• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
toddmlazarchick

TaylorMade R9 Irons.....what do you consider them??

8 posts in this topic

I was casually talking golf with a fellow employee at work.  I was unaware he even liked golf or even played.  We started talking about clubs and after telling him whats in my bag, he replied with..."Wow very nice, and you play blades too, you must be pretty good no?"  After that we had a debate as to why I dont consider them blades and he insisted I was wrong.  So I was just looking for a general consensus as to what you guys thought they were.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

They are GI cavity-back irons.  I don't think anyone worth their range token would confuse them for a muscleback.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Ralph Matlby Playability Scale they rate as Players Classic which Classic are usally blades.

Take that for what it's worth though**.  I believe he ignores Sole width in his measurment system.

TM I believe lists them as Game Improvement.

After looking at them I wouldn't consider them a blade.  Probably more along the line of a game improvment design for the low to mid handicapper.  Which I believe their Burner line falls into as well.

To where their Burner Plus and Burner Superlaunch would be more along the lines of Super Game Improvement and Ultra GI respectively.

If I had to rate to TM clubs I would do it this way:

TM Blades - Classic Blade

R9 - Conventional head with GI technology

Burner 2.0 - Conventional head with GI technology

Burner Plus - Super Game Improvement

Burner Superlauch - Ultra Game Improvement

** I recently switched to the Burner Plus irons and feel like they have definately improved my game over the old Ping i2 clones I was gaming.  Much easier to hit and definately more forgiving.

Maltby considers them conventional and not even GI.  So that is why I say take his ratings with a grain of salt.  The sole on mine are pretty wide.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too saw the Maltby ratings and think that's a misprint or just a plain old fat finger error.  To say the R9's playability is on a par with 1960's era blades is absolutely ludicrous.  I'm 60 years old and played the same set of MacGregor Tourneys (blades) from the early 70's to late 80's.  They were nothing like the clubs on the market today, not even close.

I've been hitting a lot of new irons at the range lately as I'm in the market and found the R9's to be as nice as any club I hit, and definitely much easier than the Tourneys I played 20+ years ago.

Definitely a game improvement iron.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are not blades.  The MPI rating has absolutely no real world indication for how forgiving these irons are.  I love mine and will not part them any time soon...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt call them blades.  You could call them a player's cavity-back, but they are most definetly not blades.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't even call them a player's cavity back, the TP's are more a player's CB. I would call them a GI CB myself, if you go by sole width.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not a blade either way, but still, which version are we talking about?

dsc08190.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2015 NFL Football Thread
      I'm not disagreeing with you on your other points, but in Super Bowl 12, two players split the award, so it seems they can give the MVP to multiple people, but often don't.  In 49 of 50 Super Bowls held so far, only one person won the MVP, just like in 49 out of 50 the winner(s) of MVP came from the winning team.
    • Putting downhill vs uphill (2x distance of downhill length) poll
      OK, I'm sitting at home twiddling my thumbs today, so why not do the math.  A PGA Tour player in the middle of the pack makes something close enough to 75% of his 5' putts that I'll use that as my sample.  If he has 100 five foot putts that he's going to one putt 75 of them.  Considering my video example above, he's leaving himself another of equal length so for those 25 he misses, he'll also miss 25% of those, which is between 6 and 7.  (Since it's the easier uphill putt, let's call it 6.)  That would be 131 total putts for an average PGA Tour player in Levin's situation above. (For the record, he made his second putt today.) The same PGA Tour player makes 25% of his 10 foot putts.  I would make the argument that a straight uphill 10 footer is almost impossible to three putt, but I'd probably make that argument by saying "he'll make that 99 times out of 100."  So, for that reason, let's say 1 three putt.  Regardless, it's not even really close ... 25 one-putts plus 74 two-putts and 1 three-putt puts our hypothetical pro at 176 putts total in those 100 attempts. I'm no Brain Scientist but, I am pretty sure that 131 is significantly less than 176. Soooooo, I guess I'll go with the shorter putt. Just to humor myself though, I did suggest that I was thinking about longer putts originally, so what happens if I use the same situation but go with 8 and 16 instead of 5 and 10? I don't know the answer because PGAtour.com doesn't have stats for individual distances outside of 10', but I suspect that the results might be similar.
    • New to the forum
      I have never experienced wind quite as brutal. Carts racing all over the place, I carry so the bag acting as a sail and blowing me backwards. Still, enjoyable all the same?
    • Donald Trump for president?
      I think in the end some people are desperate enough to take a job that might be like $2.50 an hour. Does that make it right to even offer a position at $2.50 because they can? I could easily say that's taking advantage of someones misfortune.  I do think wages at some level should be tied to cost of living for the area. $7.50 has much more buying power in Ohio than in NYC. Maybe tying it inflation as well.  If price of basic good, housing, vehicles, ect... go up by 2-3% a year and minimum wage doesn't. It just means more and more people are losing buying power on things they wouldn't have to worry about. Over a 5 year period they just lost 10% of their buying power. They have to buy 10% less food than before.  I think that issue might be more of the Governments involvement in controlling inflation. Maybe the 3% per year increase has been an unforeseen issue. A lot wages have been tied with a step increase by inflation. Minimum wage hasn't. 
    • Donald Trump for president?
      He may have a big ego, but I don't understand how this precludes him from being able to make positive changes. In fact, it is likely to help as he would not want to fail as President. He does not want to let the American people down, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents ever. You don't do that by alienating the middle-class, you do that by reviving it.  Trump is not afraid to take on big corporations and the special interests like the Koch brothers. Those guys control more than any of us realize, and it takes someone just as big to take them down. Sanders, etc. will just get crushed by the special interest groups. It takes a lion to fight a lion. We're going to have to get used to his abrasive style, it will come in handy later on.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. glinks
      glinks
      (43 years old)
  • Blog Entries