upah

This is great advice. For one, its fun. Two, its the only way to figure out what you really need. Before I bought my MP57s, I told myself I wasn't going to waste money on another set I 'thought' was for me. I hit dozens of irons and these were in my top 3 and $500 cheaper than the next cheapest option. Extensively demo-ing sets is the only way to go IMO. No reason to spend money on clubs that still aren't what you need...

Not with forgiveness, but the shaft-fit is crucial in its own right. Shafts too stiff usually cause losses in distance, shafts not stiff enough usually translate to losses in accuracy...

I hit both when I bought my 57s. I ended up purchasing the 57s because I got them for nearly $600 less than the 60s, but had they been the same price, I'd have purchased the 60s. I really couldn't tell the difference off the face. The loss of distance on mishits with the 60s was slightly more penal than with the 57s, but we're talking maybe 5 yards shorter. Other than that, they really felt very similar.

Where did you get it done? It looks great!

Ah, yeah the review posted here isn't for the newer LDP balls. http://thesandtrap.com/balls/taylorm...ck_ball_review

Yeah TM didn't do a very good job of making the differences clear or easy to find. I believe on the box it says something to the effect of "for higher spin players" on the reds and "for lower spin players" on the blacks, versus the industry standard of referring to the balls themselves as high spin or low spin. I think I remember a graph floating around somewhere that suggests that the TP reds are higher spin and lower trajectory when compared to the blacks, but I could be wrong. At any rate, the reds are quality golf balls for sure.

Are you suggesting that it is easier to double your swing speed than it is to double the weight of the clubhead?

With equal course conditions, and equal quality of contact for all clubs, a wood will likely hit the ball farthest. Second would be the hyrbid, and third would be the iron. This is for three clubs with equal loft.

Nope, all have been lengthened to match the specs of my Mizunos. The gap, sand and lob wedges are all the same length/lie. I see no reason to have such large distance gaps for only those clubs.

LMAO I wondered what that was. Kinda creeps you out the first time you hear it on the golf course...

I've been working at getting more consistent with my wedges to band-aid the fact that my putting is sporadic at best. I'm getting to the point where I have full and 3/4 distances dialed in to the yard, but I'm at a loss about how my distances fit in with the rest of my set. The 9 & PW are Mizuno MP57, and the remaining wedges are Cleveland CG11. My short iron distances are as follows: 9i (43*) - 138 PW (47*) - 125 GW (52*) - 98 SW (56*) - 82 LW (60*) - 65 I hit my 9 and PW really well in terms of consistency, but the others are lacking. I obviously have a much larger gap than with the rest of my clubs. If I really lay into one, I can hit the wedges farther, but these numbers are a typical swing. The rest of my clubs have a pretty consistent 10-15 yard increment. Why are my gaps so messed up with the gap, sand, and lob wedges? Its almost 20 yards! Am I doing something wrong? Should I get them bent or is this common between different club manufacturers?

What about a hybrid club? Maybe like a 4, 5, or 6 hybrid (or combination of any)? These will surely give you more of a selection in terms of available lofts. They are also beneficial for gaining loft with slower swing speeds.

I don't think so... The new shaft feels like a noodle. The face is considerably hotter than the Nike was... While I doubt either is fit to my exact specs, I would reckon that they're equally misfit. I'm somewhat of a purist when it comes to custom fit equipment, and I can say with little hesitation that the new technology alone accounted for the difference in playability. The two models were roughly 3-4 years apart.

In my case, I switched from a 4 year-old Nike titanium driver to my current Big Bertha (probably 2 years old at the time) and picked up about 20 yards instantly. I was given this club and it most certainly doesn't fit what I would normally purchase, so I'd say one vote for technology.

Agreed. Easier to take care of it then and there. This really shouldn't invoke a problem. A simple "you didn't happen to see a Taylormade 2 did you?" and the problem is taken care of without stewing over it for the rest of the round...

You can always grip down. Tough to grip up...

If you can, go to a retailer that has either a driving range or a simulator and hit some clubs. They typically talk to you for awhile until they decide you're actually in the market to buy something, but this is easily feigned with some good golf small talk. Hit a few different models/brands and don't be afraid to share concerns with your fitting professional. They are usually quite knowledgable. On a side note, what kinds of shafts are in your irons? (steel, graphite, and make/model numbers if you have them...)

There is actually a notice on the package. It sorta makes sense, but realistically I'm not sure how much spin a small portion of tee could impart on a ball in that short amount of time.

They will snap, but I kid you not, I hit an 8i fat today where the aftermath looked like this: [ x ]

I've read some threads on these and thought they were kinda gimmicky, but I found some at my local shop and decided to give them a try. THESE THINGS ROCK! I played a par-3 course this morning, and usually break at least 6 tees a side. I broke only one today. I even hit a ball ridiculously fat and my tee took it like a champ! It even stayed in the ground... I'm still really not sure how that happens, but I'm sold! Zero Friction tees rock!

Thanks for the info. Sorry for the thread-jack. Carry on.

Where in reference to the ball is your divot typically (obviously before you started hitting fat shots)? "Compressing" the ball as you call it generally refers to ball first contact. If your divot happens after the ball, you're already compressing it nicely. The key is to trap the ball against the turf by hitting it with a descending blow. Its been my experience that trying to hit down on the ball creates mayhem on a golf swing. I fixed the same problem by getting away from the term "compression" and embracing a "down and through" mentality. This made me get through the ball instead of hitting at it, and bettered my contact. Hope that helps.

That's good. I like that.

Can we address the above for a second? I've heard that the PGA's driving distance statistic accounts for all tee shots (maybe minus par-3 holes). Not just those with the driver. This includes holes where pros hit 3-wood or even long irons off the tee. Assuming this is true, I have a hard time accepting that the "fabled" 300-yard drive (with a driver) is as ellusive as some claim on this site. Tiger carries his 3-wood longer than that. Granted, nobody here can do that with his grace and control, but I see no reason why any athlete with some practice couldn't belt one out 300+ with some practice. I will agree that internet yardages are generally somewhat inflated, but it gets sorta vicious when someone even suggests they can hit a 300-yard drive with some consistency. Good courses don't give players then option to hit the same shot off the tee for every hole. PGA courses force players to choose different shots to yield better scores. Amateurs who claim 300 may not be playing courses so tricky. Most munis are wide open and relatively straight forward. Given today's equipment advances, 300 yards is a good shot, but not an unattanable one. Thoughts? I'll strap on my helmet for all the impending tomatoes...

I feel like I got the short end of the Mizuno stick then, because my father-in-law games X-22s and cleans his cleats with me time and time again...