• 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
pixel5

Impressions: Taylormade RBZ, Cobra AMP

16 posts in this topic

I'd like to share my thoughts on a couple of drivers I've been hitting in case any of you are in the market. FORWORD: Everything is subjective. These are just my own thoughts. Take them as opinions, not facts.

Personal Info:

  • 23 Years Old
  • 5'9" - 160-165 lbs.
  • 7-9 Handicap
  • 108 MPH swing speed avg.

Club #1: Taylormade Rocketballz Driver - 9.5* - Standard Length - Stiff Shaft

Thoughts: This club feels like Taylormade put a metal Thermos on the end of a steel rod, painted it white, and gave it a name that would make men feel more manly. This was easily the WORST feeling club I have ever hit in my entire life, and that is compared to cast irons and persimmon woods. On almost every hit, despite actually making contact in the center of the clubface, I felt immediately as if I had sky-ed the ball higher than a lob wedge and the ball flight wasn't far off. I guess if you're struggling a ball flight that never gets more than 6 feet off the ground then you could consider this club, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend that anyone even try this club out. The only good thing about it was that it kinda looks cool and the name makes me laugh like a 7 year old boy.

Results: The results didn't help at all. Compared to other drivers that I was hitting, I was landing about 15 yards shorter on my best hits. This was likely due to the incredibly high launch. The guy at one of the 4 stores I visited said that the RBZ was their top selling driver at the moment. I can honestly say I have no idea why. It isn't even all that forgiving compared to other current models.

Conclusion : Not even if you gave me an endorsement, Taylormade. 2/10

Club #2: Cobra AMP Driver - 9.5* - Stock Length was +0.25" - Stiff Shaft

Thoughts : I loved this club. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the RBZ...best feeling driver I have ever hit. Despite the extra 1/4" that Cobra puts on for the stock 9.5* version, it felt normal in my hands. It was SUPER lightweight. Hitting this clubs makes me REALLY hope I win the US Open Prediction contest because I would love to put this driver in my bag to replace my older, totally unforgiving 905S. It has a beautiful sound and pop upon impact that invokes a ton of confidence in a player such as myself whose driver might not be the most consistent part of their game.

Results : Super forgiving-- not in distance, but in ball flight. Launch angle and my slight draw were very tight from shot-to-shot. I was launching about 12 degrees, which is fairly ideal for my swing speed. My smash factor was about 1.40-1.45, a small improvement over my 905S. According to the detecting equipment at multiple resellers, I was carrying about 260 on a "good" drive, and 265 when I felt like I hit it "on the money" so to speak.

Conclusion : This could be my next driver. 9/10.

Hope this helps someone!

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!

love my RBZ driver, 3 wood, and hybrid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBZ driver was good news, bad news. Got to try it on a slow day at a local golf shop - both on launch monitor and using impact face tape. Good news: it hits the ball a long way. Bad news: it hits the ball a long way left and right. Only three out of 20 caught the electronic fairway.

Might be an OK driver with 1.5" trimmed off the shaft.*

Had much better luck that day with a Cleveland Classic (290-gram version).

------------------------

Two weeks ago I tried different Callaway Razr Fit offerings at a regional demo day. A Razr Fit (9.5*, R.flex) is now in my golf bag.

* While I was practicing with my Razr Fit this afternoon, a 12-year-old was trying to hit an RBZ driver. He was all over the place with the driver. He did much better with his RBZ 5W. The kid was only about 5-foot-4, so I'm not sure why his parents got him the driver with full-length shaft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

So the RBZ feels like a rock? That sucks. I have a Cobra S3 (last years) and it has to be one of the most forgiving drivers out there. Since the S3 and AMP have Cobra's E9 face technology, you can hit one basically anywhere on the face and it'll still go. Granted, you can feel when you don't hit it center which is good since you know, but the distance and accuracy will still be there. Today, I hit one drive on the very top of the club and it still went well over 200 yards. A good drive for me is 230 and it was nearly that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by ajst22

So the RBZ feels like a rock? That sucks. I have a Cobra S3 (last years) and it has to be one of the most forgiving drivers out there. Since the S3 and AMP have Cobra's E9 face technology, you can hit one basically anywhere on the face and it'll still go. Granted, you can feel when you don't hit it center which is good since you know, but the distance and accuracy will still be there. Today, I hit one drive on the very top of the club and it still went well over 200 yards. A good drive for me is 230 and it was nearly that.

I'd say less like a rock and more like a tin can. Like a plastic balloon. Like something big, hollow, and nasty.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds as if the stock shaft was not a fit with you on the RBZ. Stiff = no way for 108 mph. And the sound? That's why you have club makers with hot melt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Sounds as if the stock shaft was not a fit with you on the RBZ. Stiff = no way for 108 mph. And the sound? That's why you have club makers with hot melt.

Stiff should be fine for 108 MPH

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Sounds as if the stock shaft was not a fit with you on the RBZ. Stiff = no way for 108 mph. And the sound? That's why you have club makers with hot melt.

I have stiff shafts on all my clubs. Over the years every driver I've tried out has had a stiff shaft. It isn't as if this is the first one I tried. For comparison, I've even hit other Taylormade drivers with the exact same shaft that comes with the RBZ and they were fine clubs.

106-109 MPH swings are a gray area between stiff and X-stiff. I prefer stiff because it encourages a draw for me, if anything, while X-stiff produces a fade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by pixel5

I have stiff shafts on all my clubs. Over the years every driver I've tried out has had a stiff shaft. It isn't as if this is the first one I tried. For comparison, I've even hit other Taylormade drivers with the exact same shaft that comes with the RBZ and they were fine clubs.

106-109 MPH swings are a gray area between stiff and X-stiff. I prefer stiff because it encourages a draw for me, if anything, while X-stiff produces a fade.

You're not comprehending.

All shafts labeled "stiff" are not the same. There is no uniformity to measuring flex or torque, especially on OEM shafts. As to Taylormade stock shafts, my experience, and I read a lot of comments from others, is that the shaft, for example, on the Superfast 2.0 was a full flex lower that stated.

On aftermarket shafts, your statement is probably true as to a stiff flex, depending on tempo and lag.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by ajst22

Stiff should be fine for 108 MPH

Right (sarcasm intended) - it is a TM shaft, which are notorious for being soft, except for the TP shafts. And it is 46 inches of length (effectively making the shaft slightly softer, too) Did you look at the specs? Meant for a smooth tempo with a medium tip, and gets the ball up. All of that equals what a lot of guys will label as "soft."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by ajst22

So the RBZ feels like a rock? That sucks. I have a Cobra S3 (last years) and it has to be one of the most forgiving drivers out there. Since the S3 and AMP have Cobra's E9 face technology, you can hit one basically anywhere on the face and it'll still go. Granted, you can feel when you don't hit it center which is good since you know, but the distance and accuracy will still be there. Today, I hit one drive on the very top of the club and it still went well over 200 yards. A good drive for me is 230 and it was nearly that.

I also have the S3 and have hit both the RBZ and AMP. I enjoy the RBZ fairway wood( own it) but not the driver at all. THe driver felt horrible to me.  The AMP had the same feel as my S3 and that is the only reason I didn't upgrade it. I already have an aftermarket shaft and oranger grip on my S3 and I would just be buying the same club.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

You're not comprehending.

All shafts labeled "stiff" are not the same. There is no uniformity to measuring flex or torque, especially on OEM shafts. As to Taylormade stock shafts, my experience, and I read a lot of comments from others, is that the shaft, for example, on the Superfast 2.0 was a full flex lower that stated.

On aftermarket shafts, your statement is probably true as to a stiff flex, depending on tempo and lag.

As I said... " For comparison, I've even hit other Taylormade drivers with the exact same shaft that comes with the RBZ and they were fine clubs."

EDIT: socks and shoes, I've heard a lot about the S3 being similar to the AMP. I really wish I could hit an S3, but I don't think anyone around here has one in stock. If it really is the same club, I'd buy it over the AMP. I have no problem with used clubs. I just don't want to risk it not being how I imagined.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

You're not comprehending.

All shafts labeled "stiff" are not the same. There is no uniformity to measuring flex or torque, especially on OEM shafts. As to Taylormade stock shafts, my experience, and I read a lot of comments from others, is that the shaft, for example, on the Superfast 2.0 was a full flex lower that stated.

On aftermarket shafts, your statement is probably true as to a stiff flex, depending on tempo and lag.

This x1000. I've taken a few lessons from a guy that has won on the PGA tour and currently plays on the Champions Tour. It took a few times to "get it" but it simply doesn not matter what the shaft states that it "is". I have a Cleveland 5W and a couple of Cleveland hybrids in my bag. The all have "regular" shafts. Same look, color, etc. This pro asks to see my 5W after I hit it a few times and tells me that I need a new shaft or a new club and tells me "I don't know how you ever get a ball to it's target with the shaft you have on this club". I tell him that can't be right as I hit my hybrids great and they are the same shafts. He shows me me the flex points of the clubs and the 5W was CLEARLY different. FWIW, I have a TM 3W in my bag and it has a stiff shaft. I love that club and I "shouldn't" be hitting a stiff shaft.  In summation after this being beat into my head a few times by a guy who really does know - don't pay attention to what a shaft claims it is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you are hitting the Taylor Made RBZ completely wrong if you are rating this club as a 2/10. I can't talk any smack about the AMP because I've hit the RBZ and the AMP in the same day on the same simulator and came out with almost the same results. The only difference was the RBZ was carrying an additional 10 yards and getting a few more yards of roll than the AMP. While I was in the simulator I intentionally tried to "mis-hit" the ball and without a question the RBZ was more forgiving to me than the AMP was, I felt the RBZ has a larger sweet-spot. That's just my opinion and everyone has their own of clubs they prefer and those they don't just because of the name that's under the head on the part of the club you don't see until you put the headcover back on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

You're not comprehending.

All shafts labeled "stiff" are not the same. There is no uniformity to measuring flex or torque, especially on OEM shafts. As to Taylormade stock shafts, my experience, and I read a lot of comments from others, is that the shaft, for example, on the Superfast 2.0 was a full flex lower that stated.

On aftermarket shafts, your statement is probably true as to a stiff flex, depending on tempo and lag.

^^ This.  Could easily be 10 cpm (or higher) difference between a handful of similar "stiff" shafts.

Look at the difference in cpms between these "R" flexes.  And they are all supposedly regular flex shafts.

Range-in-R-flexes-woods.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the RBZ and AMP 3 woods and preferred the AMP. Nice feel and distance. I could do without the orange grip.

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
  • Posts

    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      No problem.  I'm not tired of responding to sincere and thoughtful posts, like yours, even if it rehashes stuff from before because OF COURSE it is unrealistic to expect people to read 3000 posts before commenting.  In any case I have that quote in a file and it was simple to post it - much simpler and politer than saying "go find it , it's here."  I DO think that one should maybe at least read a smattering of such a big thread before jumping in,   But I have no patience whatsoever with the "I saw Jack play" and "he was nice at a clinic" type posts or posts by people who try to claim some special credibility because of some entirely personal subjective connection.  But that isn't you. As to the rest, you asked for the exact quote and I gave it to you.  If you want to argue with what he said, that is another matter and does not concern me, since my position is that even if we, arguendo, say that the field strengths did NOT get better, Tiger's career was so much more dominant than Jack's that it doesn't matter.  I don't NEED to make a stronger field argument to make the case that Tiger dominated golf in a way and to an extent that no other golfer has ever dominated golf.  And he did it for 15 years (after an absolutely unprecedented career as an amateur) which, IMO, is long enough that it no longevity argument could overcome the sheer dominance advantage his career embodied.   The fact that all that is true in the face of field strength increasing is just icing on the cake.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Excellent. Thank you for re-posting that quote. Sorry to hear you're tired of rehashing. Why not just let the thread die then? Is the expectation that folks will read all 272 pages before making a comment? That strikes me as an unrealistic expectation.. I agree the tour is tougher than it used to be. I consider the differences more incremental than astronomical...not the 'order of magnitude' range that seems to come through in some comments. I think Jack is both being accurate in assessing his perception of a shift in quality, but also exaggerating for effect or experiencing present-day myopia at the very least about the money. $100 in 1962 money would be ~ $800 dollars today. Not exactly what I would call bus fare. The 'paltry' $100,000 had the buying power of about $800,000 in today's dollars, which is ~ 60% of today's average purse and ~ 30% of the Players' purse).. Most Americans would happily take an annual salary like that today. They weren't getting ditch digger wages. The prize money even then definitely attracted keen competitive interest. Clearly purses have also grown more than inflation and even journeyman make more in a year than the top 10 in 1962 (below), but it seems about in line with the growth of the population of golfers in the U.S. itself - about triple since Jack's day, Endorsement money has definitely gotten bigger, as the tour and the golf marketplace have developed and expanded over time.   Rank       Player                  1962 $                   2015 $ 1            Arnold Palmer        $81,448                 $639,223 2            Gene Littler           $66,201                 $519,562 3            Jack Nicklaus         $61,869                 $485,563 4            Billy Casper            $61,842                 $485,351 5            Bob Goalby            $46,241                 $362,910 6            Gary Player            $45,838                 $359,748 7            Doug Sanders        $43,340                 $340,143 8            Dave Ragan          $37,327                 $292,951 9            Bobby Nichols       $34,312                 $269,288 10          Phil Rodgers          $32,182                 $252,572  
    • Claim Your Achievements Here!
      Broke par, Lowest Score Wins. 
    • Disadvantage of too stiff a flex?
      I've often thought about going with an X flex driver shaft.  I may get an adapter from My Titleist 910 and experiment.
    • Claim Your Achievements Here!
      I'd like to claim the "Broke 80" award, as I managed this for the first time December 28th last year.   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OUT Gross 5 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 41(41) Par 4 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 5 36 Distance 353 357 168 465 312 142 389 339 492 3017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 IN TOTAL 5 4 4 4 5 3 5 4 4 38(38) 79 (79) 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 35 71 479 356 323 355 396 185 309 136 365 2904 5921               Thanks!        
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. TessaEdin
      TessaEdin
      (24 years old)
  • Blog Entries