We've launched the new forums! Read more here

TaylorMade RocketBladez - Review Thread

SuperStroke
I can see that JB, it certainly is a different sound in the 4-7 to be sure. Sound is feel and its one thing that I fully understand everyone being different on.

I really couldn't agree more with the performance and looks, both are there WAY more than I anticipated coming in to putting them through their paces. Its the first TM set in a long while that, for me, has delivered on what they claim because we all know how BIG they claim things.
 
Jman said:
I can see that JB, it certainly is a different sound in the 4-7 to be sure. Sound is feel and its one thing that I fully understand everyone being different on.

I really couldn't agree more with the performance and looks, both are there WAY more than I anticipated coming in to putting them through their paces. Its the first TM set in a long while that, for me, has delivered on what they claim because we all know how BIG they claim things.
Click to expand...

And that may be it Jman. Perhaps expecting a certain sound at impact is what makes most iron sets easier, but here depending on whether or not I am long or short iron away, the sound is different. More so than even most mixed sets I have worked with.
 
JB said:
And that may be it Jman. Perhaps expecting a certain sound at impact is what makes most iron sets easier, but here depending on whether or not I am long or short iron away, the sound is different. More so than even most mixed sets I have worked with.
Click to expand...

Oh, no doubt. The difference in pitch going from the 4-7 to the 8-AW is significantly different to any ear I think dude. Sound is a BIG thing, for me its why I can't play some drivers and woods no matter what I'm seeing performance wise (I'm looking at YOU R11's).

I'm getting along well with these and think that a LOT of golfers would really like what they saw if they got to take them out and about, they're going to be winners for TM no doubt IMO. For me though, I don't know that they are "the one's" even with the added length I've seen from the 4-6 in particular. I dunno, lots of thoughts rattling in this crazy head of mine and I'm a fickle one when it comes to what does or does not add to my confidence on the course and over the ball.

Look at me, rambling as usual.
 
I may just call them my new spiteirons and play them for the 2013 season.
 
Hawk said:
I may just call them my new spiteirons and play them for the 2013 season.
Click to expand...

With how you've been playing them that might be a crazy good idea dude.
 
Got a chance to hit these yesterday at the local GS. They had a 7I out for demo which was almost as long as most 6Is for me. Looks wise, I think that these are an improvement over the RBZ irons. I liked the way they set up. JB, I agree that the sound was a bit off putting. Hit a bunch of other irons and couldn't tell you a bit about the sound of any of them, because they were all fairly similar. I don't want to call it clunky, but it was definitely a little off compared to what I'm used to.

Great work by all the testers so far!
 
Jman said:
With how you've been playing them that might be a crazy good idea dude.
Click to expand...


For all the gap talk, they've actually helped close one up that I had going. I had a pretty big divide between my 6 iron and 5 hybrid.
 
Hawk said:
For all the gap talk, they've actually helped close one up that I had going. I had a pretty big divide between my 6 iron and 5 hybrid.
Click to expand...

I've not seen the crazy gaps like some I guess. From what I'm seeing they really did get the increasing face thicknesses in the 4-7 down so that the distances through the whole set blends.
 
Jman said:
I've not seen the crazy gaps like some I guess. From what I'm seeing they really did get the increasing face thicknesses in the 4-7 down so that the distances through the whole set blends.
Click to expand...

No gap issues for me either. Actually helped me quite a bit since I will be adding a 3 hybrid and dropping the AW.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
 
Hawk said:
I think there's been a lot of critical thought here, but I'm not sure I'd convince you otherwise, regardless of where I point you.

Lofts have been strong for YEARS. The two irons you use an examples have strong lofts. Why is a 33° 7 iron better than a 30.5° 7 iron? They are both stronger than my other irons in their stock set up. Is 2° the limit before we start criticizing or should we go talk about the injustice PING is doing with the i20's? Or the G20's with that gap they create from PW down, since it's the same loft as the TM PW.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of better or worse. As you imply, there's no canonical set of specs. But comparing these irons to others by iron numbers is self-deceiving. They set up like one number higher and deliver the performance you'd expect from that setup.
 
JB said:
Now let me take this a step further for Rich's latest example. If (according to you) the new TM 7 iron is actually a shorter 6 iron, then it would STILL have more accuracy than most of the 6 irons you are describing and in return give one more "accuracy" as you are describing. So if the number on the iron does not matter and everybody should be reviewing the 7 iron of this set to the 6 iron of others, it will (according to you) be guaranteed to be more accurate since it is shorter correct?

I also assume that you would have the same issues with the Ping i15 and G20 compared to traditional lofted irons correct?

So if that is the case, where does the line get drawn? And how in the world does launch have nothing to do with it?

Im not sure if you have watched a club being designed, but if you get the opportunity, jump at it. Its quite fascinating watching what goes into setting an iron set up.
Click to expand...

It's not shorter. The TM 7 is the same length as the Ping 6 iron, with similar lofts.

Launch angle is a function of the club AND the swing, IIRC. My limited experience was that the TM 7 iron launched a bit higher than the Ping 6 iron I was using, but the carry distances were similar. (And I agree that higher loft for the same distance can be advantageous when holding greens, and a disadvantage in the wind.)
 
Rich Douglas said:
It's not a matter of better or worse. As you imply, there's no canonical set of specs. But comparing these irons to others by iron numbers is self-deceiving. They set up like one number higher and deliver the performance you'd expect from that setup.
Click to expand...

They set up like one number higher than some irons. Not all irons. Just like I pointed out that certain irons in the i20 set are 1/2 to 3/4 of an iron stronger than something like the 588 CB. You can't talk in absolutes like that and expect some wide agreement. The RBladez 7 iron is very similar in loft to many others on the market. Just like it's not similar to many others.

Nobody's getting decieved here. It's published, common knowledge that not all irons have the same lofts. I just don't think you can signle out one brand as the one that is causing a problem when it's widespread to varying degrees.
 
Rich Douglas said:
It's not shorter. The TM 7 is the same length as the Ping 6 iron, with similar lofts.

Launch angle is a function of the club AND the swing, IIRC. My limited experience was that the TM 7 iron launched a bit higher than the Ping 6 iron I was using, but the carry distances were similar. (And I agree that higher loft for the same distance can be advantageous when holding greens, and a disadvantage in the wind.)
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. It is shorter.
i20 6 iron - 37.25
TM 7 iron - 37

So it is shorter and thus would give more accuracy (based on your thoughts).
 
tequila4kapp said:
Also, you probably didn't mean it this way but your last comment may be interpreted by some as a bit off-putting. That others have different opinions or draw different conclusions does not mean we are incapable or unwilling to be critical of a manufacturer or product. There is plenty of that in this thread too. Just because you happen to believe a certain something does not make it fact.
Click to expand...

I made no comment about any person, nor have I been critical of anyone's opinion. And I'm not interested in starting here, despite several posts from others directed right at me (not my opinions). I'll just stick to the topic, if you please. Thanks!
 
Hawk said:
They set up like one number higher than some irons. Not all irons. Just like I pointed out that certain irons in the i20 set are 1/2 to 3/4 of an iron stronger than something like the 588 CB. You can't talk in absolutes like that and expect some wide agreement. The RBladez 7 iron is very similar in loft to many others on the market. Just like it's not similar to many others.

Nobody's getting decieved here. It's published, common knowledge that not all irons have the same lofts. I just don't think you can signle out one brand as the one that is causing a problem when it's widespread to varying degrees.
Click to expand...

As I said, I agree that there is no canonical set of specs.

It would be interesting to compare these to another set with the same specs (loft, lie, shaft type/length). Then we might see the impact of the Rocketbladez's clubhead design.
 
Loft does not determine the number on the club, LAUNCH does. As it does with all other golf companies as well.

You really should listen to the radio show, it's quite good and full of info.
 
Rich Douglas said:
As I said, I agree that there is no canonical set of specs.

It would be interesting to compare these to another set with the same specs (loft, lie, shaft type/length). Then we might see the impact of the Rocketbladez's clubhead design.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't know why that's compelety necessary though. Maybe if we are trying to determine if TM's marketing is blown up, but I'm pretty sure everybody on this forum already knew the answer to that. People in stores aren't wondering what loft of the 7 iron they are hitting is. They are looking at either a ball flying or a set of numbers and going from there.

We've compared quite a few different clubs in here and I don't think they've all said or showed that the RocketBladez are longer. The data I provided showed they were actually just about the same on well struck shots as my other irons but there was a pretty decent difference on mis-hits. Also showed a better result on low-face shots. You can read into that however you like. That being said, I've still shot two of my lowest scores ever with them in the bag. Is that antidoctal? Sure it is. But, so is a guy hitting 40 balls at a range. We can provide data (which we do) and we can provide our experiences.
 
Rich Douglas said:
As I said, I agree that there is no canonical set of specs.

It would be interesting to compare these to another set with the same specs (loft, lie, shaft type/length). Then we might see the impact of the Rocketbladez's clubhead design.
Click to expand...

The CG16 7I is only .5˚ weaker than the Rocketbladez 7I. I played the CG16s for two seasons and they were fitted to me. I can tell you with certainty that the off the rack Rocketbladez was easily a half, but closer to a full club longer for me. Obviously it wasn't exactly the same setup sans the head, but it was close so take that as you will.

I will say that after playing the CG16 irons for two seasons, that loft is only one piece of the equation. It's all about launch, as has been beat to death already. I hit those 'strong lofted' irons higher than the i20s I game currently, but am finding that the distances are similar throughout. I get that there's a perception out there of OEMs mucking with things to give us a false sense of distance. I think that this day and age though, clinging to what was the norm 20 (or even 10) years ago, doesn't make sense as the technology involved in equipment has advanced a good amount.
 
JonD said:
The CG16 7I is only .5˚ weaker than the Rocketbladez 7I. I played the CG16s for two seasons and they were fitted to me. I can tell you with certainty that the off the rack Rocketbladez was easily a half, but closer to a full club longer for me. Obviously it wasn't exactly the same setup sans the head, but it was close so take that as you will.

I will say that after playing the CG16 irons for two seasons, that loft is only one piece of the equation. It's all about launch, as has been beat to death already. I hit those 'strong lofted' irons higher than the i20s I game currently, but am finding that the distances are similar throughout. I get that there's a perception out there of OEMs mucking with things to give us a false sense of distance. I think that this day and age though, clinging to what was the norm 20 (or even 10) years ago, doesn't make sense as the technology involved in equipment has advanced a good amount.
Click to expand...

Great post, Jon.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
 
I compared The Rblz VS mp30's the other day the trajectory was similar on clubs of the same # the MP30 feel softer when they are hit pure but the RBLZ are more forgiving on slight miss hits they are also a club to a club and a 1/2 longer
one thing i noticed is hitting two clubs of the same loft MP30-4 iron vs RBLZ 5 iron the distance was similar (RBLZ was slighty longer) but the MP30 had a lower more penetrating flight and had lots of roll out RBldz were higher lanching and softer landing. I did sucessfuly able to hit a stinger type shot to bring the trajectory down on the Rbldz
 
FYI My RBladez are 1* weak
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
I hear that bro. Well good luck with them! I am really interested in how they compare to the CB's
Click to expand...

Puttin4Bird said:
I have not hit these side by side to compare but I definitely plan on it sometime soon. Early on I found that I'm able to keep the ball flight in check a lot better with the RBladez. What I mean specifically is that I struggled with keeping my ball flight down with the scoring irons. I hit the absolute highest balls with my lower
irons when the Burner 2.0s and so far I've already found that with the RBladez I'm able to flight that ball lower which helps me with my distance control as well.
Feel is pretty similar, especially in the longer irons. With both sets I've been able to get feedback on my shots without losing too much forgiveness. The forgiveness also seems similar with both the 2.0 and the RocketBladez. It's been a
while since I've hit the 2.0s so I'm going to get some side by side comparisons as soon as I can, but from my little testing so far with the RBladez and from my memory of the 2.0s they seem pretty similar both in feel and forgiveness. I always thought the feel of the 2.0 was great, my biggest struggle has always been controlling my ball and my distance and it's early, but so far I feel that the RocketBladez do a lot better job at both.
Click to expand...

I find the discussion interesting because I have the 2.0s and like them but was curious how much different these rocketbladez were and if would offer benefits worth the investment. One of the things I think I will do with my 2.0s is change to smaller grips from the stock grips my set came with. To me the grips on my 2.0 are larger compared to grips on my titleist vokey wedges making me think I might benefit from smaller grips on the 2.0s.
I like the forgiveness of the 2.0s but find myself longing to find that iron set that's as forgiving but looks more blade like and not difficult to hit. Oh well ... Guess the eternal quest continues...
 
Upon reflection, I'd like to offer an apology. I think I've implied that posters on this thread are fooling themselves regarding the Rocketbladez setup. I do not mean that at all. The level of knowledge and communication displayed here is extraordinary. I should have been more clear.

I feel the industry is pulling the wool over a lot of casual golfers' eyes by jacking up lofts and lengthening shafts, then point to the increased distances as if there is something unique and new with their clubs when, in fact, they perform that way because they're designed that way--and the club designations (numbers) are not reasonable. The average joe goes to the store and gets handed a club like this and the seller says, "Hey, look how much more distance you're getting!" when, in fact, the distance is largely the same, but the numbers have been changed.

I feel TaylorMade is doing this with this club, too. They're not unique, and if you take the time to get fitted properly with lie angles, shaft lengths, etc., it doesn't matter. But most golfers buy their clubs off the rack and, thus, don't realize their getting more distance from their new 7 iron because it is designed like a 6.

But saying that people are kidding themselves with this parlor trick sounded like I was talking about the people posting here. I was not. I apologize.
 
Hawk said:
I guess I don't know why that's compelety necessary though. Maybe if we are trying to determine if TM's marketing is blown up, but I'm pretty sure everybody on this forum already knew the answer to that. People in stores aren't wondering what loft of the 7 iron they are hitting is. They are looking at either a ball flying or a set of numbers and going from there.

We've compared quite a few different clubs in here and I don't think they've all said or showed that the RocketBladez are longer. The data I provided showed they were actually just about the same on well struck shots as my other irons but there was a pretty decent difference on mis-hits. Also showed a better result on low-face shots. You can read into that however you like. That being said, I've still shot two of my lowest scores ever with them in the bag. Is that antidoctal? Sure it is. But, so is a guy hitting 40 balls at a range. We can provide data (which we do) and we can provide our experiences.
Click to expand...

Good points. But the guy in the store isn't going to know about the clubs' accuracy (or lack thereof) until he buys them and plays them.

I'd like to see data associated with the loss of accuracy--if any--from using longer shafts in these clubs. A "comparo" between these and a more-standard setup. If you told me I could hit it farther with a longer shaft, got the same (or better) ball flight, and wouldn't lose any accuracy, I wouldn't care if the shafts were made out of spaghetti!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top