Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6219 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 bought myself a putter, 3 hybrid, and 3 wood today to finish up my bag full of irons (I'm forgoing the driver until I take some lessons and improve my swing/consistency).

I went in planning on buying the Taylormade Burner 3 wood but a guy that helped me before asked me if I was 100% sold on the club. I said no and he told me to checkout the Sumo SQ instead of the Burner. When I asked why he said it's a more forgiving club and better for more of a beginner/higher handicap golfer (which I am).

My swing isn't good enough for me to pick clubs based on feeling... so I have a hard time saying which club feels best. The only club that was easy for me to say felt better was the putter... but swinging irons and woods feel mostly the same to me. Even if some feel softer or harder, I'm not sure which is "best" for me.

So I've been basing most of my club purchases based on reviews I read online along with points like "game improvement clubs." The Burner 3 wood was ranked as one of the best woods in on golfdigest.com for 2008. But the Sumo SQ is also ranked as one of the better woods as well. My question is... is the Sumo SQ a good club for a higher handicap golfer? Should I have gone with the burner? I'm pretty sure the Sumo SQ is a good club for me and I made the right choice, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask on here to see what you guys think before I take off the stickers and take it to the range.

This club will mostly be used off a tee, but it will see a little use on the fairway as well.
Irons Callaway X-22 4-9
Wedges Callaway X-22 PW, GW, SW
3 Hybrid Adam's A4 19*
3 Wood Nike Sumo SQ
Putter Odyssey SabertoothBag Ogio Grom

Posted
I do not think you made a bad choice. The Sumo is probably going to be easier to hit straight than Burner. Based on that alone, I would say it's probably more forgiving and will be easier for you to control. I personally am not a huge fan of Nike woods, but many people love them (with me it's as much how they look as anything - I hate looking down at the 'Powerbow' on those woods). If you like it then that's all that matters. At most golf stores the sales associates are not on commission and do not have an agenda so they are not going to typically lead you completely wrong. Good luck with new equipment and hope you are able to see steady improvement.
Driver: SQ DYMO STR8-Fit
4 Wood: SQ DYMO
2H (17*), 4H (23*) & 5H (26*): Fli-Hi CLK
Irons (5-6): MX-900; (7-PW): MP-60
Wedges (51/6*): MP-T Chrome; (56/13): MP-R ChromePutter: White Hot XG 2-Ball CSPreferred Ball: e5+/e7+/B330-RXGPS Unit: NEOPush Cart: 2.0

Posted
I bought a 3 wood in the beginning of 2008. i tested a bunch, i actually went in thinking i was going to get the sumo2 3w. personally i did not like it all that much. did not seem as long or forgiving as the burner. I ended up testing a callaway, nike and taylormade and got the burner. That said, when i got on the course with it i couldnt hit it straight for anything. i took it out of my bag for a while and late summer i put it back in after more practice. my swing got alot better during the year because i was practicing and playing more golf. When i started using it again it became one of my favorite clubs to hit. Straight most of the time with a slight fade others. almost always in the fairway.

I dont think either are bad clubs, it comes down to personal preference. I am a high handicapper and i think confidence in equipt has alot to do with it for us.

Posted
I bought a SQ 3 Wood 15* , I like the look of the club alot and Its fun to have in the bag, I hit it well off the tee, even though I dont use it off the tee in play rarely. But off the deck I think the head it too big on it and its no good out of the rough at all compared to my 13 degree Cleveland launcher It sounds better than the nike, it feels better than the nike at impact but it doesnt look as pretty as the nike. I got it for 50 bucks used in good condition but I would be pissed If I payed 130 or whatever they cost. It will get replaced once I find one I like a bit more. As for the burner I have hit all those clubs my buddy has the whole 2007 burner set. I wasnt impressed by that 3 wood either. At least for me, he bombs it, Im not that great with a 3 wood regardless but I know I hit my Cleveland undoubtedly better than the sumo or the burner

DRIVER: R7 460 Draw - 10.5* R Flex 55g
WOODS Taylormade R11 15* , Big Bertha 4w
HYBRID Taylormade Burner Rescue 19*, Taylormade R11 5 Hybrid
IRONS Mizuno Mx-200 4-GW WEDGES CG14 56* PUTTER Sabertooth 34"


Posted
Honestly I would not hit anything larger than a 4 wood off deck. The 3 is just to hard to hit long and accurate. On average my 5 wood is within 10 yards of my 3 distance, yet more accurate.

Posted
Honestly I would not hit anything larger than a 4 wood off deck. The 3 is just to hard to hit long and accurate. On average my 5 wood is within 10 yards of my 3 distance, yet more accurate.

I agree- hitting a 3 wood off the turf is tough and not worth it for most golfers


Posted
i currently play the sasquatch 3wood. i played the burner 3wood when i snapped the shaft of the sasquatch. the burner was incredible off the tee. it was only good in the fairway if u had an absolutely clean lie, in the rough it was horrendous. it had a really good feeling, a bit better than the sasquatch, but it didnt perform well in under less than ideal conditions. the sasquatch is a better bet. i play the round one, never tried or plan to try the square one.

In my Diablo Edge Tour/ Titliest Stand Bag:
Driver: Nike VR Pro 8.5* w/ Myazaki 43g X
3 Wood: Nike VR Pro II 13.5* w/ Diamana Whiteboard 83g X
5 Wood: Cobra S9-1 Pro 18* w/ Diamana Whiteboard 83g X

Hybrid: Mizuno MP Fli-Hi 21* w/ Prolaunch Red X
Irons: 4-7 Titleist 712 CB, 8-9 712 MB w/ TT Dynamic Gold X100

Wedges: 46* Vokey SM4, 54* Vokey SM4, 60* TMade ATV

Putter: Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Belly 43"


Note: This thread is 6219 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.