We've launched the new forums! Read more here

TaylorMade RocketBladez Irons Preview

SuperStroke
I will keep my R11s thank you
 
Can't wait to give these a thorough try at the THP demo day. Only seven months a way right?
 
jlukes said:
Seth - exactly.

Club makers have been finding new ways to lower the CoG on clubs over the years. Loft is good, but there is definitely a launch angle laffer curver -- a point where additional launch angle becomes counter-productive. Thus, the clubs are de-lofted to maintain launch angles. The result is more distance.
Click to expand...

This discussion has taken place many times on this forum, and I still don't buy it. If you de-loft the club to "maitain launch angles" then why can't they also change the number on the sole to match the more traditional loft numbers on irons?

Lets say they made a 46* pitching wedge, tried it out, and it hit the ball straight up into the stratosphere. They decide that is way too high a launch angle for a pitching wedge. They now have two choice: 1) tweak the design of the club to lower the center of gravity and provide a more acceptable launch angle; or 2) de-loft the club to 42* so that the launch angle is lower and hits the ball further. If they choose option 2, that is great, but they have really turned the club into a 9 iron. They don't solve any problems by stamping a "P" on the sole instead of a "9".

By choosing to de-loft the club, they have also created a serious distance gap between the club now stamped with a "P" and a club that can reasonably be called a "sand wedge". How do they solve this? They design another club called a "gap" or "approach" wedge, that has a loft of 46* or so, and does not have the CG problems of the first club so that it has a more reasonable launch. OK.....but why couldn't they have just called this new club the pitching wedge, and named the first club a 9 iron?

It is marketing. No matter how you look at it, its all marketing.

The high end wedge maker have even gotten into the game. In 2012, Cleveland 588s and Titleist Vokeys were both offered in 46* versions. You could use this to replace your the pitching wedge in your iron set (as I do), or if you buy these game improvement irons with a 42* pitching wedge, then the 46 will slide right in seamlessly as an addtional wedge. Grab a 46, a 50, and a 54 and call them all whatever you like.

Its all marketing.

I believe KMac was commenting that one should appreciate a club that travels as far as a 6 iron but has a flight trajectory of an 8 iron. I agree, but I would still prefer to call it a "6". Unfortunately, it is more difficult to market an iron that hits the ball higher as opposed to an iron that hits the ball further.
 
wow. pretty nice looking. i definitely already like them better than the RocketBallz irons.
the yellow color fill there throws me off a little?? why not slime or whatever? guess they wanted to separate them from the other line.
 
I'm looking forward to hitting the Tour model next year, probably my first chance will by the THP Demo Day. KBS Tour shafts as the stock option is something that I love. Looking at the specs of those irons, the loft progressions are interesting to say the least, very few 4 degree changes in there and the shorter clubs are a little weaker than I would expect (PW at 47, AW at 51.5) but then you get to the lower irons and the lofts are pretty strong (25.5 in the 5 iron, IIRC).

I am also looking forward to feedback from those that have actually hit these irons to know if the slot in the sole of the long irons actually does something different compared to the same club in the Burner 2.0 and RBZ lines.
 
Rusty said:
This discussion has taken place many times on this forum, and I still don't buy it. If you de-loft the club to "maitain launch angles" then why can't they also change the number on the sole to match the more traditional loft numbers on irons?

Lets say they made a 46* pitching wedge, tried it out, and it hit the ball straight up into the stratosphere. They decide that is way too high a launch angle for a pitching wedge. They now have two choice: 1) tweak the design of the club to lower the center of gravity and provide a more acceptable launch angle; or 2) de-loft the club to 42* so that the launch angle is lower and hits the ball further. If they choose option 2, that is great, but they have really turned the club into a 9 iron. They don't solve any problems by stamping a "P" on the sole instead of a "9".

By choosing to de-loft the club, they have also created a serious distance gap between the club now stamped with a "P" and a club that can reasonably be called a "sand wedge". How do they solve this? They design another club called a "gap" or "approach" wedge, that has a loft of 46* or so, and does not have the CG problems of the first club so that it has a more reasonable launch. OK.....but why couldn't they have just called this new club the pitching wedge, and named the first club a 9 iron?

It is marketing. No matter how you look at it, its all marketing.

The high end wedge maker have even gotten into the game. In 2012, Cleveland 588s and Titleist Vokeys were both offered in 46* versions. You could use this to replace your the pitching wedge in your iron set (as I do), or if you buy these game improvement irons with a 42* pitching wedge, then the 46 will slide right in seamlessly as an addtional wedge. Grab a 46, a 50, and a 54 and call them all whatever you like.

Its all marketing.

I believe KMac was commenting that one should appreciate a club that travels as far as a 6 iron but has a flight trajectory of an 8 iron. I agree, but I would still prefer to call it a "6". Unfortunately, it is more difficult to market an iron that hits the ball higher as opposed to an iron that hits the ball further.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. Is there marketing involved? Yes. But choosing what iron number is on what club has nothing to do with distance because frankly everybody hits it a different distance. However the initial launch of the club has a whole lot to do with it.

If you and I are playing and you hit a 48* PW and I hit a 45* PW and they go the same distance and have similar launch angles are they not the same club? Or is it only when someone hits the 45* further that it is a different iron?

If the launch angles are the same on a 43* club and a 39* club, why would one be an 8 iron and one be a 7 iron? A company chooses the launch they want for their irons and then get the loft to match that launch. Its not based on distance because everybody hits it a different distance.

Since you use a 9.5* and others use a 10.5 or even 12 are they not all drivers? If one uses a 15.5* 3 wood and another guy uses a 15* 3 wood are they not both 3 woods?

The entire process in creating irons is based on launch and gaps. Distance is a by product of that and one that makes marketing very much easier to be utilized.
 
I am shallow but I just can't get over how stupid this name is.
 
Love the tech that went into these irons. The standard version looks like it might have too much offset for me, but I'm already drooling over the tour version. They look great and have less offset than the current TM MC's. Cant wait to hit these...only have to wait a few months for that release!

Great pics per usual btw!
 
JRod said:
I am shallow but I just can't get over how stupid this name is.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it up, but I completely agree. RocketBladez but they're not blades. That's why it's a z in bladez? So it's pronounced bla'-dez? Lol. I don't know who thought Rocketbladez was a good name.
 
Not really digging this iron. I do however like the tour model a lot better. Too much going on for me. I like the fact that they put a "notch" in the hosel to make for easier bending. Also see that they are capitalizing on Adams' slot technology. Lofts are stronger than I would have expected but I don't want any parts of that debate. Probably going to be a good offering for some, I just don't think they are for me!
 
Holy carp the tour version is sexy. These are a must-hit for me. Could be potentially revolutionary.

I have the R9s now which IMO are better than both the R11s and RBZ. If the Tour version of these can be an upgrade on the R9? Count me in. Especially with KBS Tours as the stock shaft.
 
Here are the specs of the stock shafts for the standard version. Can't help but laugh at the RocketFuel shaft name.

tm_specifications_triton_irons3.jpg
 
mcook77 said:
Here are the specs of the stock shafts for the standard version. Can't help but laugh at the RocketFuel shaft name.

tm_specifications_triton_irons3.jpg
Click to expand...
I saw that on their site...I just am wondering who made the shaft.
 
Sounds like a similar shaft to the RBZ and Burners. Were the RBZ shafts flighted?
 
JB said:
I don't agree with this at all. Is there marketing involved? Yes. But choosing what iron number is on what club has nothing to do with distance because frankly everybody hits it a different distance. However the initial launch of the club has a whole lot to do with it.

If you and I are playing and you hit a 48* PW and I hit a 45* PW and they go the same distance and have similar launch angles are they not the same club? Or is it only when someone hits the 45* further that it is a different iron?

If the launch angles are the same on a 43* club and a 39* club, why would one be an 8 iron and one be a 7 iron? A company chooses the launch they want for their irons and then get the loft to match that launch. Its not based on distance because everybody hits it a different distance.

Since you use a 9.5* and others use a 10.5 or even 12 are they not all drivers? If one uses a 15.5* 3 wood and another guy uses a 15* 3 wood are they not both 3 woods?

The entire process in creating irons is based on launch and gaps. Distance is a by product of that and one that makes marketing very much easier to be utilized.
Click to expand...

Um, I never claimed the numbers on the clubs should be based on distances. The numbers on the clubs should be based primarily on the lofts. If someone hands me a 38* iron and I do somehow hit it 20 yards farther than my 38* iron, both of the clubs are 8 irons. If the distance club also gave me a similar or somehow even higher trajectory as my current 8 iron, then, yes, I would probably be happy with that.

What I was saying was that it does not make any sense to drastically de-loft a club based, allegedly, on the trajectory you wanted, and then leave the same number stamped on the sole of that club. While the manufacturers can call the clubs anything they want, it would be more helpful to the consumers if they would stay closer to the traditional loft ranges of clubs.

And, yes, they are loft RANGES, so your questions about comparing clubs within 3 degrees are not really relevant. Your driver argument is a red herring, as drivers have traditionally been anywhere from 13.5* to as low as people may want to have them. Interestingly, modern fairway woods have pretty much stayed within the traditional ranges, but irons have crept stronger and stronger over the years due to marketing.

BTW, I just looked over the specs of the RBladez tour models, and they are not too far off current "players" iron lofts. The PW is actually just 47*, which honestly is a little weak compared to a lot of models out there. They start getting a little strong with the 6 iron (29.5), but not to the point that I would call a foul.

ETA: The bottom line is, they offer an "A" wedge. They could have just as easily marked that club with a "P", and changed the numbers on all the other irons accordingly, but that would not be good marketing.
 
Last edited:
Rusty said:
Um, I never claimed the numbers on the clubs should be based on distances. The numbers on the clubs should be based primarily on the lofts. If someone hands me a 38* iron and I do somehow hit it 20 yards farther than my 38* iron, both of the clubs are 8 irons. If the distance club also gave me a similar or somehow even higher trajectory as my current 8 iron, then, yes, I would probably be happy with that.

What I was saying was that it does not make any sense to drastically de-loft a club based, allegedly, on the trajectory you wanted, and then leave the same number stamped on the sole of that club. While the manufacturers can call the clubs anything they want, it would be more helpful to the consumers if they would stay closer to the traditional loft ranges of clubs.

And, yes, they are loft RANGES, so your questions about comparing clubs within 3 degrees are not really relevant. Your driver argument is a red herring, as drivers have traditionally been anywhere from 13.5* to as low as people may want to have them. Interestingly, modern fairway woods have pretty much stayed within the traditional ranges, but irons have crept stronger and stronger over the years due to marketing.

BTW, I just looked over the specs of the RBladez tour models, and they are not too far off current "players" iron lofts. The PW is actually just 47*, which honestly is a little weak compared to a lot of models out there. They start getting a little strong with the 6 iron (29.5), but not to the point that I would call a foul.
Click to expand...

Sometimes its best just to move on rather than posting facts, so I will do that. Thanks for your input on the matter.
 
JRod said:
I am shallow but I just can't get over how stupid this name is.
Click to expand...

+1
It's like they're marketing them to kids. I guess I should change my forum name to jskittlez
 
Good looking club but nothing close to "blades" I am sure they go along way though.....just what i need...lol
 
JB said:
Yes I would or very close.
Click to expand...

thanks for the info sir.

I like the look of them and they don't appear to be that bulky, I can't wait till later next year when the tour blades come out. I wonder if these are going to outsell the RBZ irons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top