Gizmo Irons

[Flatswinger]

Do we really need to have otherwise good irons with all these gizmos in the cavities? Take the fabulous new Taylormade Burner Plus irons, for instance. Is this an attempt to insult our collective intelligence? Do they think that the more confusing they are, the more technology we’ll assume they have?

TM’s got the marketing power & enough real technology that they don’t need to assault us with these hideous frills to sell iron sets. And Callaway's not much better. Like many of you, even if I can’t see this stuff at address, I need a club with good aesthetics even if it's just sitting in my bag & I’m tired of having to rule out so many clubs just because the designer has a mosaic fetish.

[Stacey_E]

I totally agree. My opinion was clearly stated in this thread....
http://www.thesandtrap.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18801

For this very reason I have went retro. I just picked up a cherry, almost never even been carried, set of MX-23s. They are beautiful cavity backs. I say this not only because I own them. They really fit me and my game well. I also love the look of them in the bag. I know performance should be the only thing that matters. I doubt however I will find a set that fits my game much better. I certainly don't know of new cavity backs that look better, that includes their replacement the MX-200s. Beauty of course is in the eye of the beholder.

Rant over.

[cocky_watchman]

Mx-23s are just superb irons. In my opinion the models that come after mx-25 and mx-200 are no better in performance (significantly certainly not) and aethetically the mx-23s are definitely better. I love my mx-23s they save me money as I dont even consider buying new irons-and trust me I would if I felt it worthwhile!

The only change to irons I made was to throw out the 3 and 4 iron for 3 and 4 hybrids-the hybrids go further-more like a 2 and 3 iron for me. So I could put the 4 iron back in the back to fill a gap, but Id never use it so just not worth bothering.

I have one club space to fill. Im thinking of having a dabble with the Cleveland niblick-now that it a funky looking club

[Flatswinger]

I thought that by now someone would have come out in favor of these widespread designs. That's good, I guess. Can it be that only we don't buy them? Are there closet unable-to-resist-the-marketing iron players? Someone's got to be buying these things - you see them everywhere.

Maybe it's like cars: some people just buy by brand, no matter what they come up with. [My grandmother would have voted for the devil himself if he'd run on the Republican ticket. Hey wait a minute, maybe she already did.]

[RocketSauce]

kind of off topic (irons vs. driver), but heres an interesting article about Taylormade. they've released 45 different drivers since 2003, holy cow!
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...gn_top+stories

and this is one of the reasons why i went retro too and bought a set of BRAND NEW 6 year old irons:

[Surefire]

  Flatswinger said:

I thought that by now someone would have come out in favor of these widespread designs. That's good, I guess. Can it be that only we don't buy them? Are there closet unable-to-resist-the-marketing iron players? Someone's got to be buying these things - you see them everywhere.

I play TM Tour burners. I didn't buy them because how they look, or any marketing though. I needed some new irons and these were the ones that ended up fitting me best.

Going back to your car analogy, you could look at it another way. Some people buy cars because they fit the purpose they are needed for, and others buy a car because of the image they want people to have of them.

[Flatswinger]

Boy, you said a mouthful, Surefire – on two counts. First, I’m glad not to have found out that the Tour Burners are the perfect club for me because I sincerely would have a tough time paying that much money for a club I can’t look at. Call it a weakness that you don’t have -- if it’s the case that you’re not that stoked about the appearance either. Hey, either way, you like the looks of the ball landing onto the green & that’s most important. That kind of proves my point, though. There are lots of clubs I consider ugly that might be good for me, but due to cosmetics are not viable. It doesn’t have to be that way. Remember when only crappy clubs were outlandish looking? In short: geez TM, enough of that random glitz.

Secondly, your comment on image hits the mark, though I don’t know anyone who plays the game that’s totally unconcerned about it. I suppose it’s the extremes that you might be referring to: guys who still carry one irons, must have the very latest, most expensive gear at all times, muscleback irons…

[Flatswinger]

Nice looking irons, RS.

I read the article you linked. You have to wonder if you set up all of the 45 drivers the same way [loft, shaft, etc] whether the performance difference would even be meaningful. I doubt it. I just tested my new TM Tour Burner on a swing analyzer against my old driver, a Titleist 905T [granted with a better shaft] & apparently I wasted my money. I’m hoping it’ll at least be a little more forgiving because it sure ain't any longer!

[-BAMA-]

  Flatswinger said:

Boy, you said a mouthful, Surefire – on two counts. First, I’m glad not to have found out that the Tour Burners are the perfect club for me because I sincerely would have a tough time paying that much money for a club I can’t look at. Call it a weakness that you don’t have -- if it’s the case that you’re not that stoked about the appearance either. Hey, either way, you like the looks of the ball landing onto the green & that’s most important. That kind of proves my point, though. There are lots of clubs I consider ugly that might be good for me, but due to cosmetics are not viable. It doesn’t have to be that way. Remember when only crappy clubs were outlandish looking? In short: geez TM, enough of that random glitz.

whats wrong with carrying a 1 iron?? id still be playing my isi-k 1 iron if it hadnt been stolen along with my old hawkeye driver, 6 iron, and 61* lw from my sunday bag at the range... (ive since replaced the 6 iron and lw thanks to clubfinders.com.. but i havent been able to find another 1 iron with the lie angle i need...

i agree with everybody on these newer looking cavity back irons. most are ugly, and im sure the technology hasnt changed enough to make them any better than models from say.... 2 years ago.... i did like the look of the tm rac irons though.

[Titleist Man]

It doesnt really bother me as long as you cant see the sole on any of the irons at adress.

[Surefire]

  Flatswinger said:

Boy, you said a mouthful, Surefire – on two counts. First, I’m glad not to have found out that the Tour Burners are the perfect club for me because I sincerely would have a tough time paying that much money for a club I can’t look at. Call it a weakness that you don’t have -- if it’s the case that you’re not that stoked about the appearance either. Hey, either way, you like the looks of the ball landing onto the green & that’s most important. That kind of proves my point, though. There are lots of clubs I consider ugly that might be good for me, but due to cosmetics are not viable. It doesn’t have to be that way. Remember when only crappy clubs were outlandish looking? In short: geez TM, enough of that random glitz.

Yeah, you pretty much said it for me. I can't really see my club when I'm swinging, and the rest of the time I am thinking about things other than how my club is looking. I guess in a sense its lucky.

Just made me think also, I didn't mean to insult anyone with my image remarks, just how I fell about it personally. I do what I do, I'm not one to worry about what everyone else is doing.

[Flatswinger]

It's all good. I'd be surprised if anyone posting thinks he's an expert -- I certainly don't. We're just opinionated! And "unable-to-resist-the-marketing" would be one of a whole host of reasons to make any kind of purchase, But if you didn't feel duped once in awhile Madison Avenue wouldn't be doing its job.