Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Any real world comparisons between the TM R9 and Burner 2.0 irons? and, my story....


Note: This thread is 5613 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

Here is my story:

I am a decent weekend golfer, better than most of the guys I play with. I try to play a lot during the warmer months, but seldom play when the weather is not really good (so I am not playing right now).

I play to about a 12 when I am playing a lot, with my strengths being fairways hit, and keeping my ball in play. I play MANY rounds without losing any balls. I hit beautiful drives with nice controllable draws, but only average about 215 off the tee on the fly. I am currently hitting a 9.5 G15 with a stiff shaft. I occasionally play some good iron shots, but my iron striking is by far the worst part of my game. When I miss-hit an iron, my 'towards-it' is normally pretty good, I just lose TONS of distance. I am able to work my shots when needed. I do believe that my ball striking is decent, especially considering how well I have always hit my drivers, and I SHOULD be a better golfer. Like all of us, I need to practice my short game, but I really think I need some irons that match up to my game a little better.

I believe one of my biggest problems is my iron set. I bought a set of Callaway X-14 Pro irons a few years ago after hitting many different irons on the range. I had the opportunity to hit the X-14 pros with quite a few different shafts, and experienced the best feel, and the best control with a X-Stiff rifle shaft. The problem is, I DO NOT, and never have had a high swing speed. My 7 iron distance with these clubs is only about 145 yards, and even a few years ago, 152 was about my limit. I draw the ball (sometimes too much), and pull the ball with these clubs when not on target.

As well as I hit my driver, I feel that I should hit more greens with my irons, and that my current irons are holding me back.

I have been back and forth with what I might purchase, but I think I have narrowed it down to either a set from gigagolf, or a used set from globalgolf, either the TM Burner 2.0s or the R9s.

I am leaning towards the R9s. I like the look better, and all of the reviews that I have read seem to match up almost perfectly with my wants in an iron. I plan on getting a set with regular steel shafts.

I would appreciate the TM haters not blasting me here, but I do not mind a suggestion on another club. I am not a fan of the newer Callaway or Nike offering. I am looking for a GI club, but not really a SGI. I don't consider myself old, but I am realistic in the fact that my game will not change drastically before I give up! I don't need another set of irons that are hard to hit.

What are you guys opinions/experiences with the Burner 2.0s or the R9s?

Thank you,

Ron


Posted

I hit the burner 2.0's, burner 09, and r9 before i bought my clubs. The 2.0 felt pretty nice. I got good distance on them (they are a little longer than normal clubs, about 1/4 of an inch if i remember correctly). They felt more forgiving than the R9s. I didn't really like them. If you want taylormade, i would go with the burner 2.0 or just the burner 09. Theres not that much of a difference in performance that i could feel.

Bag: Callaway Org 14 Extreme Cart Bag
Driver: Taylormade R9 460 10.5
Woods: Nike SQ 3 Wood
Hybrids: Walter Hagen AWS 3 Hybrid
Irons: Callaway Diablo Edge 4-AWWedges:Wedges: Cleveland CG12 56 and 60Putter: Nike Method 001:Ball: Bridgestone Tour B33-RX and Nike One Vapor


Posted
I just posted in the other burner vrs r9 thread but what the heck. I play the burner TP and also have a set of burner plus, to me, they play very similar.. I have been wanting a new set of clubs primarily because I don't really like the chunky look of the burners. I love the way the r9 looks but just wasn't stoked on the way I was hitting it and I think subconsciously I am afraid of the low score they have on Maltby playability factor, one of the lowest scores of any club. http://www.golfworks.com/images/art/2010MPFRatingsChart.pdf I do like the black look of the burner 2.0 and have hit them on the indoor video deal at golf galaxy. They compare to my current burners so I can't justify the cost just to have black clubs. I would like to see how the black holds up after some time, I would be concerned they look shabby once they get some usage. Playability wise, I like the burners just fine. Also.....TM has 3 new clubs coming out in march according to their website.

When a company makes a club in the USA I will proudly display their brand here. All of mine were made in china by somebody making $2 a day. Shame on you Mr club manufacture.


Posted

To be honest with you i demoed both these irons and they felt both vey good i had excellent distance with 2.0s but i say you need to go demo these irons before you make a descion simply because what you think works or what works for some1 else my be a night mare for you


Posted

I was able to go hit some clubs indoors over the last couple of days.

I hit the Burner 2.0s, R9s, Cleveland (can't remember the model number), Callaway X-22s, and Callaway Diablo Edge.

All of these were hit indoors, and all with regular steel shafts.

I was completely unimpressed with the Callaway offerings. The X-22s didn't feel good to me wherever I hit them on the clubface. The Diablo Edges felt 'buttery' no matter where I hit them on the club face. I had many hits that I had to look at the tape to see if I had hit it towards the toe or heel. They just had no feedback for me. I hit a few shots WAY out on the toe, and could only tell because of the shaft reaction, not the feel from the face of the club. I did hit some Diablo (forged?) over the summer that I liked a lot. I need to move to an easier to hit club, though!

I did not care for the Clevelands.

The R9s were OK, but I had trouble finding the sweet spot on them. For whatever reason, I kept hitting towards the toe with them. I hit two sets at two different stores and had the same results.

The burner 2.0s felt good to me. I was surprised at how much physically longer the club felt in my hands, even though they are only marginally longer than the other clubs. It really doesn't bother me, though, I hit a lot of shots choked a little anyway. I was able to get into a groove with the 2.0s that I could not get into with the other clubs. Once i found the sweet spot, I was able to hit it fairly consistently. When I didn't, I knew where I'd missed on the face without looking.

Now, I am looking for my best deal, and it looks like globalgolf is going to get my business since I have some trade-ins I can send them.

Next question --

I am pretty sure I was hitting the TaylorMade Steel shafts, but they also offer the Precision Flighted Rifle 5.0.

Common sense says to get the TMs that I hit and liked inside, but I wonder about the PFRs....

Any thoughts?


Thanx,

Ron


Note: This thread is 5613 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

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    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

    • Probably since the golfer has to swing the club back and up. The hands have to move back and up. You can feel them go back and up just by turning the shoulders and bending the right arm, because it brings your hands towards your right shoulder.  The difference is if you maintain width or not. Less width means a shorter feeling swing path so the more you need to lift the arms. Being as someone who gets the right arm bend at 110+ degrees, it's 100% a timing issue. I am use to like a 1.5+ second backswing. It probably should be like 1 second at most. Half a second or more will feel like an eternity. I have had swings where I keep my right arm straighter and I am still trying to time the downswing based on the old tempo.  Ideally, for me, it is probably going to be a much quicker and shorter (in duration) backswing, while keeping the right elbow straighter. Which also means more hinging to get swing length without over swinging. 
    • Wordle 1,789 5/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩 ⬜🟩🟨🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • I'm currently recuperating from surgery, so no golf, but have been thinking about this quite a bit. This and the don't overbend the right arm thing. It's hard for me to even pose the position, so I'm not 100% sure, but I feel like it's impossible to have the right humerus along the shirt seam and not overbend your right arm, unless your hands are down near your hips. If the left arm is up at or above the shoulder plane and your right arm is bent less than 90 degrees, then your right humerus has to raise or your hands will get pulled apart. Your left hand can't reach your right hand unless either the right upper arm is up or the right arm is overbent. Is that right? If it is, then focusing on not overbending the right arm would force you to raise the humerus. And actually thinking further on it, if you do overbend your right arm, then you're basically forcing your upper arm down or forcing your left arm to bend. Since (for me at least) bending the left arm too much is not something I think I need to worry about, it means that the bend in the trail arm is really the driving force behind what happens to the right humerus. 
    • I managed to knock off a 3, a 13, and a 15 a couple of weeks ago. The 3 was a 185 yard par 3 with a 6 iron to 12 feet. 13 was a 350 yard par 4, which was a 2 iron and a 9 iron to about a foot. 15 was a 560 yard par 5 with a driver in a bunker, 4 iron into the semi, gap wedge to 8 feet and a putt.
    • Wordle 1,789 4/6* ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ 🟨🟩⬜⬜🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • 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.