Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6633 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

Hey!

Have anyone tried one, or both of these clubs?
How is the distance? Is there any differents?
How are they from the fairway?
From the tee?

I hope somebody can help me...

Laws of golf :
LAW 3: Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic. Though this cannot be proven in the lab, it is a known fact that the more expensive the golf ball, the greater its attraction to water.

LAW 8: Topping a 3-iron is the most painful torture known to man.
In my stand bag:Driver: HiBore...


Posted
My r7 TP is a rocket launcher off the tee

Driver: 10.5* SuperQuad TP 1st Edition All Black V2 Stiff
5 Wood - 585.h 19* DG S300
Irons: 3-PW S59 Stiff
Wedges: Rac TP 52*, 60* MP-T 56*
Putter(s): Anser 3 TP Black ballGET TO SINGLE DIGITS!Goal: Beat a certain admin that lives in my town


Posted
How is it from the fairway then? Can you get the "under the ball"?

Laws of golf :
LAW 3: Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic. Though this cannot be proven in the lab, it is a known fact that the more expensive the golf ball, the greater its attraction to water.

LAW 8: Topping a 3-iron is the most painful torture known to man.
In my stand bag:Driver: HiBore...


Posted
*the clubhead "under the ball?"

Laws of golf :
LAW 3: Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic. Though this cannot be proven in the lab, it is a known fact that the more expensive the golf ball, the greater its attraction to water.

LAW 8: Topping a 3-iron is the most painful torture known to man.
In my stand bag:Driver: HiBore...


Posted
I have an r7 TP 3 fairway and its mint, it is one of those clubs where you pull it out of your bag and no its going to go straight i love it nad is really far with a perfect ball flight!
Posted
Depends which R7 you go for.

The TP will give you lower ball flight and tends to come with stiffer shaft - for the "better" player, higher swing speeds etc but whatever floats your boat.

The R7 St (steel) will give you higher ball flight, with a less stiff shaft - i found it easier to hit and get the ball in the air off the deck.

I have the R7 Ti (titanium) - titanium is lighter than steel so they are able to make the clubhead bigger. Hence the bigger clubhead and deeper face. I tried all 3 and came to the conclusion that this suites my game the best. I can hit it high and low, left and right - set up with draw bias too.

I would think that the 904F is most like the TP, small head and more workability - it's all down to asthetics, how you like the look of the club behind the ball etc - i find Taylormade to look prettier at address - same goes for driver.

WEAPONS:
Taylormade R9 10.5 L Grafalloy Prolaunch Platinum stiff 65g
Taylormade R9 15 NU YS+6 stiff 65g
Taylormade R9 19 NU YS+6 stiff 65g
Taylormade Tour Preferred 4-PW KBS Tour X-Stiff Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 51Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 55Cleveland CG12 RTG+ DSG 59Yes! Tracy II putterTitleist...


Posted
It's a beaut off the fairway too!

Driver: 10.5* SuperQuad TP 1st Edition All Black V2 Stiff
5 Wood - 585.h 19* DG S300
Irons: 3-PW S59 Stiff
Wedges: Rac TP 52*, 60* MP-T 56*
Putter(s): Anser 3 TP Black ballGET TO SINGLE DIGITS!Goal: Beat a certain admin that lives in my town


Posted
I like the look of the 906 better but i think that the r7 would be easier to hit for you.

In the bag:

driver Big Ben CS3 9.5º
3-wood 906F4 15.5º
hybrid rescue mid 19ºirons: MP-60 3-PWwedges vokey spin-milled 54º and 60ºputter tracy IIball Pro V1


Posted
I can't imaging anything being easier to hit than the 906f4. I had some problems getting the f2 up, but the f4 was extremely easy and workable too.

Posted
Hey!

While I haven't swung the TaylorMade club, I recently purchased the 906F4. I find the club superb: easy to hit off the tee ( just tee it very low ), off the fairway and, even, out of light rough. I love its simple, spartan design. There is an excellent review on this website of the 906F2 and 906F4. That review prompted me to give the F4 a try and I am so glad I did. Who knows, the TaylorMade may be swell, but do give the 906F4 a try. I hope this info helps you.

shortgame85
In the Bag:
Driver: :TaylorMade: RBZ 9.5 Reg Flex
3 Wood :TaylorMade: RBZ Reg Flex
Hybrid: Ping G25 Hybrids 17*, 20*, 23*

Irons:Ping G25 5-Gap Wedge, Sr Flex, Vokey 56.14 Spin Mill NS Pro Reg, Flex

Putter: Bobby Grace Center Shaft 32"


Posted
Im thinking of buying the Titleist based on the review from the site aswell. The good thing about the Titleist is that it has 2 shaft choices and you can even order it from them and have infinite shaft options. while Taylormade has those icky stock shafts.

Driver:10 degree HS9 F speed Stock Regular
FW: 15 degree sasquatch stiff
906F4 18.5 V2 proforce stiff
Hybrid: 21 585H V2 Proforce stiff
Irons: Cobra Fp 4-PW Nippon StiffWedges: CG12 56 degree Wedge Flex Putter: Rossa agsi+ Daytona 1 35"


Posted
Try these clubs out at a local golf outlet with a indoor range . Dont forget to try out the MIZUNO F-50 . You will love the way this club reacts both on the tee and in the fairways .

Posted
No I am confused. The review says that the club is for "the better player" I don't consider myself as a that.. (yet:P). You says that it is the easiest club ever.

What is correct? Anyway, It seems that both are exellent clubs. So maybe the price should decide...

Laws of golf :
LAW 3: Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic. Though this cannot be proven in the lab, it is a known fact that the more expensive the golf ball, the greater its attraction to water.

LAW 8: Topping a 3-iron is the most painful torture known to man.
In my stand bag:Driver: HiBore...


Posted
No, I'm pretty sure that its the F2 thats for good players, the F4 is made to suit all handicaps.
Driver Titleist 905R 9.5* (Stiff Prolaunch Blue 65g)
Hybrid: PT 585.H 17 * (Stiff titleist 75g shaft)
Irons: 695.cb 3-9 ( Dynamic Gold S300)
Wedges: 735.CM 47* PW, Vokey 200 series 50.08 Oil Can Vokey Spin Milled 54.10 Tour chrome, Vokey Spin Milled 58.08 Oil canPutter: Wilson Staff Kirk Kurrie #1[CO.....

Posted
Which shaft should i pick(Titleist 906F4)? Any specific diffrent between the YS6 or the Aldila VS80 Proto.

Laws of golf :
LAW 3: Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic. Though this cannot be proven in the lab, it is a known fact that the more expensive the golf ball, the greater its attraction to water.

LAW 8: Topping a 3-iron is the most painful torture known to man.
In my stand bag:Driver: HiBore...


Posted
Well the Graphite Design YS+6 is great in my driver, but so are all aldidla shafts. Really personal preference
Driver Titleist 905R 9.5* (Stiff Prolaunch Blue 65g)
Hybrid: PT 585.H 17 * (Stiff titleist 75g shaft)
Irons: 695.cb 3-9 ( Dynamic Gold S300)
Wedges: 735.CM 47* PW, Vokey 200 series 50.08 Oil Can Vokey Spin Milled 54.10 Tour chrome, Vokey Spin Milled 58.08 Oil canPutter: Wilson Staff Kirk Kurrie #1[CO.....

Posted
Im thinking of buying the Titleist based on the review from the site aswell. The good thing about the Titleist is that it has 2 shaft choices and you can even order it from them and have infinite shaft options. while Taylormade has those icky stock shafts.

I bought the F4 with Graphite Design YS-6 shaft, which was not bad. I did have the club reshafted with an Aldila NV-65, because it was similar to those in my hybrids. The shafts in my driver, wood and hybrids are all Aldila, all have the same feel to them, a consistency I like.

As for another concern expressed: Titleist made the F2 for the lower handicap golfer, the F4 is designed with some game improvement features: for one thing, it is easy to get up in the air; another, its low profile design makes it easy to hit off the fairway as well as off a very low tee. If the desire is to get the ball down the fairway, relatively straight, with distance of a 3 wood, from a variety of lies, then this club delivers. No one should necessarily recommend to you a particular shaft because that's a choice you should determine based on empirical evidence: try several different clubs with different shafts, if you can, and choose the one with which you are most consistent. Good luck.

shortgame85
In the Bag:
Driver: :TaylorMade: RBZ 9.5 Reg Flex
3 Wood :TaylorMade: RBZ Reg Flex
Hybrid: Ping G25 Hybrids 17*, 20*, 23*

Irons:Ping G25 5-Gap Wedge, Sr Flex, Vokey 56.14 Spin Mill NS Pro Reg, Flex

Putter: Bobby Grace Center Shaft 32"


Note: This thread is 6633 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.