Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5006 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

I am a 25-ish handicap and have been playing consistently for 6 months. I have been using Arnold Palme (circa 1988) and Golden Bear's ~2000 irons. I am looking for the best game improvement of the following: Irons? My budget is between $300 to $750.

Also, any suggestions for a new hybrid or putter? No more than $100 each.

Thanks!


Posted

Originally Posted by BossOfTheMoss

I am a 25-ish handicap and have been playing consistently for 6 months. I have been using Arnold Palme (circa 1988) and Golden Bear's ~2000 irons. I am looking for the best game improvement of the following: Irons? My budget is between $300 to $750.

Also, any suggestions for a new hybrid or putter? No more than $100 each.

Thanks!

Taylor Made 2.0 are now $399, I had the TM 1.0's and they were a very good iron. I assume the 2.0's are a little better.

Heard good things about the Callaway Diablo as well.

I have the TM Superfast hybrid, pretty good hybrid for under $100.

Phillip


Posted

The burner 2.0 is a great iron, i have hit them a few times and they are easy too hit, incredibly long, and reasonably priced. Also the Callaway Razr X are very good too for the money. When it comes to a cheap hybrid, any Adams will be good even some of the older models. Go to a golf store and see if there are any lightly used ones for a good price. Putters are all about feel, so you just have to try some out and see which is the best and definately dont overlook used putters, these are great values.

Driver:  907 D1 (10.5*)

3 Wood:  Burner Superfast 2.0 (15*)

Hybrid:  Idea Pro Gold (21*)

Irons:  VR Pro Combo CB (3-PW)

Wedges:  VR Pro (52*,56*)

Putter: Method 004

Ball:  Penta


Posted

A lot of the Adams sets with integrated hybrids will be good for a higher handicap player and they are reasonably priced, the Idea a7OS is last year's model and should be on sale, also the Cobra S3 from last year had high ratings

Driver: Machspeed Black 9.5  

3 wood:  Insight  

Hybrid:   A4  19 degree

Irons:   CG red 4-PW  

Wedges:   CG12  56 degree and CG10 60 degree

Putter:  White Hot XG Sabertooth


Posted

Consider Callaway X20 irons. There's the originals (circa 2007), an interim model, and the X20 NG (new grooves) model released this past year.

A solid SGI model, with benefit of having midkick (mid-launch) shafts: The Uniflex shaft won't balloon the ball (launch too high) on short irons like some SGIs will. A consideration if you have OK clubhead speed.

Should be able to get X20 NG for $400 or less; lots of original X20s were sold, so you should have good choice for used models.

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:image.png.b6c3447dddf0df25e482bf21abf775ae.pngInertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  image.png.f0ca9194546a61407ba38502672e5ecf.png QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I have the TM Burner 2.0 irons & can say I paid the $699 (or whatever) last year...to see them at $399 is a bargain. I guess the RBZ irons are TM's solution to last year's 2.0's?

Anyways, I really like the 2.0's and don't plan to take them out of the bag for a number of years.

I'll second PhillyMac's opinion of the TM Superfast hybrids...those sticks are idiot proof & scream off the face. Save some coin on the 2.0 irons & pick up a hybrid with the spare change.


Posted

Thanks everyone for the help. I am in between the Burner 2.0 or the PING G20. But I am getting fit by a pro I know. So I guess that will give me a better idea.


Posted

I have G10's and 15's. I have also demoed the G20's and found no difference at all between the G15's and 20's. In fact, I like the AWT shafts in the G15's more than the CFS shafts in the G20's. Something to consider and it might save you a few bucks.

David


Note: This thread is 5006 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.