Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
toddmlazarchick

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

8 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

dsc08190.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0