfers and instructors to identify and correct tempo-related issues - but the implementation needs work. I'm left wanting more, and I hope to see it in future revisions to the system.

© iacas for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

For those who like to stand out a bit more, FootJoy has you covered with their customization website and product line: MyJoys. I decided to try my hand at putting together some custom shoes and was interested to see how fun and painless the process was to order a pair. The easy way would have been to pick out a pair showcasing one of my favorite sports teams but that's too easy to rather I decided to start with a blank slate and go from there to see what my inner Picasso would turn out.

Tag along as we check out my order.

MyJoys Website Ordering
If making decisions is not one of your strengths, this probably is the place where you should check out and go grab a mocha as the combinations available are for you to choose from are staggering. You might be at it for awhile.

If you excel at making decisions, well, this site is right up your alley! Let's start!

First up is the general shoe decision. For the guys, you have six choices and for the ladies, four. I've had traditional saddle-style shoes in the past but I think I'm past that phase so I went with the DryJoy Tech offering, which look pretty sharp. It's still a little saddle-like with a splash of flair.

Once you make your shoe choice, it's time to get on your customization hat and go crazy (or maybe not if you prefer a more traditional look). Either way, FootJoy has a boatload of offerings.

Starting off with the colors, know going in that you will be making four choices. If you have a tough time making a decision, then you may not want to take part and just go with selecting some of the FootJoy recommendations you can scroll through at the bottom of your screen.

Base color choice is pretty simple; black, brown, or white. Once that is out of the way, you can select your saddle color. That's where it gets crazy, in a fun way. Saddle colors total a whopping 48 choices from Jungle Camo to Blue Hibiscus. I stayed to the "safer" side of the color pallet and went with Green Smooth.

Accent color choice is up next and again, the same 48 option are available for you. Perhaps this could be the opportunity to go a little wild and pick Olive Tortoise Print. I went with Black Smooth, which shows an utter lack of creativity on my part.

The last color choice is pretty easy, laces and like the base shoe color. They come in black, brown, and white wax. I'm hoping at some point they toss in the ReelFit line; not because I don't want to make a laces color choice but rather because I'd like to have the option to customize a pair of shoes with that technology. Seems that might be saved for the ICON line, though… I haven't worn a pair of ReelFit shoes, but I have friends that have sworn by them and their comfort. Our review here is quite positive, too.

Once you pick out your colors, it's off to get your MyJoys tweaked a little bit more by having some embroidery done. Your choices include Flags, Icons, and Monogram. Some of the icons are pretty cool (Martini Glass, anyone?) but in the end, I went the Monogram route on both heels using the acronym for The Sand Trap: TST. A little bit of advertising never hurt.

Your last choices are the size and width. Sizes range from 6 all the way up to 15 with width options including Narrow, Medium, Wide, and Extra Wide. If your feet are different sizes, you can order one size for the left and one size for the right in order to get a pair of FootJoys that fit you nicely. Now that is customization!

Finally, you can review all of your choices and make any appropriate changes or modifications as you see fit. If you're on the fence about making the order, you can email your MyJoys to your buddies to get their feedback or just put them in your wishlist and drop the hint to your loved ones.

Final Product
I didn't wait too long before a box was delivered to my front door. I took the shoes out and gave them the up-close and in-person inspection. I thought the green looked a little darker in reality than on my monitor but it wasn't much, and certainly not a deal-breaker at that. Beyond that, the shoes looked exactly as I thought they would.

Overall the process is very smooth, easy to go through and the final product is top notch and quite comfortable. As with any shoe purchase, make sure you try on the pair that you are interested in prior to ordering to ensure that you are getting properly fitted shoe. If you want to have a nice pair of golf shoes that are uniquely you, then MyJoys is definitely the way to go.

© aolson for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

The Mizuno MX-700 line looks to change that history with offering some serious technology and what I can only describe as one of the hottest faces I've ever hit on a fairway wood. While the MX line traditionally has been geared to the mid and higher handicap range, the MX-700 certainly won't scare away anyone who has one goal in mind, hit the ball long and straight. Regardless of your handicap, that is a good thing.

Does the MX-700 fairway wood live up to it's billing as "the perfect combination of power, accuracy, and ease of use?" Read on to find out.

Design and Technology
The MX-700 fairway woods use the same "Hot Metal" technology offered up in the MX-700 driver by plasma welding an extremely strong, thin, and light weight ES230 steel face to a stainless steel 17-4 body. This setup delivers an larger COR area and increased ball speed for what can only be defined as big-time distance. The combo is quite lethal and lightweight and allows you to generate a great deal of clubhead speed.

With using the light-weight "Hot Metal" face technology, weight is redistributed for a lower and deeper COG which gives you a "high and easy launch and optimal trajectory." High, easy and straight is fine with me.

The head pretty much falls in line size-wise with most of the oversized fairway wood offerings on the market today. Spread the weight out and make it easier to use is a good design philosophy.

Esthetics
When I first saw pictures of the MX-700 fairway wood, I wasn't blown away by the looks. Rather a "looks kinda busy" thought went through my mind. Perhaps even distracting. That quickly changed when I held it in my hands. Yes, there are more graphics on the clubhead then what you might be more accustomed to but put the MX-700 behind a golf ball and it frames it beautifully.

The U-shaped decal that rounds around the edge of the crown blends in nicely to the charcoal finish and the "MX" alignment mark is simple enough to be figure out where to place it behind your ball. It's by far not the worst detailing and after a few rounds, I was pretty well accustomed to it and for the most part, forgot about it.

One item that took me a little time to get over was the sheer size of the head in comparison to what I currently have in my bag. I've had the same three-wood in my bag for the past three years so I'm used to the compact head size rather than some of the over-sized versions I've seen while walking through my local golf shops. The MX-700, while a bit larger does help in the confidence department as you look down and think "there is no way I can miss with the thing."

Performance
Through my years playing golf, my fairway wood was either for off the tee or off the tee. Rarely did I encounter a situation in which I needed or really had the ability to hit one off the deck. With some instruction and little practice, I've gotten better at it and will pull that shot out from time to time.

With the MX-700, that shot becomes much easier to pull off as it launches the ball quite easily and quickly without a whole lot of effort. The sole slides through the turf quite nicely as well whether you're in the fairway or the rough. With the ES230 steel face and Hot Metal technology, the ball comes off quite hot and seemingly goes for ever. If you struggle for distance, the MX-700 can certainly give you quite a boost. Going for a par five in two has never been quite so fun.

The MX-700 is geared more towards the forgiveability end of the scale as opposed to workability side. The sweet spot is quite large and shots where you though you just missed it turned out the same or very near to distance wise compared to the ones in which you pured it. Perhaps the lower handicapper will be able to discern the subtle distance but I certainly could not. Perhaps that is Mizuno's intent: it all feels good!

In my testing, I found that pretty much the entire face is hot. Oh, you can produce some ugly shots with an ugly swing but put a good swing into it and the MX-700 will reward you with a nice straight, high ball flight, regardless if you strike it more towards the heel or toe. Perhaps that's the greatest strong suit of the MX-700 series, accuracy. Which is something at which it certainly excels.

On the tee box, the MX-700 is a pretty serious weapon. If you struggle with a driver, the MX-700 fairway wood could be your replacement as it launches the ball very easily and far (I suggest teeing it quite low to prevent the potential "balloon ball"). While it does produce a fairly high ball flight, it bores through the wind pretty well and only when I teed it up too high would I have a problem with a shot that got hung up in the air. If you're looking at working the ball however you might want to look elsewhere as for the most part, the MX-700 wants to go in one direction: straight.

I did have one slight problem, though, and that is with the Exsar FS4 graphite shaft. Simply, it was too light for my tastes. I've always played with a heavier shaft in my fairway wood and the stock offering in Stiff only comes in at 65 grams, which is 20-plus grams lighter than what I've played with in the past. I tend to have a faster tempo and I found with the current stock offering, I had to force myself to slow down in order to get the most the MX-700 had to offer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just something I'm not sure I want to make that big of an adjustment for one club.

Mizuno does offer a nice variety of custom shafts though and that may be the route I end up going with. As always, your experience may be vastly different than mine and you should certainly demo one out and be fitted to ensure you get the best club/shaft combination for you.

Specs and Extras
The MX-700 fairway wood I tested came with Mizuno's Exsar FS4 graphite shaft in a Stiff flex with a weight of 65 grams which according to Mizuno produces a "mid" ball flight. Shaft flexes in the stock shaft come in Regular, Lite, and Ladies and if those don't suit you, Mizuno can customize yours with shaft offerings from Fujikura, Grafaloy, Mitsubishi, and UST. The MX-700 retails for about $200 with the stock shaft.

The headcover is pretty nice and is sock-style that slides easily on and off. It's a bit firmer around the clubhead in order to keep it protected and adequately covers the graphite shaft to prevent any potential bag chatter with your other clubs. Nice and simple design with some snazzy black and yellow graphics.

Club    LH      Loft°   Lie°    Offset    Length "    Bounce°
3       yes     15      58      none      42.75       42.25
5       yes     18      59      none      42.25       41.75
7       n/a     21      59.5    none      41.75       41.25 

Conclusions
Overall, the MX-700 fairway is quite impressive and should be one you try out during your next trip to your favorite golf shop. I think you will be quite impressed by the latest that Mizuno has to offer regardless of your handicap. While their irons have received accolades of almost mythical proportions, their fairway woods have lagged behind. The MX-700 series looks to close the door on that part of their history and begin a new chapter in establishing the benchmark of what a fairway should offer to today's golfer.

© aolson for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

Trolleys or carts - be they of the push or pull variety - have long served as a great compromise. Golfers could walk and enjoy all that offers them while shedding the load from shoulders already burdened with making par at the last to relieve their friends of a few bucks.

Earlier this year, Sun Mountain rolled out the Micro Cart. The cart is positioned, both in terms of size and price, as a direct competitor to the Clicgear cart we reviewed about a year ago. What did we find out about the Micro Cart? Read on to find out.

Design, Setup, and Specifications
The first thing you'll probably notice about the Micro Cart is that, unlike virtually every other push cart you've seen with three wheels, the Micro Cart has four. Sun Mountain says that the extra wheel eliminates the need to tune the cart to travel in a straight line - and if you've ever had an improperly-adjusted three-wheel push cart you know what they mean. Additionally, the added wheel increases stability when you're traveling on sideways slopes.

Unfolded, it's apparent this is a lightweight cart. But it's also sturdy, too, and it rolls well.

Sun Mountain made sure that you'd notice something else as well: the incredibly small size of the Micro Cart. The Micro Cart folds down to 2.7 cubic feet and doesn't require any assembly. The cart folds up or out in one or two basic moves. Those 52 cubic inches break down as follows: 12" x 17" x 25" (Those are my measurements. Officially it's 24" x 16" x 12"). This leaves the Micro Cart marginally larger than the Clicgear, which clocks in at: 13" x 15" x 24". An inch here or there, so basically you take take this away: they're virtually the same size when folded.

But the the Micro Cart wins in another "micro" way: weight. The Sun Mountain offering tallies a svelte 13 pounds. Compare that to the Clicgear at 18 pounds. Now, a few pounds is not a lot of weight when you're talking about things with wheels, but five pounds is bordering on significant simply because you've gotta bend into your car to pull the cart out from time to time.

The latch on the bottom, here in yellow, takes up most of the setup time: two or three seconds.

The Micro Cart's four wheels are standard, low-maintenance solid foam, both as a space and weight savings and convenience - no flat tires (and no pump necessary). The front tires are mounted on an adjustable axle to accommodate the largest of golf bags. The frame is anodized aluminum, is available in four colors (black, silver, red, blue), and folds in one easy motion. The Micro Cart offers two handle-height positions, a strapless bag bracket, and a console with a padded valuables tray, ball and tee holders, a magnetized scorecard holder, and a drink holder.

The Micro Cart also boasts what Sun Mountain has billed as "a totally new, contemporary look." Uhmmm, okay. It's a push cart, fellas. Let's not get too carried away in the marketing department! It looks nice, but, well, okay.

MSRP is $239, but you can find the Micro Cart for $199 pretty easily.

Here's the console. Not shown here: the umbrella tube that clips in beneath the console.

Setup, Operation, and Performance
From its folded up position, unfolding the Micro Cart is a simple process. First you unlatch the handle (the latch is part of the cupholder), then you lift. The cart unfolds outward and upward with that one motion, and is virtually ready to use. The second (or third) step is to flip a latching mechanism over and click it down to lock the cart in place. Oh, there's a fourth step as well: flip up the foot upon which your bag rests.

To fold the cart, you reverse the steps: flip the bag-rest foot down, unlock the clip, and push down, making sure that click one of the clips onto the proper area of the cupholder. This clip locks the cart in a folded position. You can carry it about by the handles in this folded, locked position pretty easily.

The Micro Cart folds up to a very small size: 12" x 16" x 24" or so. Seen here with a cart bag.

In either direction, the process takes about ten seconds, and that's if it takes you six seconds to start and stop the timer. It's at least as easy to fold as the Clicgear cart, and likely a bit easier.

Like Sun Mountain's other carts, the bag doesn't so much "attach" to the cart as it rests upon it. The two frame rails at the base of the cart support the cart bag while the aforementioned flip-out foot supports the weight of the bag. Near the bag's collar, two flip-out plastic clips squeeze the bag to hold it in place. These clips are adjustable via a simple thumb screw, and do all that's necessary. Except for the rare occasion when the golfer (me, in this case) acts like a complete buffoon and rolls his cart down a steep hill with a tree or two in the way to topple the cart, the bag remains securely resting upon the cart at all times, without any worries, no need for bungees or straps.

Sun Mountain chose to use these little clips to hold the bag on, and they work just fine.

On the course, the Micro Cart was a joy to use. On fairways and shorter rough, the foam tires rolled quite smoothly. Foam wheels don't always feel better than their inflated brethren on cart paths or in taller rough, but I'll take foam wheels for their simplicity and their decreased impact on the grass, particularly in moist conditions.

Sun Mountain's claims about the lack of a need for tracking adjustments seemed correct in my testing: the cart would veer slightly with slopes, but that's simple physics. On even terrain, the cart went straighter than Moe Norman's golf balls. Furthermore, the advantages the fourth wheel offers in navigating side slopes was an unexpected bonus. The extra four inches or so of lateral stability comes in handy several times around Lake View and several other golf courses.

The Two handle positions available: about 34" and 42" if my measurements are accurate.

Like other Sun Mountain carts, the Micro Cart uses a lever brake near the handles. Unlike the Speed E Cart's tension-based brake, the Micro Cart employs a pin brake: a metallic pin pierces a disc on the left rear wheel to prevent movement. The Micro Cart's method works better.

The handle adjusts to two heights, and they vary by about eight inches: 34" and 42" from the ground. My only complaint with the Micro Cart involves the handle. Not only did I find myself wishing for a position in between - one feels too high and the other too low - but I also found that the handles would often "slip" when I pushed down on the handlebars to lift the front wheels of the cart to jump a curb or something. I learned to be a bit more careful and to apply a bit more pressure backwards rather than down to avoid "slipping" the handles, but it doesn't seem like something I should have to worry about. I suppose there was no room for Sun Mountain's typical fine-grained teethed handle locking mechanism.

The brake: a pin slides through the many holes on the left rear wheel to lock the cart in place.

The console is a nice touch that contains just about everything you'd need: spaces for tees, your pencil, a spare ball, and a magnetic clip to hold your scorecard. Beneath, plenty of room for your wallet, a spare pair of sunglasses (in a soft pouch), your car keys, etc. The cup holder will fit a 12 oz. can and smaller plastic bottles, but if you carry a 32 oz. Gatorade, you're out of luck, just as you would be in a full-on golf cart.

Durability of the cart was good, and I can attest to the fact that the weight savings found in the Micro Cart are indeed a plus: not just for getting the cart out of the trunk of a car, but down from a hanger on the wall or even just moving it about while cleaning the garage.

Another look at the console. The top space is great for keys and such, the bottom for bulkier items.

Finally, two things I never found myself using, but which are nice. The Micro Cart comes with their standard umbrella holder. It's a tube, it's stored beneath the handles, and it threads into a screw on the center of the handles to keep your clubs and you, when you're pushing the cart, dry. Second, the adjustable front wheels. You can slide each wheel out a few inches to widen the space, but I put an Ogio cart bag on it and still had plenty of room to spare in the "narrow" setting, so I'm not sure how many people have bags so large they'll need this, though the option is there if you do.

Specifications
MSRP is $239, but the retail price is $199. The Micro Cart is available in black, silver, red, and blue. Each cart comes with the cart and a screw-in umbrella holder. The cart weighs 13 pounds and folds down to about 12" x 16" x 25".

The Micro Cart is available in black, silver, red, or blue. Click here for a larger picture.

Conclusion
Though I've never taken the Clicgear cart around 18 holes, I can't imagine it could perform any better than the Micro Cart from Sun Mountain. The Micro Cart folds up to the same small size, weighs five pounds less, comes with all the same features, and a fourth wheel which eliminates tracking adjustments and improves stability.

At $199 - the same price as that other cart - this one seems like a no-brainer for those in the market for a light, small push cart. The Micro Cart does everything I could want, economically, and with that "totally new, contemporary look." If you walk and like to take a push cart, consider the Sun Mountain Micro Cart one of the best available.

© iacas for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

One area that they have struggled in market share is woods. Whether it's drivers, fairway, or now hybrids, Mizuno hasn't quite captured the hearts of golfers in this category quite as much as their irons have. That hasn't stopped Mizuno though. Over the past few years they have started showing up in bags of players of all skills.

The new MX-700 Hybrid is one of those clubs. I put a hybrid in my bag over three years ago and have loved it. More players than not sport at least one hybrid in their bags and Mizuno wants that market share. Their latest introduction, the MX-700 Hybrid, is aimed at a mid-level player looking for some more forgiveness but not sacrifice the feel and feedback that most Mizuno players have come to love. Will it do the job? Read on to find out.

Build and Technology
The MX-700 Hybrid, as you would expect from Mizuno, has a very solid build. The face is made up of a thin and light weight ES230 "Hot Metal" steel face which helps produce an increased ball speed. That face is then plasma welded to a 4-31 stainless steel body. According to Mizuno, this "expands the COR area resulting in high, long and accurate shots."

One of the more progressive design aspects of the MX-700 Hybrid is the "Drop Down Crown." The top of the club has a higher section along the face of the club and then drops down - steeply - towards the back of the club. This design has been done specifically to drop the center of gravity (COG) lower and deeper, a trend in many woods and hybrids today.

Here you can see the face made of the light weight ES230 "Hot Metal" steel.

Mizuno, like other companies, has also developed a shaft specifically for their hybrids. Their Exsar HS4 Hybrid shaft is the stock version that comes with the MX-700 and was designed to maximize its performance.

Look and Feel
Not only does Mizuno have some of the best performing irons out there, they are very good looking as well. The MX-700 is a mixed bag to me with some parts I like and some that I'm indifferent about.

The top of the club looks very similar to my old TaylorMade Rescue TP. The front of the club is grey and then switches to a dark blue with some light design patterns in it. While I wasn't a big fan of the look of the TaylorMade TP, I like the MX-700 a bit more. It isn't perfect in that I prefer a more seamless look with a color transition that isn't as drastic. My guess is that Mizuno wanted to differentiate and highlight the "Drop Down Crown" design on the top of the club - as seen on the right.

The bottom of the club is a bit busier with a similar grey-to-dark blue transition with a darker grey between the lighter "steel" color and the blue. Set in the steel and blue are some nice yellow accents. I'm not as picky about the bottom of the club since you don't look at it until you are putting it back in the bag after you've hit it. If I had to rate it, it would be good.

As for the feel of the MX-700, that is where it really shines. It doesn't feel too heavy or too light in your hands and sets down very well behind the ball and doesn't fall open as some woods and hybrids tend to do at address.

When hitting the ball it gives you a good crack and not the high-pitched sounds some woods might produces. You won't barely feel the ball come off the face though as this is more a game-improvement club and won't provide a lot of feedback, so keep that in mind. Regardless, the MX-700 is good on the looks side but great on the feel, which is more important to me.

Here's another good look at the Drop Down Crown that Mizuno incorporated into the MX-700 Hybrid.

Performance
There are a few different areas I like to evaluate hybrids when performing a review. I'll start with one of the hardest shots for me personally - the high and soft 225-yard shot.

I'll repeat from previous review, but this is a shot I wanted in my bag for years and could never produce it. A 3-wood is too hot (and too much) and I can't carry a 2- or 3-iron that far. My low ball flight and lack of Tigeresque club head speed keeps me from carrying any iron longer than 210 and not screaming through the green. The hybrid, though, offers the true solution.

I've owned two TaylorMade hybrids over the past few years that gave me the desired result to the above problem. When struck well, I can carry a ball over 225 yards and it won't go skidding through a green. Any replacement or new hybrid must have this shot. It's a requirement for me.

A look a the MX-700 (on left) compared to the recently reviewed TaylorMade 09.

To perform a test to see if the MX-700 Hybrid was able to produce the desired result I hit a sequence of balls from about 225 out with both the MX-700 Hybrid and my current TaylorMade 19° hybrid. The TaylorMade performed as I've described. I was able to carry the ball onto the green without too much difficulty. The ball flight was high, but did not float or seem to spin too much. The MX-700 Hybrid had a very similar result and only differed in a couple ways. First, the ball still bored through the air but was slightly higher, possibly due to the extra degree of loft on the Mizuno. Second, because of this slightly higher ball flight the balls landed just short of where the TaylorMade did. Not a big difference, but the Mizuno seemed slightly shorter.

The next area I took the Mizuno out to test was off the tee. Often times on short par fours I like to have another option other than a fairway metal or iron. I can't hit the stingers like the guys on tour but a hybrid that I can hit relatively straight and for decent length is a good alternative. I thought the Mizuno did admirably in this area. I never popped the ball up off the tee and could routinely hit the ball 230+. If you're playing a short par four with a tough angle and want place the ball more accurately, the Mizuno is a very good option.

The Mizuno MX-700 performed quite well in most aspects and would make a solid addition to just about anyone's bag.

The last area I like to review hybrids is in its "recueability" - which is the ability get you out of trouble. There are three rescue shots I like to run through with any hybrid. The first is out of some thick rough. I had no problems at all getting down the ball with the Mizuno. In fact, it probably outdid my TaylorMade in that respect. The bermuda grass isn't too thick right now but I found some tall fescue that wasn't a match.

The next trouble area to test was the thin lie. The Mizuno performed well. I was able to make a clean strike and still advance the ball close to what I'd expect with a normal lie. The TaylorMade is slightly better in this category of shot but not too far off.

The punch shot is the last shot I tried out. You could be behind a tree or playing a links golf course in the UK. Regardless, the punch shot comes in handy at times. I was able to make clean contact but the ball was launched a bit high for my liking. This is one of the areas that probably come at a sacrifice of the 225 yard shot. If you want a higher launching hybrid, it may not translate into a good punch club.

Overall, Mizuno has a very well performing hybrid on their hands. You won't find too many shots that you can't pull off with this new club. You wouldn't know this hybrid was targeted at a game improvement market.

Options & Extras
There are numerous options that come with the new MX-700 Hybrid. I received the 20 degree version but there are also a 17, 23 and 26 degrees available.

As for shafts, like I said earlier, the Exsar HS 4 is the stock shaft and does the job just fine. If you really want a different shaft, then Mizuno can put in just about any of the main shafts on the market including steel shafts. Graffaloy, Fujikura, UST ProForce V2 and the Mitsubishi Diamana are just a few of the options.

A well designed and functional headcover comes with the MX-700.

The headcover is similar to my TaylorMade and is a solid accessory that fits snugly around the clubhead. No worries about losing this headcover if you hit some hard bumps with your cart. It even looks nice too.

Conclusion
I give the MX-700 Hybrid a big thumbs up. I thought that something that's considered a game-improvement club would feel all together different. I even had another low single digit handicap golfer give it a few swings and he instantly liked it.

The 20° may be a bit high for me, but the forgiveness in the Mizuno was noticeable. I may have not been able to hit it as far as my current TaylorMade, but I hit less bad shots - which is never a bad thing. If you're in the market for a new hybrid I'd suggest checking the new Mizuno out. I think it could fit in the bag of golfers with just about any handicap alongside all those irons I've seen.

© dave for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

When the chance came to review the latest offering from TaylorMade, I jumped on it. My older-generation Rescue has been in the bag since 2005 and has seen better days. While I've admired Mizuno and Titleist in the iron area, I've had a TaylorMade driver and Rescue or fairway metal in my bag for many years. Their dominance in this area has been the result of superior products, not just marketing.

The TaylorMade Rescue '09 offers some improvements that are hard to pass up, especially if you're like me and have skipped a few generations. The question is, though, will this new version be good enough and retain the qualities that I've come to love and appreciate about my old Rescue? Read on to find out.

Build and Technology
The basic build and shape of the TaylorMade Rescue has not changed much in the past few years. From the Rescue Dual TP that I currently have in my bag to this model, the biggest changes are inside of the club. The one most promoted and hyped by TaylorMade is that the center of gravity has been lowered by 10 percent over the 2008 model (and probably a lot more over my older one).

You can see that not much has changed much from the face of the club. The leading edge is a bit more flat and the size of the face is a bit larger on the new '09.

The other feature of the '09 TaylorMade Rescue is on the bottom of the club. There the heel and toe has been recessed promoting two things: reduced drag and more playability. The TP version of the '09 TaylorMade offers one more piece of technology.

That one piece of technology is the new Flight Control Technology (FCT) that TaylorMade has introduced to a variety of their clubs this year. According to TaylorMade's website, FCT "utilizes a metallic sleeve positioned over the tip of the shaft. The sleeve can be rotated into different positions, changing the characteristics of the head, by loosening the bolt that secures the sleeve and shaft into the clubhead." Translation: you're able to change the loft, lie, and face angle of the club easily to fit your preference.

Look and Feel
If you've read any of my previous hybrid reviews, you'll know that I think that hybrids are a bit strange on the looks. I've never been fond of the look of my Rescue Dual TP. The good news is that the '09 Rescue has shown a vast improvement.

From the top the Rescue '09 has a solid black look with a straight line that runs parallel to the face, curving away towards the back of the club at the ends. The result is a clean and simple look.

I prefer the look of the new '09 on the right quite a bit more over my old Dual TP.

The sole of the club is equally well done. The recessed heel and toe is painted black against the steel of the rest of the sole resulting in what looks like a claw. There are much harder lines on the bottom of the Rescue '09, but just as appealing to the eye.

Feel does not disappoint either. First, when resting the club behind the ball the club does not turn at all. Some Rescues or hybrids have a tendency to open a bit, making the alignment a bit open. The Rescue '09 does not suffer from this. You can easily align yourself and not worry about the club shifting. Throwing your alignment off even by a couple degrees on a club like this can result in some wild shots.

One other good attribute that has been retained in the Rescue '09 is the feel of the ball off the face of the club. Simply put, it is solid. Since Rescues are truly between woods and irons they can take the attributes of both. The Rescue '09 has the feel of an iron when striking the ball. There is no hollow or dull feeling. A player gets good feedback with the Rescue '09 and the sound is more like an iron than it is a fairway wood.

Performance
Typically, when I evaluate a hybrid, I have in mind two main features or areas of interest. The first area is the long, high shot that I have never been able to execute with my irons. You have all manner of disaster around the green and have to carry the ball 220 yards to the green. A 3-wood is too low and/or too long. I can't carry a 2- or 3-iron that far. Any 3 iron that goes 220 yards for me is a low hook that carries 200 and rolls another 20 plus yards. My current TaylorMade pulls this shot off and I won't consider a hybrid that can't.

I received a 19° Rescue '09 which is the same loft as my current hybrid. I chose the TaylorMade because it has a higher launch angle than any other hybrid I've tested. After hitting the first set of balls with the Rescue '09 it was easy to see that it was going to be very similar to what I've been using for three years. It produces a higher ballflight than most hybrids but not a ballooning ballflight.

To compare my TaylorMade Rescues more closely, I did a test for the 225 yard shot of death. I hit a series of balls from about 225 out with both clubs. The similarity was once again evident. So much that if the clubs were painted the same I might not even know which was which. Both clubs could carry the ball onto the green without any problems. Distance was very similar as well. The biggest difference was on mis-hits. The newer Rescue '09 was a more forgiving. After just a couple shots that did not catch the center of the face it was apparent that forgivability was the main thing I was missing by not upgrading sooner.

The second area I like to review hybrids is in its "recueability" - which is the ability get you out of trouble. There are three rescue shot tests I like to run through with any hybrid. The thick rough shot is the first one I tried. There was nothing rough about it though. I was able to get the ball up out of the rough without any issues. The Rescue '09 had no problems working through the rough and getting the clubface on the ball.

Although very similar in size and shape, the new TaylorMade '09 is more forgiving than its older sibling.

The next trouble area to test was the tight lie. When I first started using a hybrid/rescue club this was one shot I was surprised that it could handle so easily. For some reason I thought the iron would manage it better but the Rescue is a much better option. The TaylorMade Rescue '09 was no exception. Again, the ball flight was still high and penetrating.

Lastly, I always like to try out a few punch shots. Whether it is getting out of the trees or hitting some wind-cheaters, a reliable low shot is a great one to fall back on. Of all the tested areas this was probably where the TaylorMade performed the most average. It was a bit difficult to control the trajectory and keep it low. Contact was not the problem. Neither was distance control. If I have a low branch in front of me, that might be the problem.

Options and Extras
17°, 19°, 22° and 25° TaylorMade Rescue '09 models are available. If you're a lefty, only the 19° and 22° are available. This gives golfers a variety of options if they are not only looking to replace a 2 or 3-iron, but possibly a 4 and 5-iron as well.

As for shafts, there are two options. The first is the standard RE*AX Superfast 85 shaft. This is their "stock" shaft and the one I reviewed. I was more than happy with the stiff model that came with it.

The head cover is very similar to the ones TaylorMade has provided in years past for their Rescue clubs. It is a solid nylon cover with a stretchy section along the back that allows the club to fit tightly around the cover. Unlike the Bobby Jones head covers in one of my recent reviews, I've never had to worry about losing this cover. Along with the functionality, the styling and look is good as well.

I was very happy with the previous headcover TaylorMade provided and glad to see they didn't change much.

Conclusion
I believe I've finally found a replacement for my old TaylorMade Rescue TP. It's only fitting that it is another TaylorMade. The Rescue '09 improves in enough areas, most importantly forgiveness, that it was an easy choice.

Anyone looking to replace not just a long iron, but (as in my case) an old hybrid, should give this a swing. I've reviewed and tried numerous hybrid and Rescue clubs in the past three or so years and only put ones by TaylorMade in my bag. Others have come close and tempted me to make a switch, but I could never pull the trigger. Only by TaylorMade mixing the old with the new was I willing to make that switch.

© dave for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

After reviewing Mizuno's MP-600 last year, I was very interested in seeing what the company would do with their "average player" follow-up to the MX-560. The knock (and the only knock in a lot of people's minds) against the 560 was the sound. It had a very loud and unpleasant impact sound.

As the "MP" implies in Mizuno's lineup, the MP-600 is intended as a driver for better players. It features a neutral to open face angle at address and little or no slice correction (other than Mizuno's Fast Track weighting system, that is). The MX-700, with its "MX" moniker, is aimed at any golfer looking to maximize distance, get a little help launching the ball, and reduce, if not eliminate, a slice.

So does the MX-700 live up to its billing? Read on to find out.

Design and Technology
Mizuno has given the MX-700 what it terms a "Hot Metal" Ti-9 titanium face, plasma welded to a 6-4 titanium body. The Hot Metal face is said to have a unique, vertically aligned grain structure, designed to expand the coefficient of restitution (CoR) area and increase ball speed for long and straight drives, even on off-center strikes.

Mizuno certainly seems excited about the face technology it has built into the MX-700:

"The Ti-9 'Hot Metal' face in the MX-700 is the first of its kind, and is designed to enhance initial ball velocity from every spot on the club face." said Dick Lyons, VP and General Manager, Mizuno USA Golf. "This breakthrough face technology combined with an optimized launch angle, spin rate, COR area, and Moment of Inertia make the MX-700 the longest and most forgiving driver you're going to find."

The head is yet another from the "geometric" school of driver design. This head shape is intended to create an extremely low and deep center of gravity (CoG) and a centrally located sweet spot for enhanced vertical stability. The important part of all this engineering is that it is designed to produce low spin and a high, penetrating ball flight. Mizuno's "Power Hull" body construction places internal reinforcements to positively affect feel and sound.

Esthetics
The MX-700 has a large clubhead. Yes, it's within the limits at 460cc, but it's a big 460. I've been playing a Titleist 907 D2 for the last 18 months and the MX-700 appears much larger, as most drivers in the game-improvement realm do. The top of the clubhead stretches back from the face in a big "U" shape. That's where the club gets its high MOI (moment of inertia). It's the kind of thing that you'll probably notice the first few times you address the ball, but if the results pay off you'll probably be willing to live with it. And if you've been playing any of the other large square or U-shaped "geometric" drivers, you might even think the MX-700 looks normal or smaller at address by comparison.

Mizuno gives us a crown decal to aid in alignment. There's a large U-shaped pattern around the edge of the crown and an "MX" alignment mark in the middle. I wasn't crazy about it the first time I saw it, but I also wasn't greatly troubled by it. Suffice to say it is less intrusive than some crown decals out there.

Like the MP-600 before it, the MX-700 continues Mizuno's departure from the blue color scheme for its woods. While the 600 was black, the MX-700 is a nice charcoal accented by the silver of the alignment decal. Even the Exsar D4 shaft is now black, instead of the line's "any color so long as it's blue" color range of years past. The combination looks nice in an understated sort of way. A gold shaft decal just below the grip adds just a touch of flash.

This is purely hypothetical, but I can't help thinking that this color change may be Mizuno's way of saying, "We are getting serious about woods now."

When it comes to the sound, the MX-700 is an improvement over the MX-560. It's still a bit loud from a traditional standpoint, but not nearly as loud as its predecessor. It compares favorably with other geometric-style drivers on the market today.

Performance
To check out just how serious this Mizuno was, I headed off to the range to get a taste of how the MX-700 performs. My first drive produced an audible "wow." I looked around to see who said it and realized it was me. Seriously, the ball really jumps off the face, high and long.

As I would expect with an MX club, there's a lot of forgiveness built into the MX-700. For starters, there's a generous sweet spot built into that large face. It's very easy to get the ball into the air, and mishits around the face still travel a respectable distance. I found that I was getting more carry with the MX-700 than I have with any driver, but the ball still ran out well once if finally came down.

I felt that the MP-600 was one of the most accurate drivers I'd played. The ball went right where I aimed it more times than not. It wasn't the most exciting driver I'd ever played (it didn't seem to have that occasional exceptionally long ball in it), but it was very good at finding fairways with respectable distance.

The MX-700 in contrast is very exciting. The ball can seem to fly forever. A lot of the time that's very good, but start it in the wrong direction and that can be very bad. This is not really a criticism of the driver. It does what it's supposed to. The problem is my tendency to swing a driver too hard. Having a club that launches like the MX-700 that is lightweight, as well, just makes me want to swing harder… with predictable results. However, as long as I control my swing speed, I found it fairly easy to keep the ball in the short grass.

The MX-700 launch angle is truly amazing. For this review, Mizuno sent a 10.5° model with the stiff mid-launch shaft, as requested, but it clearly launched too high for me. (A recent change in my setup has changed my line-drive tee shots into what seems in contrast to be soaring drives. My golfing buddies can no longer tease that I can castrate a groundhog with my tee shots.)

A local Mizuno rep traded out the 10.5° for a 9.5° and I couldn't be happier. It still launches quite high for me but with a more penetrating ball flight and reasonably low spin. That means that despite the high trajectory, the ball still manages to run out upon landing (wind or soft conditions notwithstanding).

The switch also gave me the opportunity to compare the two lofts. Like many manufacturers, Mizuno appears to put a little more help for slicers into the 10.5 than the 9.5 has. I tend to fight the hooks off the tee as it is, and the 10.5 produced a few too many high left snappers. The 9.5 still favors a left-ish ball flight, but not as emphatically as the 10.5 did. With just a couple strips of lead tape (old school "movable weight technology") on the toe, the 9.5 became willing to produce a nice controllable fade, which was elusive prior to the addition.

The MX-700 is not meant to be extremely workable (and it isn't), but players who normally work their tee shots left or right will find modest success with this driver. Because of the right-to-left bias, I felt more comfortable hitting a fade (a draw could turn into a hook too easily). I just aimed down the left center, and if it faded I was in the center or right center of the fairway. And if the bias got the better of me and ball went straight or even drew a little, I was still on the short grass or close to it.

Specs and Extras
Players who already launch the ball high with the driver will be disappointed to see that the lowest loft available in the MX-700 is the 9.5°. Clearly Mizuno is aiming the MX-700 squarely at mid and high handicappers who typically need more help getting the ball in the air.

The Exsar DS4 shaft is a good performer. The stiff version that I tested was stable enough on hard swings, while still being easy enough to load on a smooth swing.

The Club is available in 9.5° and 10.5° lofts for righties and lefties. A high-launch 12° model is available for righties. All models have a lie angle of 61° and a length of 45.5" - a half inch over the semi-standard 45 inches.

Flex      Weight    Torque    Ball Flight
----      ------    ------    -----------
Stiff       59g      3.7°      Mid
Regular     55g      3.9°      Mid-High
Lite        50g      4.5°      High
Ladies      45g      5.0°      High

Standard Shaft: Mizuno's Exsar DS4™ graphite (regular, stiff). Standard Grip: Mizuno/Golf Pride M-21 58 Round. Custom options are available through Mizuno's Custom Club Department. Suggested Retail Price: $360.

Conclusions
The Mizuno MX-700 driver is a very good driver. It will be a particularly good fit for players who drive the ball straight or fade it off the tee. Those players with a low launch will find plenty of help in the MX-700. Slow swingers should consider the 10.5 or 12° version to maximize air time. The 9.5° driver could be played by mid to lower handicappers who desire a higher ball flight and a little right-to-left bias off the tee.

So is this the best Mizuno driver ever? With one qualification, I have to say yes… This is the best driver I've seen from Mizuno for the average golfer.

The MX-700 is not going to be a big hit with the lower handicappers who want to be able to work the ball or who already have draw tendencies to their swings, but it is an MX after all… not an MP. It's not meant for those guys. Still, if Mizuno were to expand this line to include a neutral or slightly open-faced 8.5° version of the MX-700, I wouldn't be surprised if low handicappers and even some tour pros started playing it by choice. I know I'd give it a shot. (And that should tell you how high I launch the 9.5° version… I don't think an 8.5° would be any problem.)

It's a shame that this driver is hitting in a down economy year. I suspect that it could sell record numbers of drivers for Mizuno, but maybe not this year. Still if you are in the market for a driver, you should absolutely take a look at the MX-700. The hot face launches like no one's business. Mizuno has not been a big name in drivers traditionally, but the MX-700 just might help change that.

© georgep for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

I like to move the ball a fair amount when I play. In fact, that's one of the things that I find most enjoyable about golf: picturing a shot and then executing it. While I don't always pull off the shot that I've envisioned, when I do it's a feeling as good or better than shooting a low score. So when I'm in the market for irons, I'm looking for a set that I can work when I want to. Still, I'm a realist… I need some forgiveness, too.

The Nike Victory Red Forged Split Cavity irons (aside from having way too long of a name) are designed to help players work the ball, positioned squarely in the middle of the Victory Red workability-forgiveness continuum. Common sense would tell you that the muscleback blades offer far more workability and less forgiveness than the full cavity irons. All of that perimeter weighing in the cavity backs helps reasonably well struck shots go straight, forcing the player to make more of a concerted effort to purposefully move the ball left or right. It's reasonable then to expect that the Split Cavity irons would offer a nice blend of workability and forgiveness.

Nike makes a point of emphasizing Tiger Woods' role in developing the VR irons. The obvious assumption is that if the world's number one golfer had a hand in creating the clubs, then they must be very good clubs, indeed. Let's find out if that's the case.

Design and Technology
The Nike Victory Red Split Cavity Irons are forged from 1025 carbon steel and CNC-milled to produce consistent faces. The split cavity design is intended to keep the weight behind the sweet spot for ball control and added forgiveness.

The irons sport cambered soles to help players get the clubface squarely on the ball from a variety of lies. In effect, this is like one of the many types of "grinds" you might have applied to a wedge or iron. Old school players often grind their own clubs to alter a certain aspect of a club's playing characteristics. You might grind the heel down to provide more relief to better open the face without digging in the heel. Grinding is as much art as science.

With the VRs, Nike has built the grind right into the club head. A thin line on the back of the sole has been removed, effectively narrowing the sole width. This allows better players to effectively increase the bounce on the clubs when necessary, while maintaining workability from tight fairway lies. Even without the "grind" effect, the VRs provide more bounce than many clubs in their category.

When it comes to new technology in these clubs, there's not a whole lot here that you won't also find in other top-of-the line players irons, it's more the combination of the pieces that result in a nice package.

Esthetics
Personally, I think these are among the best looking clubs Nike has ever produced. Since entering the golf market, Nike has often dressed up their clubs with flourishes that are clearly cooked up by a designer rather than by an engineer. Some are purposeful, like the "Power Bow" that makes the Sumo drivers look smaller than they really are, others seem to be there solely for show, like the faux rivets on early Nike irons. Golfers tend to either like the Nike look or hate it. In general, I prefer clubs that look more like tools rather than sports cars, but I'd be more than willing to play a pig's head on the end of a stick if I could hit it farther and more accurately than other clubs.

The VRs, for the most part, look the part of players clubs. They have some of the just-for-the-sake-of-design elements we'd expect from Nike. But in an era when the fairly busy (especially for Titleist) and wider-soled AP2s are doing well with better players, these Nikes are not out of line at all.

The cavity is where Nike's designers have been busiest. There's a sort of waffle pattern surrounding the VR in the center of the cavity (which ostensibly marks the reverse side of faces' sweet spot). Naturally, the familiar "Swoosh" is present as well. There's a lot of what I'd call purely cosmetic touches, but at address the clubs appear satisfactorily utilitarian at address, which should appeal to many lower handicappers. The satin finish coupled with mostly understated graphics (for Nike) plus chrome faces and accents give the VRs a refined but purposeful look. There's some flash here, but the overall appearance is all business.

The topline is a tad thicker than many clubs in the category, but not horribly so. Likewise, the soles are a bit wider to provide a tradeoff between workability and resistance to digging.

In a nutshell, the VR Split Cavity irons should prove to be unoffending to most lower handicappers (staunch purists won't like the wide soles or the "dressing up" of the back of the club), while they will appeal to younger players and others who like a little flash in their golf clubs.

On a side note, it seems a little surprising to me the Nike would introduce a VR line of clubs rather than building on the TW brand. If you want to tie these clubs to Tiger, as the Nike ads do, emphasizing his role in the design of them, why wouldn't you use the TW logo on them. Perhaps it's a contractual thing (TW is limited to apparel currently, I believe). Maybe they are protecting the TW brand in case the VRs tank… Whatever the reason, it just struck me as a bit of a surprise.

Performance
You'd expect irons designed with input from Tiger Woods to perform at a high level, and these do. Absolutely. This may or may not be what you are looking for, however. Or in other words, be careful what you wish for.

For a long time in the history of golf, "players clubs" were really just the more expensive, more consistent, more finely crafted versions of the clubs that the rest of the golfing world was playing. There were no "game improvement" clubs. Then Ping and others started producing cavity backs of varying degrees and brought more and more forgiveness to the game. Today, players clubs are supposed to be workable and built to perform for better golfers. The more finely tuned a golf club is for the better player, the harder it is to play for the average player.

What I'm getting at is that the VRs fully expect you to hit the sweet spot, or very close to it, on every shot. When struck in the sweet spot, these irons launch the ball high and long. I found that the purest shots flew 5 to 10 yards farther than shots that just missed catching the sweet spot flush, which flew similar distances to my regular irons. I'm not talking about an off-center shot here, but a solidly struck golf shot that hits in a quarter-size diameter around the sweet spot rather than the dime-sized pure center of the clubface. Not exactly a "miss" by most golfers' standards, but enough to make a difference to the VRs.

True misses, on the other hand, lose quite a bit of distance. My poorly struck shots generally flew right at the target, but landed 15 yards short of what I was expecting (or more depending on the club).

That's not to say that these clubs are entirely unforgiving. They do have features that help you out. The cambered sole performed as advertised for me. I found I could hit the ball well from a variety of lies without excessive digging. The clubs performed well in the mud of springtime golf in Ohio as well as on the dry hard-baked fairways of summer.

Specifications
The Victory Red Forged Split Cavity irons come in sets of 3-PW with True Temper Dynamic Gold steel shafts (regular, stiff, extra stiff) for both left and right handers.

You really can't go wrong with Dynamic Gold shafts. These consistent shafts are the tried and true standards for better players. A lot of golfers will only play Dynamic Golds. Still there are a lot of newer products out there, and I can't help but be a little surprised that Nike opted for a 20-year-old shaft design over a sexier, stepless shaft. Maybe someone at Nike is into substance over style, after all. Or perhaps they figured that a tried and true shaft would help sell the clubs to better players.

Club     Loft °   Lie °    Bounce     Length
----     ------   -----    ------     ------
2I       18       58.0       2°       39.5"
3I       21       59.0       2°       39.00"
4I       24       60.0       3°       38.50"
5I       27       61.0       4°       38.00"
6I       31       62.0       5°       37.50"
7I       35       62.5       6°       37.00"
8I       39       63.0       7°       36.50"
9I       43       63.5       8°       36.00"
PW       47       64.0       9°       35.75"

A set of VR Split Cavity irons will set you back $899 ($999 MSRP). You can also add a 2-iron, as well, if you are among the shrinking minority that still carries a 2-iron.

Conclusion
The Nike Victory Red Forged Split Cavity irons are good sticks, but they are not going be a good fit for everyone. Then again, what clubs are?

Honestly, I was a little disappointed in the forgiveness offered by these clubs. Yes, they are supposed to be players clubs, but we've seen quite a few really good players clubs out in recent years that still provide enough forgiveness that golfers with handicaps in the low to mid teens can still play well with them.

Solid contact, however, is well rewarded. I hit some really nice golf shots with these clubs, each and every time I hit them dead solid perfect. The ball just jumps off the face and flies like well struck muscleback. Which is really what these clubs remind me of: blades. When you hit them right, all is well in the world and golf shots are a thing of beauty. But when you don't, you are going to pay for it with shots that land well short.

Players who make consistent contact in the center of the clubface will enjoy playing these clubs. Those of us who miss the center (even by a little) more than a few times a round will have a tougher time scoring well. If playing the same club that Tiger does helps you enjoy the game, great. Try the musclebacks. But if you need a little more forgiveness (with the emphasis on "a little more"), then the Split Cavities might be the way to go.

© georgep for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

One of those companies is Roenick Golf, who have come out with a pretty ingenious idea for a putter that not only incorporates some nice customization features but also an alignment-aid system that should help you drop a few more putts per round and give you some added confidence every time you stand over a putt.

I'm not the biggest mallet guy in the world, to put it mildly so even with the above features, I was pretty skeptical that the Crossbow had any chance of securing a spot in my very small putter rotation, yet alone make to my bag.

Read on to find out if I had to eat a little crow about my thoughts in using a mallet putter.

Design, Looks, and Setup
The Roenick Golf Crossbow Putter XB-10 is a mallet-style putter that is precision milled from 6061 aircraft-grade aluminum, which I found to be quite nice at rolling a golf ball (more on that later). It features some fancy-named technology called "Adjustable Alignment Technology" (or "AAT") and is designed to help you correct visual misalignment, which is a pretty important thing if you want any chance of sinking putts.

What makes the Crossbow line of putters unique is that they feature an interchangeable heel-toe weight system that allows you to get a custom feel based upon the headweight that suits you best. In addition, this also provides some flexibility in order to adapt to various shaft lengths which are offered. No longer are you tied to some equipment makers length/weight specs: you can have your own.

There are a couple of ways to adjust the AAT, some simple and some for the more scientific golfer "geek." The easier method is the Greenside Calibration while the more involved kind is the Laser Calibration method. I tried both and found they both work fine.

Adjustments are simple and are made by inserting a small allen wrench the hole in the back, loosening a screw, moving the aligner (arrow) to the desired angle and tightening the screw. Told you it was easy. Each protraction mark on the Crossbow Putter is equal to ½°: the longer marks indicate full 1° increments while the short marks indicate ½° steps. The aligner always points to the optimum point of contact on the putter face (sweet spot) so it does not deflect the ball when struck.

After messing around with the AAT using both methods, I found that for me anyway, the Crossbow was just fine as it was out-of-the-box, no adjustments needed. Nice to know though one can make the necessary changes if need to help you out in the alignment department.

I'm must admit that I'm pretty set in my ways for what looks pleasing to my eyes when it comes to how golf equipment looks, especially putters. I've tried a myriad of mallets that look like pancake flippers, spaceships and cattle brands and have always gone back to my trusty Anser-style blade putter. To say that I was pretty skeptical when the Crossbow showed up on my doorstep is an understatement.

But I must admit that the Crossbow doesn't look too bad. With some nice curves and an overall size that won't overwhelm you, I found the Crossbow to be one of the few mallets that I could putt with for more than a few minutes without searching for the next putter to try out. I think having the black anodized finish, which looks quite sharp (and reduces sun glare and helps in improve sightline visibility to boot) is a big part of this as I've personally always liked black paint on putters.

At address, the Crossbow sets up nicely behind the ball and doesn't overwhelm you with its size.

From the address position, the Crossbow helps out in the confidence department as the size was just large enough that you feel you could make anything, make an accelerating putting stroke, and the alignment arrow was long enough to get you properly lined up to your putting line. Simple and effective.

Performance and Feel
I've putted with a blade putter for years so it's a pretty radical departure for me to even consider putting a mallet in my hands. Not to say I haven't tried but I have not had a lot of success to find one that looks pleasing to the eye AND performs well. Until now.

The first thing that struck me about the Crossbow was the weight. I've played around with plenty of putters over the years and I don't find too often where the first time I pick one up that it just feels right like I did with the Crossbow. It's not too light where I feel I have zero control over my putting stroke yet not overly heavy to feel I need to make a decelerating putting stroke to keep the ball on the green. The Crossbow works nicely as it comes with additional weights that allow you to make it heavier or lighter based on your preferences. Simply brilliant.

After the first few putts I stroked with the Crossbow, I was quite pleased with how soft the ball felt off the face. Not mushy, insert-feeling soft where I've felt I needed to hammer the putt to get it to go anywhere but soft in "the ball just gets in the way" and off it goes feeling I get with my current putter.

The two weights ports allow you to get a customized weight that feels right to you and changing them out takes you all about a minute.

One of the major features of the Crossbow is the adjustable weights. Yes, I know there are other putters out there that allow you to adjust the weights as well, but the Crossbow comes with additional weights included in the price. No having to buy extra weights or sending it in to a shop to be adjusted, you can make the necessary weight changes yourself to find out what best works for you. While the standard 360 gram weight felt quite nice right out of the box, it was good to know I could make any changes if I ever felt the need. Changing the weights is a snap with the enclosed allen wrench and weight set that comes standard with every Crossbow putter.

Distance control was pretty easy to get used to with the Crossbow as I found it was pretty tough not to be able to accelerate smoothly through my putting stroke. My major putting issue is the tendency to to take too big of a backswing and then need to slow down through my putting stoke to prevent the ball from racing ten feet past the hole.

Not so with the Crossbow. No matter the length of the putt, I found it to be quite easy to accelerate through the putt while taking a shorter backswing thus having a much tighter dispersion in the distance department. Taking a shorter backswing and accelerating through the putt is something I've been working on over the off-season and thus far this year and the Crossbow worked beautifully in accomplishing just that. Think of it as a putter and a training aid as well.

The Crossbow fared quite nicely in providing both adequate feel and feedback. When struck perfectly (or closely to) the feel is quite soft and smooth and even those not quite so perfect strokes were still rewarded with almost the same feeling. A subtle enough of reminder to make a better stroke next time but not a harsh, clanky feeling either.

I wasn't a big fan of the standard grip but that's just my personal preference.

My only quibble with the Crossbow was the leather-wrapped grip. Try as I may, I never could quite get a happy feeling when using that style of a grip but that's a pretty easy fix and a pretty minor "issue" at that.

Specifications and Availability
The Crossbow is available for both men and women and both models work for righties and lefties. Standard loft is 3.5° with a lie angle of 71° (customizable +/- 2°). Shaft type is either heel (Double Bend) or center (Straight) and comes in a multitude of lengths including Standard (31-37"), Belly/Mid (37.5-43"), and Long (43.5-53").

The head weight is varied from 360-380 grams and can be changed with the interchangeable heel and toe weights. The sinister looking black anodized color helps to cut down glare and the Crossbow comes with a custom fit silver/red with black trim headcover that covers the putter nicely. Also included is a pouch that holds the extra weights and wrenches.

The Crossbow putters come in at $150 ($10 upcharge for the Belly/Mid and $20 for the Long) which for a club you'll use 30+ times during a round and is customized for you seems to be a steal nowadays. You can order one today from their online shop which is easy to navigate.

Conclusion
Simply put, the Roenick Crossbow delivers as its feel is soft and smooth and the customization options between various weights and the AAT make it a must try if you are in the market for a new putter. Having been a blade-style guy for years, I've had to eat a little crow since using the Crossbow but after watching a few more putts drops during my rounds, I have no problem with that.

© aolson for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink

"Until now."

That's their new slogan. "Until now, you've never had a customized driver." Or something like that.

Logic aside (I've had customized drivers because I've gone to get fitted for my drivers), the message is clear: TaylorMade is big on customization, and the R9 not only offers "MWT" for "Movable Weight Technology" but their new hosel adjustment feature, dubbed "FCT" for "Flight Control Technology."

Suffice to say even if TaylorMade doesn't own your tee box, they own the most acronyms. Does all of this FCT and MWT make a difference in the R9 driver? Read on to find out.

Design and Technology
The newest addition to the TaylorMade driver line is, again, FCT or "Flight Control Technology." Essentially, it's an interchangeable hosel (attached to a shaft) that you affix to the clubhead by a screw that's not perfectly aligned with the shaft's axis. Rotating the hosel/shaft thus changes the angle at which the shaft enters the clubhead, and thus alters the club's face angle, loft, and lie.

The FCT sleeve is made from 7075-T6 aluminum alloy and is "ringed around the bottom with small teeth, which tightly mesh with a second ring of matching teeth within the hosel." You alter the clubhead's face angle, loft angle, and lie angle by loosening the FCT bolt, removing the shaft from the head, rotating the sleeve and shaft into the specific position you desire, and then locking it all into position with the supplied wrench.

Prior to FCT, in order to change the face, loft, and lie angles you had two choices. First, you could rotate the club in your hands and adjust your setup slightly. The second option was to make friends with your local clubmaker and have him bend the hosel for you - a sometimes dicey proposition and certainly not something you'd want to do every few days.

For those of you who have previously used the r7 line with the Moveable Weight Technology (MWT), the R9 is no different in this regard. The clubhead has three weight ports and comes with one 16-gram and two 1-gram weights. Put the heavy weight in the heel port to give you a draw bias, the toe port to give you a fade bias, and in the middle port for straight flight. According to TaylorMade, with all the various clubhead characteristics settings and weight configurations, you have up to "75 yards of side-to-side trajectory change" - 35 of which comes from MWT and 40 from FCT.

The new wrench can be used with both the FCT bolt and the movable weights and is designed specifically for the R9 as the bolt requires 40 inch-pounds of torque to tighten fully (older MWT wrenches deliver only 30 inch-pounds of torque). Just like the older wrenches, the R9 wrench "click" when either the FCT bolt or MWT weights have been tightened.

The R9 driver has a new clubhead shape that combines the shape of the r7 SuperQuad with the r7 Limited, which is a more triangular shape with "beautifully contoured corners." According to TaylorMade, "the triangular shape offers four distinct advantages:

1. It allows for a deep back, far-from-the-face CG location that makes it easier to launch the ball.
2. It contributes to a higher MOI for greater stability on off-center hits.
3. It allows for an exceptionally low CG location that's lower than that of the r7 Limited and the r7 SuperQuad.
4. It works more efficiently with MWT, allowing it to use only three ports and cartridges to "more effectively influence trajectory than the r7 SuperQuad could with four."

In addition, the R9 utitlizes TaylorMade's "Ultra-Thin Wall (UTW) technology" which allows the clubhead walls to be be a scant 0.6 millimeters thus allowing more weight to be moved for the Moveable Weight Technology and a lower and deeper center of gravity to be possible. Less weight equals more speed.

Toss in the old reliable Inverted Cone Technology and you get a clubface that has an expanded area that serves up higher ball speed. Higher moment-of-inertia, lower center-of-gravity and the Inverted Cone Technology gives you a much more forgiving driver.

Esthetics
Though I appreciate TaylorMade's attempts to redefine the word "classic" as it pertains to driver head shape by calling the subtly triangular shape of the R9 "new classic," I disagree with the term and still dislike the look to a small degree. Count me among a small minority, but I still prefer the pear or at least circular shapes of the truly classic drivers. I played for quite awhile with an r7 425 TP and its circular head, but haven't really cared for any of the square or triangular heads I've seen since. I've gotten used to them - no doubt - but "like" and "got used to it" are two very different things. To TaylorMade's credit, the triangle shape is quite soft - it's nearly round - and I appreciate their efforts in that regard. The R9 is not bad to look at - it's just not great.

Beyond the shape, I like everything else about the looks of the R9. The dark red shaft connotes power and a bit of sinister intent - not a bad feeling standing over a golf ball. The manliness continues on the sole with the angled ridges and edges that do a little to mask the MWT and FCT ports. The angles, ridges, and lines look "high tech" and "futuristic" far more than any set of rounded edges I've seen on a driver.

The darker greys and blacks offset the simple sole markings which say simply "TaylorMade R9." Any other markings on the club are hidden beneath the hosel (the loft) and FCT logo is hidden on the toe where the "TP" logo usually hides (the TP and non-TP heads are the same - only the shafts differ in the R9 and R9 TP).

The hosel's FCT markings are primarily on the inside of the club except for four simple abbreviations: R, L, N, and NU to make the settings visible at a glance. The hosel itself has fluted edges and looks a bit like a longer version of the hosels Callaway has used on their metalwood for a few years. The simple crown is completed with a "T" logo behind the center of the clubface and a shiny, black, non-speckled finish.

Apparent size isn't so much an issue with the R9, as the clubhead is only about 420cc. No doubt TaylorMade had to put some extra weight in the heel for the FCT, necessitating the smaller clubhead size in this first version (a 460cc version is reportedly on the way), but I like the smaller clubhead. Too many of the 460cc drivers look like balloons on sticks, and though some clubs mask the size well, the R9 doesn't need to. Some people might even wish it looked a bit larger.

Performance
I must admit that I was tempted to simply link to our TaylorMade r7 Limited review and say "R9 = r7 Limited + FCT." Essentially, that's how I feel about the R9 - that it's quite like the r7 Limited with the addition of FCT.

How much that addition of FCT adds, well, that will vary from person to person.

MWT and FCT are important for one reason: custom fitting. Golfers who buy a club off the rack without being custom fit or even trying different settings are missing out. With MWT and FCT, golfers can do a lot of the custom fitting themselves. Sure, they've still gotta pick a shaft that suits them, but after that they're free to adjust draw/fade bias, lie angle, loft, and more with MWT and FCT.

TaylorMade realizes that custom fitting isn't very sexy, so beneath their "change your ballflight" marketing lies the tone that you don't change it to get a club that works for you, but rather to change your ball flight to suit conditions or the course you're playing that day. I can count on one hand the number of golfers I know who have ever changed their MWT or their FCT once they've got it set optimally for their swings. I'm guessing you're probably the same way.

We've had MWT for a few years, and we know how it works. In my own tests, I could get a hard draw with the 16-1-1 configuration, a baby cut with 1-16-1, and a high cut-slice with 1-1-16. If I wanted a baby draw, I was out of luck just using MWT, and some have raised the point that it's a little cheap of TaylorMade to give you only three weights. You can order more or, if you're like me, use the weights you might have from prior TaylorMade equipment.

A brief aside: testing these sorts of things is fairly difficult. I'm either too smart or too stupid to swing the same way every time. If I know I've set the club up to make the biggest hook it can, my body tends to instinctively fight that. I had to test blindly - by having a friend configure the club and not tell me what settings he'd chosen until I hit a few balls with as close to a "stock" swing as possible.

The 35 yards TaylorMade claims you get just from MWT? It may be a bit of a stretch, but you can certainly get from one side of the fairway to the other - a good 20 or 25 yards - with MWT alone.

Moving on to FCT, the hosel has eight positions ranging from neutral (which is actually 1° flat) to "Right" (with a neutral lie angle), "Upright" (1° upright), and "Left" (again with a neutral lie angle). The difference might only be two degrees, but it's noticeable.

TaylorMade's literature is a bit confusing regarding FCT, but it largely depends on what type of golfer you are. For example, take the club I reviewed - an R9 TP with 9.5° loft and a Fujikura Motore F1 65g shaft. In the Neutral configuration, the club has a square face angle and 9.5° loft. Fortunately, the stock shaft is only 45", not the 46" or 46.5" that TaylorMade and others have been sneaking into their drivers in the quest for more distance.

Let's move to the "Right" FCT position. This opens the clubface two degrees (and makes the club a degree more upright). TaylorMade's documentation shows the "Right" setting as producing a lower shot than "Neutral," and that's true if you close the clubface to get it back to square. You're reducing the effective loft of the club. But then how the ball goes right (particularly with the more upright shaft angle), I don't know. The alternative is to leave the clubface open two degrees, which has the effect of increasing the effective loft. But at least you know the ball will go right.

I'm not sure which type of player you are, but I prefer the latter method, which again contradicts what TaylorMade will tell you about the relative heights of the "Left" and "Right" positions.

Since my "miss" tends to go left, I chose a neutral weight setting and the "Right" FCT position with the R9 I tested for this review. I let the face hang open at address like it wants to in that setup and trusted that I could be aggressive through the ball without fear of going left.

When you make contact with the ball on the center of the face, the ball comes off quite nicely - with a mid-high trajectory, decent spin rates, and a flat, boring ball flight. It's no longer or shorter than other drivers on the market in its best personalized configuration, but that's to be expected - we're awfully close to the distance ceiling with the current rules and technology.

Catch the ball a little higher on the face - as little as a quarter to a half an inch - and wow the thing becomes a launcher. The ball just goes. It starts a bit higher, it spins a lot less, and it just floats out there with tremendous carry. There's a mid-length par five I've never reached with less than a 4I before that I reached with a 6I after teeing off with the R9. That round was played in early spring, and my ball only "rolled" (if you can call it that) one yard in the soggy conditions.

Unfortunately, you seem to need to catch the ball on the center of the clubface and a bit high to get everything out of this driver. Balls caught low or towards the heel or toe felt a bit dead. Less so on the low ones, and more so - surprisingly so - on the heel and toe hits.

The heel and toe hits still offer a good amount of shot correction: heel hits will come off low and try to cut back, while toe hits start high and try to draw. The distance penalty for low/heel/toe mis-hits is what gets you, though. Shots for which you might expect to lose 15-20 yards with other modern drivers lost as much as 35 yards with the R9. It's been awhile since I've hit a 420cc driver, but 440cc drivers didn't exhibit anywhere near this much penalty on these types of mis-hits, so I'm not convinced it's simply a matter of clubhead size. The R9 has been widely and quickly adopted on the PGA Tour, but those guys don't miss on the toe and heel. Though I tend not to miss on the toe or heel myself, I think the lighter shaft increased the frequency of those types of mis-hits.

Back on the plus side, and despite the triangular shape which leads you to believe the R9 is a high-MOI driver that resists working the ball, it's quite easy to move the ball left-to-right or right-to left from any of the MWT/FCT configurations. Essentially, once you get the MWT/FCT setup that neutralizes your misses and plays into your stock shot shape, I think you should be able to work the ball about as well as your skill allows. This may be more difficult with the eventual 460cc version, but with the current R9 it's just about right - a little forgiveness and a good amount of workability.

Sound at impact varies greatly across the clubface. Again, heel/toe hits sound a bit dull, and high and low hits vary in pitch and amplitude a bit, but center contact is incredibly pleasing. The pitch evokes a solid sound and is about as good as it gets with a titanium driver.

All told, except for the slightly higher trajectory than I might otherwise like from a 9.5° driver, the club performed incredibly well. You know, like you'd expect an r7 Limited with the addition of FCT to perform. <grin>

Specs and Extras
The R9 driver will be offered in 8.5°, 9.5°, and 10.5°degree lofts for righties and 9.5° and 10.5° for lefties in X, S, R and M shaft flexes. The MSRP is a cool $500 (about $400 street), while the R9 TP comes in 8.5°, 9.5°, and 10.5° lofts for righties and 9.5° and 10.5° for lefties in X, S, and R shaft flexes. The MSRP is $600 (about $500 street), and you can pick up either one of these bad boys starting on March 20, 2009, which is conveniently around my birthday. Thank you TaylorMade!

The available R9 shafts: Motore 65, 65 TP, 75 TP, and 85 TP. They all look the same, but I dig the red!

The shaft for the standard version is a Fujikura Motore graphite shaft with High Inertia Tip (H.I.T.) technology (kudos to the marketing folks for that one). The 65-gram shaft has an advanced tip construction to help promote a faster ball speed. The R9 TP comes with a Fujikura Motore F1 65-gram shaft with H.I.T. engineered to be slightly stiffer and with lower torque. 75- and 85-gram shafts are also available.

Conclusion
Discussion on the forum seems to be mixed: some love the club, but many talk about a dead feeling. I'm not sure if they were hitting the heel or toe with a lot of their shots, because that's the only time I had a feeling that I'd describe as "dead," but the feeling does exist.

The majority of the time, the R9 performed as well as you could expect. The 420cc clubhead proved plenty workable and moderately forgiving. Though I don't like the triangular shape, it's subtle enough that it's not a real concern (I debated even mentioning it a second time). The club exudes manliness and power.

MWT and FCT are both wins in my book, again if for no other reason than the "built-in" customization options they afford to golfers who might otherwise buy off-the-rack clubs and be constantly guarding against their "big miss." Again, for me it's a shot that goes left, and the R9 in the "Right" configuration straightened things out nicely. Caught cleanly or a bit high, distance was great and the club sounds tremendous.

$400? That's your call. If you don't need the FCT, well, the r7 Limited doesn't cost very much these days…

© iacas for The Sand Trap, 2009. | Permalink