Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6292 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
I have been hearing so much stuff about the new 2009 burner(mostly neagtive), has any hit it who liked it?

Burner 10.5* driver
Burner 3 wood GD Pershing Shaft
Burner 5 wood GD Pershing Shaft
Tour Burner irons
Rac black 52* Rac satin 60* Red x 3 pro v1


Posted
What have you heard? That it's just like the Tour Burner becauase the TB was only out for 6 months before getting replaced?

I actually switched from the Tour Burner 08 to the R7 Limited and I'm loving it.

      910 D3 9.5* Aldila RIP S "B2"
R7 CGB 3 Wood Fuji S
'11 Rescue 3 Hybrid Aldila RIP S
      710 AP2: 4-PW DG300 S
      Vokey Spin Milled Black Nickel 50/56/60*

Newport Beach: Ghosted

 

 


Posted
I know it's easy to criticize but I was never a fan of the last Burner. The shaft was way too long and way too light. The 10.5* had such a closed face it looked like the ball would hit me in the ankles. You can't argue with marketing and sales success though. And 3-4 times out of 10 I'd crank on that thing.

Posted
i much rather the look of the 7 Limited - i'll try both if i get a chance.

The 2007 Burner is still great - still love it though.

WEAPONS:
Taylormade R9 10.5 L Grafalloy Prolaunch Platinum stiff 65g
Taylormade R9 15 NU YS+6 stiff 65g
Taylormade R9 19 NU YS+6 stiff 65g
Taylormade Tour Preferred 4-PW KBS Tour X-Stiff Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 51Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 55Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 59Yes! Tracy II putterTitleist...


Posted
i much rather the look of the 7 Limited - i'll try both if i get a chance.

You will be very, very happy with the R7 Limited

      910 D3 9.5* Aldila RIP S "B2"
R7 CGB 3 Wood Fuji S
'11 Rescue 3 Hybrid Aldila RIP S
      710 AP2: 4-PW DG300 S
      Vokey Spin Milled Black Nickel 50/56/60*

Newport Beach: Ghosted

 

 


Posted
You will be very, very happy with the R7 Limited

I tried it, and for my the R7 Limited spun the ball way to much for me, causing a ballooning ball flight for me, most of the time, although the few times it didn't balloon it was a great ball flight.

But on topic, I hit it and personally hated the '09 Burner, I would personally opt for the '07 Burner, or the '08 Tour Burner.

Here's what I play:

Titleist 907 D2 10.5* UST ProForce V2 76-S | Titleist 906F4 18.5* Aldila VS Proto "By You" 80-S | Titleist 585H 21* Aldila VS Proto "By You" 80-S | Titleist ZB 4-PW TTDG S300 | Bob Vokey Spin Milled Oil Can 54.10 | Bob Vokey Spin Milled Oil Can 60.08 | Scotty Cameron Red X5 33" |


Posted
I just picked up the Tour Burner 10.5 with regular flex shaft. My previous best round of golf was an 86 back in highschool I kinda stopped playing golf for a few years. Now I picked it back up and have almost a whole new bag of clubs including the TB. Played 18 yesterday hitting 9/13 fairways avg 240-250 off the tee only loosing 1 too the woods shooting an 80. I do have new irons but this was my 2nd round with this club and had only hit about 25 balls with it before the round.

Shots were very forgiving but probably not as long as some of the other drivers out there. I felt like I could work the ball which is something I never thought I could off the tee with an avg round sitting in the mid to high 90's. I hit the 09 and felt it was a step backwords and thats why I purchased the TB instead.

Tour Burner 10.5 R
mp 57's
Vokey Spin Milled 56.10
Pal 4
Pro-V1X


Posted
Hit one out of curiosity at the Galaxy the other night. The stock stiff shaft doesn't fit me, I knew that before I hit it.....so 4500 rpms, the kick on the shaft and spin of the head are a bad combo for me.....more importantly the head didn't feel as good as the 07 Burner or the Tour Burner either. I wanted to like this club cause I like the Tour Burner, and this just looked like a slightly larger version of it, and I loved my 07 Burner - it just spun the ball way too much no matter what shaft I put in it. So, for me at least, the 09 Burner is a thumbs down.

In the Titleist bag on the ClicGear 2.0:

PILOT: Titleist 910 D2 Axivore Tour Red

3 WOOD: Callaway 3-Deep 13*

Hybrid: TaylorMade RBZ 22*

IRONS 3-PW: Mizuno MP-32

WEDGES: Vokey TVD 54* SM5 58*K

PUTTER: Rife 2-Bar Blade

BALL: Penta 5


Note: This thread is 6292 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.