or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › TaylorMade R9 Irons.....what do you consider them??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

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.  

post #2 of 8

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

 

post #3 of 8

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. 

post #4 of 8

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.

post #5 of 8

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...

post #6 of 8

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

post #7 of 8

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.

post #8 of 8

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

 

dsc08190.jpg

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › TaylorMade R9 Irons.....what do you consider them??