Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5214 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
Hello all. I'm new to the site and want to ask a question to those here. I'm getting ready to upgrade my irons. I currently play the Adams a2 irons. The two sets I have narrowed it down to are the A7's and the CI9's. I like the look of both sets. They both have the narrow top lines, which gives me a tremendous amount of confidence. I am going tomorrow to hit both sets and was just wondering if anyone here had any experience with them. I have grown fond of having the hybrids in the bad that Adams offers. I feel like that may win out in the end for them. Any help would be appreciated.

  • Moderator
Posted

Welcome to the site!

Both sets seem pretty similar, cast mid-cavity with slightly stronger lofts.  I have not hit the Wilson irons but have tested out the A7's.  I liked them and think the hybrids are a great bonus.  Good mix of aesthetics and forgiveness.  Let us know how it goes

ps- these might be some helpful resources as you spend more time on the site

http://thesandtrap.com/a/about-us

http://thesandtrap.com/a/support

http://thesandtrap.com/a/welcome-to-the-sand-trap-community

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Well interesting enough I have a combo. I purchased the Wilson Ci9"s because of reviews, price and looks with steel shafts, great clubs very happy with them and can fly them quite a distance when I do my part, I do not use the gap wedge as I have a nickent 4dx pro sand and gap that I have grown used to and feel confident with. Also picked up an Adams A7 hybrid 3 wood with stiff shaft, it took me a while to get used to it but it hits nice line drives with plenty of roll for me, for whatever reason hybrids and woods off the deck have given me a headache but with practice I am getting better and have much better contact with them. I am in no way experienced only started playing golf this june, but I have definitely picked a sport that has given me quite the challange and great cause to engage in intense conversations with myself.


Posted

Bottom Line: I don't think you can go wrong with either, the CI9's are cheaper.

Please be aware that those of us who OWN the A7's will tell you how we like them and those who own the CI9 will tell you how they like them. My A7s are longer than other game improvement irons I have tried with the exeption of Callaway FT Ibrids and Ladies Adams A305s. I have seen Very Good Reviews for the CI9. The CI9 is cheaper. I also suggest you get fitted like I did for my A7s. It took me 4 driving range days and 2 rounds to get back to shooting in the 80's with my new sticks. Now I hope to break 80 more often than my 4 times per year average.


Posted

Hey,

I had the same Issue a few weeks back when deciding between Di11's and A7's, three things that swayed me where

1) Price: i picked up a new set of A7's for half of what the Di11's were ( i know the Ci9's are cheaper ).

2) Loft: being a high handicapper i need all the help i can get, the wilsons had some pretty weird loft, the Ci9's are a bit different than the Di11's but are still about 1 degree less than the A7's on average.

3) Long irons: I couldn't hit a 3 or 4 to save my life so went with the hybrid option, these have become my go to clubs now ( just to give you an idea of how forgiving they are ). As you may have noticed i posted that i liked them so much i am getting the A7 2 iron hybrid also.

I suppose the only pro the W/S irons had, i hit a few sets, was i liked their feel a lot more than the A7's.. don't get me wrong the A7's aren't bone shakers but the Wilsons just felt sweeter on impact imo.

Both are good looking clubs and neither will do your game any harm ;-).

Hope that helps even a bit, I actually hated trying to choose but i think i made the right decision in the end for me and my game.

Good luck


Note: This thread is 5214 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.