For those that have been keeping up with the MB and MC threads, are the testers over there seeing a 10yd loss per club as well?
TaylorMade Tour Preferred CB Review Thread
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #827
Most likely not if they are coming from non-strong lofted irons.
- Staff
- #828
Nate I am testing the MC's and I am coming from a set of Ping i10's. The lofts are very similar, so I am not seeing much distance loss. Playing with Hanks, OEM, g4l today it was real easy to see how much more distance you get from the burner 2.0's. g4l did some random testing and at one point he hit a MC PW to the middle of green from the tee and then hit a 2.0 PW over the green by about 5 yards. I would say the difference between shots was about 15 yards easily for him.
Hanks
On the Fringe
You're right, I think the wider soles do bounce a little more off the turf causing some more thinned or topped shots. But when they to get into the turf and don't bounce off it I remember the thicker soled irons would take chunks and not divots. I'm not a good divot taker and tend to pick the ball with my swing more than anything but I do notice that when I do get 'ball first' these irons glide through the turf much easier. This is all probably based on my swing flaws so if someone has a more consistent swing than mine they'll see better results than I am right now
JRod
Well-known member
I am testing the MB's and I have actually seen consistant 5-8 yard gains in temps hovering around 40* coming from the same lofted clubs. I am expecting nearly a full club gain by the time my swing is back in shape and the temps are in the 80's and 90's.
- Staff
- #831
One thing I do want to say to avoid confusing anybody reading this thread is:
These irons are not designed to be long like a 2.0, CG16, or S3, which is why there is talk of losing distance. Personally, I have not 'lost' any distance compared to last season. I have tested longer irons, but again, they were designed to be longer. The CB's are designed to deliver maximum forgiveness and higher ballflight while maintaining as many qualities of a 'players' iron as possible. Some are going to prefer an iron that is designed to be longer and some will not. In the end, it's a personal decision that should be made after demoing as many sets as possible.
These irons are not designed to be long like a 2.0, CG16, or S3, which is why there is talk of losing distance. Personally, I have not 'lost' any distance compared to last season. I have tested longer irons, but again, they were designed to be longer. The CB's are designed to deliver maximum forgiveness and higher ballflight while maintaining as many qualities of a 'players' iron as possible. Some are going to prefer an iron that is designed to be longer and some will not. In the end, it's a personal decision that should be made after demoing as many sets as possible.
TC
Keg Thrower
Bam! Truth stuff right there.
I do agree with Hawk. However, some of the testers within this thread (and the other threads) have "distance" irons in their bags prior to receiving these. As an avid reader of these threads, I think it's ok to ask whether or not a tester would be willing to sacrafice distance in exchange for feel/accuracy/abilitly to better control flight.
TC
Keg Thrower
Right on bro! I agree. In fact, I believe the CB's are similarly lofted to the R9 irons, which are really only 1* weaker across the board than the 2.0's, so it's not like it's anything huge.
At address, the CB's look almost identical to the R9's to me, so if you are a R9 iron guy, you might want to check these babies out.
I hit both the R9's and 2.0's about a month ago and really liked the R9's which is why I'm waiting for these new irons to come out first before I buy. The 2.0 had less feel the more I hit 'em but I could tell the ball was shooting off the clubface. The R9 just gave me more feel when struck. Not hard to believe that these new clubs would be shorter than the 2.0's esp. when a 2.0 PW is going 140! So I will patiently wait for these clubs to come out in the next 2 weeks...........
- Staff
- #836
I got to take some swings with these on the range on Sunday. The ball flight is definitely higher than that of the MCs. For me, I prefer the flight of the MCs a little more, but there is nothing wrong with hitting a high straight ball. I would say distance edge was to the CBs but probably not by much. The look of the CBs were nice. I was hitting a 7 iron. I thought they felt very solid and should be a good fit for many players out there.
GrantD
Formerly Known as DMB012
I feel the same way about the 2.0. I got the 6 iron in to test and compared to my R9 it was straight, but I can't tell you where I hit it on the face. If the CBs are a little more accurate then the R9, they will be in my bag.
One-T
Skimming since Nov 2009
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,905
- Reaction score
- 230
- Location
- Franklin, North Carolina
- Handicap
- 12
I got out on the range on Saturday and must say that I had an INCREDIBLE day at the range. I did pull out my 3 iron just for you buddy. I was hitting it pretty well with the 3 iron, I did notice I was a little inside on the club face which was giving me a lower ball flight and some distance loss. I did flush a couple and I will say that the ball flight was penetrating and quite frankly just beautiful. But, for what its worth, I will not game the 3 iron. haha. I need a little more forgiveness.
I took the 2.0 6 iron to the range to test against the CB and I left with VERY mixed emotions on the two. First, with the burner I hit EVERYTHING FAT!! I then put it side by side with the CB and realized(which I already knew) the shaft on the burner is significantly longer, hence the fatness. I backed away from the ball(felt wierd at first) and was hitting ropes. it felt very pure and smooth off the face, I missed one out on the toe and the ball still had a great ball flight and I could tell I lost a little distance. When I had the club gripped at the tip of the grip I could tell there was an increase of distance ot that of my CB's. But I will say that I found the burner to be much better for my game when I choked down on the club and just smoothed my swing that I actually liked the results A LOT more. To recap, with the Burner 2.0 I was seeing good distance, nice straight ball flight, and a nice trajectory.
so, now its time to take out the CB 6 iron to see the differences. I gripped the club at the tip of the grip(normal) and started swinging away. my distances were almost spot on with the burner(when I hadchoked down on the grip of the burner) which is exactly what I expected. I felt much more comfortable there. but I will say that the way the CB reacts with the turf and a pure shot, there is NO WAY to describe the feel of that. It is a feeling that you want to feel over and over again. Thats where the CB just shined way past the Burner IMHO! The ball flight was a nice penetrating ball flight that finishes high and lands soft, which is something I like seeing in a 6 iron.
recap: is the Burner 6 iron longer? Of course it is when gripped normally but it was uncomfortable to me, so when I choked down I was seeing the same distance out of my CB. I was very impressed with the Burner and would game those in a heart beat because the feel great, a well struck ball gives you instant feedback that you pured it. But, the CB truly interacts with the turf like nothing else, and a pured shot leaves you wondering how the hell something can feel that good.
My CG7's were a regular flex, I dont rememberthe shaft type though. The reason I went with regular was to get my ball flight up a bit but I noticed that I was just a little bit less consistant with my aim. I would totally agree that the shaft in the CB best fits me.
Ok, now ot my range time with the CB's!
I started out on the range warming up with my PW, which I hit about 135. there was a concrete box (looked like a well cover) that was about 3X3 sitting at about the 135 point on the range, so I made that my target because I would get instant feedback if I hit it. I was tearing that little box up, it was so much fun. I would hit...wait for it....and click, it would bounce off of it. It just made me smile. I dont think I hit the ball bad with my PW. it was so much fun. so I moved down the line to my 9 iron and on.....first shot with my 9 iron was to the 150, I was in the middle of the range and the yardage markers were on both sides, so I would just pick a spot that looked 150 in the center of the range and fire away. I was dropping balls on top of each other. the ball flight was nice and high and the wind was the only thing pushing my ball off path. I am finding that when I just smooth these clubs, the results are incredible. If you have played with me then you know I do not fear the divot, I welcome it. I hit one where I just pured it, divot after the ball and I absolutley sprayed myslef with the dirt. I dint know if I should be mad or happy that it didnt feel like I took a divot.
from my PW to my 7 iron I see a very consistant ball flight, as you get to the 6 and 5 I have noticed that it is more of a penetrating ball flight. I do want to touch on distance just a bit, I stated before that I have not seen any distance loss and I want to retract that comment just a bit. I am actually seeing a little loss but it is only 5 yards. I used to hit my CG7 9 iron 155, I hit my CB 9 iron 150 pretty darn consistantly. but my shot dispersion with the CB is much more on target.
Overall, I am still just a pleased as it gets with these irons, the feel is one of a kind. the turf interaction is second to none. ball flight is just plain fun to watch. looks will grow and grow on you. I would buy a set of these if I didnt alread have them!
CharlieMoy
Well-known member
Awesome notes one-t. Doesnt change my mind one bit.
TC
Keg Thrower
Solid write up little brosuph! You did real good with that one. I'm pretty pumped to see you digging these irons so much. It's great to have confidence in your irons and it seems like yours is increasing.
One-T
Skimming since Nov 2009
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,905
- Reaction score
- 230
- Location
- Franklin, North Carolina
- Handicap
- 12
yeah, I hated that it was only range time, I just hope I can take how I was hitting the ball out to the course with me. I should get a round in sometime this week and also this weekend.
your still wanting them correct?
thanks bro. I am starting to get that confidence with them. I am also starting to feel like I am getting my grove back from time off in the winter. I can post some good scores I just have to knock out those bad holes.
Thanks for reading it guys, I was beginning to wonder if it was seen
CharlieMoy
Well-known member
Im still wanting to get them on a simulator against a bunch of other clubs. But yes, I do indeed want these, and want these to work.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #844
Spent some range time with these and wanted to write it up as I was working on something in particular that I found interesting. Hard grass and tight lies.
Some speak about wider soles and thinner soles and what works for the eye, but rarely discuss turf interaction between the two and what makes them different. So I decided to take the 9 iron from this set and the 9 iron from the Ping G15 set to the local range that has some different types of hitting areas.
Mats - Both performed rather well. The CBs offered clean hitting and an impact sound that was incredibly nice and put off a great feel. The miss with the G15 was when coming in a little heavy and hitting what would amount to a heavy shot showed the sole of the club "bouncing" off the mats indicating I was hitting the ball thin. VERY THIN. Leaving low shots that were in essence skulled.
Wet Grass/Heavy Grass - The CBs leading edge got a little messy here with the wet grass as it had a tendency to dig quickly (for my swing) leaving a few shots short of their target. The G15s did not suffer from the same "bounce" type of issues off the mats here and while they slid in to the thicker grass and wet grass in a similar fashion, the thicker top line and mass behind the ball on the higher grooves provided a forgiveness that is not really available in the CBs to that extent.
Tight lies/Hard Fairways - The CBs shined once again here in comparison and it showed virtually identical findings to that of the mats. The CBs slid through the turf with perfect interaction and did not have any struggles. The thicker sole of the G15s gave me a bounce off the turf on 2-3 occasions that left a thin shot.
I expected something similar but in all honesty, not to this extent. The forgiveness of the thicker and larger iron excelled in the trouble areas (like it should), but provided an issue or two with the very tight lies offered in some fairways.
Some speak about wider soles and thinner soles and what works for the eye, but rarely discuss turf interaction between the two and what makes them different. So I decided to take the 9 iron from this set and the 9 iron from the Ping G15 set to the local range that has some different types of hitting areas.
Mats - Both performed rather well. The CBs offered clean hitting and an impact sound that was incredibly nice and put off a great feel. The miss with the G15 was when coming in a little heavy and hitting what would amount to a heavy shot showed the sole of the club "bouncing" off the mats indicating I was hitting the ball thin. VERY THIN. Leaving low shots that were in essence skulled.
Wet Grass/Heavy Grass - The CBs leading edge got a little messy here with the wet grass as it had a tendency to dig quickly (for my swing) leaving a few shots short of their target. The G15s did not suffer from the same "bounce" type of issues off the mats here and while they slid in to the thicker grass and wet grass in a similar fashion, the thicker top line and mass behind the ball on the higher grooves provided a forgiveness that is not really available in the CBs to that extent.
Tight lies/Hard Fairways - The CBs shined once again here in comparison and it showed virtually identical findings to that of the mats. The CBs slid through the turf with perfect interaction and did not have any struggles. The thicker sole of the G15s gave me a bounce off the turf on 2-3 occasions that left a thin shot.
I expected something similar but in all honesty, not to this extent. The forgiveness of the thicker and larger iron excelled in the trouble areas (like it should), but provided an issue or two with the very tight lies offered in some fairways.
One-T
Skimming since Nov 2009
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,905
- Reaction score
- 230
- Location
- Franklin, North Carolina
- Handicap
- 12
thats an awesome test JB...great idea and really a great write up. Thanks for taking the time to do that
TC
Keg Thrower
That is an interesting test. To be quite frank, the only complaint I really have about GI irons is that their leading edges aren't as sharp, and the bounce is sometimes too extreme for my liking.
Thanks for the feedback.
Overton, don't worry dude, I don't get the feeling that your posts go unread buddy. It's just been hectic around here lately.
Thanks for the feedback.
Overton, don't worry dude, I don't get the feeling that your posts go unread buddy. It's just been hectic around here lately.
All very good stuff. Hopefully, GG has these irons in stock today so i can test them out (and assuming good results, purchase them).
I know there's been discussion of mixing and matching before in this thread as well as the others. However, most of us who have purchased our wedges separately from our iron set I suspect purchased a blade wedge. Maybe I don't pay attention enough, but it seems like most individually sold wedges are just pure blades. I hit my 56* wedge just fine. GG sells this in a 4-AW set. I think I'd be just fine without a 3 iron (shouldn't create much for distance gaps). Would there be any reason not to get the AW in muscleback? (NOTE: as i'm typing this and scoping lofts on the TM website, I note that they don't show that they have an AW in muscleback). Or what about the PW and deloft it 1* to match the CB PW loft? Those would be the only two clubs that I actually take a variety of swings.
Loving the info everyone.
I know there's been discussion of mixing and matching before in this thread as well as the others. However, most of us who have purchased our wedges separately from our iron set I suspect purchased a blade wedge. Maybe I don't pay attention enough, but it seems like most individually sold wedges are just pure blades. I hit my 56* wedge just fine. GG sells this in a 4-AW set. I think I'd be just fine without a 3 iron (shouldn't create much for distance gaps). Would there be any reason not to get the AW in muscleback? (NOTE: as i'm typing this and scoping lofts on the TM website, I note that they don't show that they have an AW in muscleback). Or what about the PW and deloft it 1* to match the CB PW loft? Those would be the only two clubs that I actually take a variety of swings.
Loving the info everyone.
Thanks JB! Solid testing in the different conditions! Can't wait to test 'em out!
One-T
Skimming since Nov 2009
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,905
- Reaction score
- 230
- Location
- Franklin, North Carolina
- Handicap
- 12
I think its an excellent idea to get the AW, I also think it would be smart to get it in the CB's if the CB's are the iron for you. That just means more consistancy and the same feel from iron to iron. I actually wish I had got an AW in my set, and FWIW I would have got it in the CB