Gave back RBZ hybrid in exchange Burner 2.0 hybrid

[Chris Shades]

Last month I was looking to replace my 3 iron with a hybrid since the 3 is my least consistent iron. With all the rocketballz hype I gave in and got a 22* hybrid (even though I had preferred a 21* but didn't find any in the RBZ brand). I had taken it to the range twice and mishit it a few more times then I'd like to admit, played a round with it and couldn't connect with the new club on the course either. I exchanged it for a 21* Burner 2.0 hybrid and 2 dozen new penta tp's. The next time on the range with the Burner hybrid, Zero mishit's, insane ball flight, distance, feel and overall added confidence just looking down at address. Played a round with the Burner in the bag and can't understand why I haven't replaced the 3 iron with a hybrid earlier before.

In conclusion, I don't think that RBZ is a bad brand and I'm not trying to knock it, but I'm starting to learn for myself that newer is not always better.

[Mr. Desmond]

It could have been the shaft.

[Chris Shades]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

It could have been the shaft.

It's a possibility? All I know is, I'm pretty happy with the result of the Burner. Make's me want to check out a Burner 3 & 5 wood.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Chris Shades

It's a possibility? All I know is, I'm pretty happy with the result of the Burner. Make's me want to check out a Burner 3 & 5 wood.

I say that because TM stock shafts are infamous for playing a flex too soft and are not exactly "performers."

[Mr. Desmond]

I should add that you may be having better luck with the Burner SP 2.0 because it is a more progressive design than the RBZ; and when you add that to questionable TM shafts, it could lead to the inconsistency you see.

The Burner 2.0 is more of a soft triangular design that may give you more stability, and that may be the reason it is more consistent for you. From watching a TM interview earlier today, TM abandoned the more progressive and stable triangular shape in favor of something that many golfers say "meets their eyes" better.

Basically, TM said "we tried to give golfers what was better for the mid to high cappers in the Burner series in a triangular shape, and they didn't like it -- so we regressed to a more traditional shape."

Is it better for the golfer to abandon the more stable shape? No. But apparently it is better for sales. FWIW, I like the soft triangular shape of the Burner Series and its benefits.

[Chris Shades]

That makes allot of sense. Even if the RBZ really is 17 yards longer, I'm still happy with better consistency and accuracy of the Burner over the added yardage of RBZ.