Jump to content

Anyone used Thomas Golf hybrids?

Recommended Posts

I bought Thomas hybrids (1-LW) over 15 years ago. They are easily the best clubs I’ve ever bought. Extremely forgiving and long. I’m 6’6” and find getting fitt d for clubs extremely difficult but the Thomas golf folks have their own fitting process which worked great for me. My next investment is a Thomas hybrid 460 cc driver

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played Thomas hybrids they are of mid to low quality. The club design has not changed in 5 to 7 years maybe more. They seem to be a internet only company selling an antiquated product. I believe they are a one or two man operation using a drop ship service. The quality is questionable AT BEST. For an all hybrid set look at the Cobra or Cleveland Turbo line. I would avoid Thomas golf go with an established reputable company. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Groundhog34 said:

I have played Thomas hybrids they are of mid to low quality. The club design has not changed in 5 to 7 years maybe more. They seem to be a internet only company selling an antiquated product. I believe they are a one or two man operation using a drop ship service. The quality is questionable AT BEST. For an all hybrid set look at the Cobra or Cleveland Turbo line. I would avoid Thomas golf go with an established reputable company. 

I agree with most of what you say, but I think the Thomas quality is there, they are well made. What I agree with you on is the design dating, yes they are older vintage, not updated or changed through the last several years. Why buy a product with a 7 yo design? I have a few of their hybrids and the aspect I like about them is they are not hooking machines that so many golfers complain about with today's hybrids. There isn't any 1 or 2 * closed face. That stood out to me as soon as I hit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Huh? They don't really look at their yardage books when they're within about 50 yards of the greens now. Why would they start doing this? If you're saying they can't start looking at printed materials within a boundary layer, and they'll just hang out back in the fairway and look at the green slopes, you could say it's your ball position, not the player position. Otherwise the caddy could stand 50 yards away and yell up to the player or something. So I can't believe that's what you're suggesting. They are all saying it's about the skill, not the time. ? ShotLink requires a human to enter the result of the shot. Sometimes they don't see where it is, don't note when it was hit exactly, etc. And… Again, this assumes it's actually about pace of play. Thank you.
    • At some point its appropriate to consider position relative to the group ahead.  Efficient players might arrive at their ball and be required to wait, that shouldn't count against them.  I think you really need to have humans involved.  On the other hand, the policy itself is designed to minimize the potential for a player to be penalized.  Its a long process, they have to get out of position, get warned they're on the clock, then get a first bad time and get warned again, then get a second bad time and have a penalty stroke assessed. I think they could find ways to tighten up the policy, but I don't think the bulk of the players want to see things get tighter. I should add, this thread originally was based on the decision to ban green-reading books.  I understand that some of the motivation may be pace of play, so I understand the direction we're taking, but we probably shouldn't get too far down the slow play rabbit-hole in this thread, lest we veer completely .  Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone, so hopefully this is the last time I discuss slow play here.
    • Hey guys, I need your help.  I just bought an 8.5 degree M4 used off of 2nd swing.  It was given a 7 which means scuffs wear etc, but nothing that would hurt performance. Anyway, I hit it yesterday and the thing I noticed was that it was not loud at all.  Sounded kind of dead actually.  The ball seemed to fly nicely though.  Now admittedly I was comparing it to the sound my m3 makes (which folks have told me is ear piercing).  That said, I'm wondering from folks who have used an M4 and M3 if you think the M4 had a much more muted sound from the m3 or not.  Also, di you think the M4 was loud, or did your M4 have a more muted sound as well? The only othe thing I could think of is that maybe the lower loft on the M4 made for a more muted sound? Please let me know asap as I'm concerned I might have a dead driver and need to send it back to 2nd swing (still paid $220 for it). Thanks for your help guys!
    • I think a lot of offset also makes it harder to aim the face. It tended to make me align more left. 
    • I'm fairly sure this would go over about like a lead balloon, if only because then players are going to be motivated to start pacing off every single short game shot around the green instead of just looking at the pre-measured distances on their yardage book. If pace of play enforcement remains unchanged, as awful as it currently is, this would only make for even slower rounds on the tour. At its core, this seems to be a pace of play issue rather than an issue of making the game "too easy". People may say it's about the game being "too easy", but the data doesn't actually show putting to be any easier today than it was decades ago.  Median SG putting on the tour this year is +0.030, and the median SG putting in 2004 (the first year it was tracked) was 0.028. Top SG putting this year is 0.990 and top SG putting in '04 was 0.853, in '05 it was 0.939. The only place there is any difference is in the very best putters on the tour, but even then it's relatively minimal. 2021 sees 15 golfers with SG putting values 0.6 or higher, while 2004 saw 13 golfers with SG putting values 0.5 or higher. That said, the worst putters in 2021 are much worse than the worst of 2004, with -1.326 SG in 2021 and -0.871 in 2004. In 2004 only 9 players were -0.5 strokes or worse, and in 2021 there are 25 players losing more than 0.5 strokes per round from putting alone! That 0.1 strokes per round difference may seem large considering the tight scoring averages, but it's no different than what you see for every other SG stat - the best players today are better than the best players of 2004 and the worst players are worse in 2021 than in 2004 while the average stays the same (because SG is a metric compared relative to the field, after all). There is a bigger difference between the best and worst players in every category nowadays than there used to be, if the game was easier you would see that gap between best and worst shrink instead of grow. The game is clearly more difficult now on tour than it used to be, and the data is unanimous in highlighting this. With that in mind, here's what I'd propose instead: Enforce the pace of play rules more strictly - it's literally that simple. Forget about the Observation List BS, and just start enforcing pace of play for every single player on the course. Quit using unreliable officials with stopwatches, and just use the far more reliable ShotLink to measure each player with less manpower required. 40 seconds to hit every shot for every player, 10 extra seconds for the first player to hit. One bad time is a warning, further bad times are a one stroke penalty. Because enforcement is both more widespread and more strict, make the warnings reset after each round so that a player gets one warning per round instead of one warning per tournament. Better yet, use a small portion of the advertising dollars to create a second pot of money alongside the new popularity contest. Rank players based on a weighted scale of scoring average and number of pace warnings, call it "player efficiency" or something, and award money to the top-10 finishers. If the Tour shows it's serious about pace of play by putting their money where their mouth is and players will start to listen. Until then it's all bark, no bite, and slow play will happen regardless of players using green books or other charts and data.  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bucky207
      (47 years old)
    2. just pat
      just pat
      (78 years old)
    3. KSTEPH
      (60 years old)

  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...