We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Burner 2.0 irons versus RAZR X Tours

SuperStroke
W

wcugrad

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
Orlando, FL
Handicap
12
I am new to THP, but have been reading extensively about several iron sets. I have spent time at Golfsmith and Golf Galaxy hitting several different clubs, and seem to be narrowing my decision down to the TaylorMade Burner 2.0s or the RAZR X Tours (although I spent a LOT of time reading through the Wilson Staff Di 11 thread, too - just can't find them anywhere to hit).

I know there are threads on these as reviews individually, but I would really like some more head-to-head comparisons. It appears that several of the guys on here have spent time with each. I am around a 10 handicap, and really just started playing golf "seriously" in the past 2 years (seriously meaning averaging 30 - 40 rounds per year). I have drastically slowed down my swing to concentrate on tempo and contact (smooth is the swing thought), and on the monitors I have been hitting the Burner 6i roughly 180 - 190 yards and the RAZR X about 165 to 175. Similar ball flight and dispersion with each. With the Burners having lower lofts, I would say I really hit each about the same - but that has been with the 6i as my only reference point.

I don't have any built-in allegiance to any of the brands, and I don't care what I have to hit from certain distances as long as they perform. I am also fine with playing GI or even SGI clubs - they can look like shovels as long as the put me on more greens. Typically the only really nice clubs I get are hand-me-downs from my father or older brother, or are older models that I have bought every 3 or 4 years (last two sets have been TM RAC OS followed by my current Nickent 4DX CB combo set).

I am planning on treating myself (but still with a budget) for my upcoming 40th birthday, and wanted to get some of you to weigh in on your likes and dislikes specifically comparing clubs to one another. All help and posts are greatly appreciated!!!
 
Very different irons.
Larger club head, more mass and different lofts.
 
In the end, it really comes down to what feels the best to you and what you feel comfortable playing with. It came down to the 2.0's, and the CG16's when I was choosing. I'm a bit biased because I actually just treated myself to the CG16's on Saturday but if you haven't hit them I'd suggest giving them a try if you have the opportunity. I really liked the feel of the 2.0's and the CG16's opposed to the RAZR's.
 
When I went to the Burner 2.0 irons late last year I was convinced that they were the best irons I had ever owned. Then mid season this year I began playing Razr X Tours for the Morgan Cup and I'll convinced that they're the best irons I've hit. For me it's about the consistency and look of the RXT's more so than anything else. The Burner 2.0 could at times be much longer, but not nearly as consistent for me. I'll also say that in moving to the Razr X Tours I haven't lost any distance. I love the mid ball flight I'm getting from teh RXT's, I could not for the life of me flight a Burner 2.0 low at all.
 
Thanks - I have concerns about hitting the ball too high with the 2.0s and that is why I am seriously considering the RAZR X Tours. Hitting it high has never been a problem for me, but hitting on the launch monitor I didn't notice a huge difference in ball flight (but have not hit either outside and with the stronger lofts that means I am hitting more of a 5i in the 2.0s versus the 6i in the RXTs in my opinion). I have not been fitted, so this was just me hitting 20 or 30 balls with each on my own at Golfsmith.
 
R11's would be more comparable to the RXT's I would think. Also I have the Di11's and if you are close to Raleigh you can hit them
 
Quick question. People say that the 2.0's are longer, is that because they're comparing the number on the bottom of the club or the actual loft of the club? For example the Burner 6i is 27* compared to the RXT's 6i at 29*. Or are people taking the clubs that are the same loft and noticing one being longer than the other?
 
I am saying they are NOT longer because I am comparing the lofts. I have only been hitting the 6i of each, but there is roughly a 12 to 15 yard difference in the two (2.0s longer 6i to 6i). So I would estimate that if I was hitting the two clubs with comparable lofts, the 2.0s might be slightly longer but not a noticeable difference (at least for me).
 
After somebody mentioning the Cleveland CG16s and doing a little reading on here last night, I am going to hit them at Golfsmith today. Seem to be very similar to the 2.0s (stronger lofts). I read some good stuff, but didn't find as much as I did on the RAZR X or Burner 2.0s. Am I missing a review somehow with my search? And if anybody could comment on those specifically up against these clubs, please chime in. And I wouldn't mind any comparisons of the CG16 versus the CG16 Tour version, too.
 
wcugrad said:
After somebody mentioning the Cleveland CG16s and doing a little reading on here last night, I am going to hit them at Golfsmith today. Seem to be very similar to the 2.0s (stronger lofts). I read some good stuff, but didn't find as much as I did on the RAZR X or Burner 2.0s. Am I missing a review somehow with my search? And if anybody could comment on those specifically up against these clubs, please chime in.
Click to expand...

dude, I had the 2.0's for about a year. I loved them. They are great irons and offer some really cool things to a golfer: they are long, they are lightweight, the look great, and the progressive offset is a nice touch to be visually appealing. Then, for the Morgan Cup, I received the RXT's and they are, hands down, the best set of irons I've owned. They are just as forgiving as the 2.0's, are much sleeker when it comes to toplines and sole width, and for me, are just as long if not longer. I much prefer the turf interaction of the RXT's as I believe they have a slightly sharper leading edge. My vote would be for the RXT's for sure. I have experience with the CG16 irons and they are great sticks, but nothing trumps my current irons.

Check out this thread:

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/forum/showthread.php?21675-Callaway-Razr-X-Tour-Irons
 
wcugrad said:
I am saying they are NOT longer because I am comparing the lofts. I have only been hitting the 6i of each, but there is roughly a 12 to 15 yard difference in the two (2.0s longer 6i to 6i). So I would estimate that if I was hitting the two clubs with comparable lofts, the 2.0s might be slightly longer but not a noticeable difference (at least for me).
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, when I ordered my RXT's I had the lofts bent to match the 2.0's from the 4iron - 9iron (the PW and AW lofts are the same) and they are far superior in length.
 
Hit the CG16s at Golfsmith during lunch (7i with DG S300 stiff shaft). I really did not strike the ball well at all. Went and got the RAZR X and RAZR X Tours (6i in both with same S300 shaft) and didn't hit either of them particularly well, either - but the RAZR X Tour was the best of all 3 by far. Couldn't find a Burner 2.0 to hit with stiff shaft, and didn't have time to get somebody to get one for me by the time I had hit these clubs 15 or 20 times each. Guess I am back to the RAZR X Tours versus Burner 2.0s for my decision.

Knowing that I can't really go wrong with either, can anybody speak of the "level" of forgiveness in one versus the other? I have my handicap down to around 10 now because I have played more golf this year than I ever have. But with kids at home I don't get to the range very often and think I would benefit from buying the set that offers more forgiveness. Hitting balls (although on several different occasions) with a single club from each set inside at Golfsmith and Golf Galaxy doesn't give me a ton to go on. But I can certainly hit balls well away from the sweet-spot frequently, and really don't "go after" the ball that hard - average swing speed in my last few sessions with a 6i is typically between 75 and 80 MPH. And if it makes any difference (or helps), I typically hit the ball with a slight draw when I am playing well, a fade (to even a slice) if I am playing poorly or am over-swinging, and a huge hook if I swing too easy. Don't think that will mean too much with somebody suggesting one club over the other, but thought I would throw it in.
 
Like I said in a post or two above, I don't find the RXT's unforgiving at all. How Callaway engineered an iron with that profile with the level of forgiveness I'm finding, it's unreal.
 
In reply to a post by Chunkylover77 above....

I know the Di 11s are considered GI (or probably even SGI). That doesn't really matter too much to me as long as they perform. I read lots of updates by you in your reviews of the Wilson's. Were they good enough to stay in your bag? And I actually live in Raleigh, but feel pretty confident I am going to go with the Burner 2.0s or the RAZR X Tours - forgiveness is not a bad thing for my swing, though!
 
wcugrad said:
In reply to a post by Chunkylover77 above....

I know the Di 11s are considered GI (or probably even SGI). That doesn't really matter too much to me as long as they perform. I read lots of updates by you in your reviews of the Wilson's. Were they good enough to stay in your bag? And I actually live in Raleigh, but feel pretty confident I am going to go with the Burner 2.0s or the RAZR X Tours - forgiveness is not a bad thing for my swing, though!
Click to expand...

I've never owned the Di11's but have hit them. Again, if I were to make a suggestion based on the fact that I have owned the 2.0's and the RXT's, I'd suggest the RXT's all day long. I think they are much more versatile.
 
I agree with TC here. The RXT's are way more forgiving then you would ever think for a club labeled "Tour". They look great at address, are as long as anything Ive hit and I plan on destroying Team Paradise guys at the Morgan Cup with workability and forgiveness.
 
TC said:
Like I said in a post or two above, I don't find the RXT's unforgiving at all. How Callaway engineered an iron with that profile with the level of forgiveness I'm finding, it's unreal.
Click to expand...

But having played both, would you rate one "more" forgiving over the other? Looks like you are probably a significantly better player than I am. I tend to finish a round and say I shot 80 (or 82 or 84) and the people I am playing with are surprised. So I score OK and from time-to-time can do some really nice things with a driver, a neat pitch, or can get out of trouble. But I am not carding a lot of GIRs per round.
 
I've hit all of these irons either on the course or on monitors and find they're all pretty similar yet different in their own way.

I think the CG16's and Burner 2.0's are almost interchangeable with the overall nod for me going to the CG16's (personal preference aside) I did not hit the 2.0's as consistent or accurate as I did the CG16's. If anything, the 2.0's may be slightly more forgiving. the CG16 Tours i felt weren't as forgiving for me as the CG16's are and my ball striking was much better withthe CG16 as oposed to the CG16 Tour.

The Razr X and Razr X Tours are nice sticks but did not work for me as well as I'd hoped, especially the X Tours. I just wasn't consistent with them and my ball striking was all over the place with them as well.

wcugrad said:
After somebody mentioning the Cleveland CG16s and doing a little reading on here last night, I am going to hit them at Golfsmith today. Seem to be very similar to the 2.0s (stronger lofts). I read some good stuff, but didn't find as much as I did on the RAZR X or Burner 2.0s. Am I missing a review somehow with my search? And if anybody could comment on those specifically up against these clubs, please chime in. And I wouldn't mind any comparisons of the CG16 versus the CG16 Tour version, too.
Click to expand...
 
wcugrad said:
But having played both, would you rate one "more" forgiving over the other? Looks like you are probably a significantly better player than I am. I tend to finish a round and say I shot 80 (or 82 or 84) and the people I am playing with are surprised. So I score OK and from time-to-time can do some really nice things with a driver, a neat pitch, or can get out of trouble. But I am not carding a lot of GIRs per round.
Click to expand...

The fact that the 2.0's have a larger head and more mass behind the ball means they should be more forgiving. From my personal experience, the RXT's are just much better for me and my game. I miss the middle of the club face and not once have I been severely punished b/c of it. I would honestly rate them about the same in the forgiveness category.
 
wcugrad said:
In reply to a post by Chunkylover77 above....

I know the Di 11s are considered GI (or probably even SGI). That doesn't really matter too much to me as long as they perform. I read lots of updates by you in your reviews of the Wilson's. Were they good enough to stay in your bag? And I actually live in Raleigh, but feel pretty confident I am going to go with the Burner 2.0s or the RAZR X Tours - forgiveness is not a bad thing for my swing, though!
Click to expand...

They are definitely good enough to stay in my bag. There is not a shot that you can't hit with the Di11's
 
So I actually did a comparison and fitting at Golfsmith today between RXT and Burner 2.0. In the end, the Burners clearly showed (on the monitor) that they were the sticks for me. I have hit both outside and didn't notice as much difference as the monitor showed, and had done my own comparisons in the bay at Golfsmith and Golf Galaxy before and didn't think there was a ton of difference. But with the fitting I actually hit the Burners at a lower launch angle and much farther (although I know the lofts are not exactly the same). The guy in Golfsmith told me it was an absolute no-brainer, and he knew I was not buying the clubs from them - at least not today.

Glad I got somebody to help me and do the fitting. Based on my own demo'ing of the clubs, I didn't "feel" like there was that much difference in the two and was pretty much set to buy the RXTs. Instead I am going to find the best deal I can and order a set 2.0s 4-AW tonight!
 
Ive hit both and I thought the Burner 2.0's were the softest cast club id ever hit. They were easily as soft as my set of MX-300's and wayy softer than my R9 Tp's. I love my burners.
 
Update - I ordered the Burner 2.0s and they arrived Monday (but it was raining). I went to the range yesterday and today. Still need to work on getting them dialed-in regarding distances, but I am loving them so far. Even though they are technically "Game Improvement" irons, I don't have any problem hitting draws (or big hooks) or fades (or big slices) with these on demand. Smoother the swing and softer my grip, the farther they go. Only minor complaint is they can go REALLY high, but they aren't balooning and when I think the shot is really high it continues to carry and carry and carry - so distance is still great. I have noticed a bigger drop-off when hit way out on the toe versus what some others have expressed, but that has been on pretty pitiful swings and shouldn't be a negative for the club.

Plus they look great!
 
Congrats dude!:taylormade:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top