Are Rocetballz and Rocetblades delofted?

[Hawk]

That's a hypothetical scenario that I've not seen in real life. The bottom of my bag gaps just like it did before - both of my PW's were 45°.


As for the OP - I've seen nothing similar to that. In fact, my launch with the 7 iron is almost identical to another 7 iron that is 2.5° weaker.

 

[bbuonic81]

Crossfield proved nothing except that he remains a true Mizuno homer and cherry picked some numbers to prove a point.

Perhaps a little stronger than I would have put it, but I agree with the sentiment here.

In my mind, at least, I'd be hard pressed to believe that lengthening the shafts and strengthening the lofts on a club to match the specs of another make the two "the same."

 

[wluker17]

I'm really interested to hit the RBladez tour. Their lofts are very similar to my MP-63 lofts. There is a 2° difference in the 4 iron but the 5 and 6 are closer in loft and the 7, 8, and 9 are the same. My MP-63 PW is actually a degree stronger than the RBladez. I was thinking about making a combo set with the regular RBladez in 4-6 and the tours in 7-PW but the regular 6 iron is 3° stronger than the tour version and that would create an odd gap between the 6 and 7.

 

[Hawk]

Perhaps a little stronger than I would have put it, but I agree with the sentiment here.

In my mind, at least, I'd be hard pressed to believe that lengthening the shafts and strengthening the lofts on a club to match the specs of another make the two "the same."

For what it's worth, I saw similar distance in similarly lofted irons on perfect strikes as well, but that's not really the whole story. The longer irons launch high, ball speeds are very good, and there's the forgiveness aspect - especially low and on the toe.

Regardless, I don't care what irons people play and I'm not a TaylorMade fanboy. Just stating what I've seen over three months of testing.

 

[Arnold]

It does create some attention on the bottom of the bag. But with all of the wedge options out there, it isn't impossible to find wedges to fill gaps. As far as the benefits, why wouldn't it be better hitting a PW into a green as opposed to a 7iron?

I am not sure blu. I think if you are talking wedge vs, say 5 iron, the sidespin deal comes into play , as does trajectory.
But in . say , 7 vs wedge from the same distance, I see little advantage.
To me, regardless of what i am hitting, the distance from the pin is the main challenge vs what I need to hit. By that I mean that if we are both 160 out, and I need to hit 7 , while another guy can hit 9, we are both facing the same challenge and the implement used makes little difference.
Typically, though , on the par 4's and 5's, the fact that the guy can hit his 9 iron as far as my 7, usually means he can also hit his driver 30 yards by me. So, his challenge is easier.
I remeber as a kid, we had a 168 yard par 3 over water, all carry, and ww, in our late teens and early 20's were stepping on 8 and even 9 irons to get it there.
I caddied in the State Am, and Dick Siderowf ( won the British Am, twice, I think) was in the group with my guy. He was only 36 , then, and a pretty impressive physical speciman for that time(pre weight lifting).
He would always hit a 6 iron, like a laser. We were dumb enough to think he was a bit of a puss.
One of my good friends is scartch and hits his 5 iron about 175, like a laser. He tells me that it make absolutely no difference to him what he has to hit.
But, we are seniors and maybe we are just consoling ourelves.
I have seen the game evolve into something very different than what I saw as a kid growing up. The really good players that I grew up with, one who played at Wake with Lanny, hit it 250-260, max. These guys were stud golfers.
Now, with the great equipment, I see 20 handicappers that can hit it past that.
I wish we had this stuff when Iwas a kid. But, the good courses back then were 6400 or so. So, maybe it does not mater. But, it would have been fun to see where we could have hit it.
In my 30's, I had my driver swing measured at 117. But, I would swing so hard in those machines.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Actually, "that little thing" is nothing more than marketing hype. Mark Crossfield proved that by taking a set of JPX-825s, bending them strong, lengthening the shafts and showing that the 825s are actually LONGER than the Rocketbladez.

Actually, no, he does not prove anything of the sort. Crossfield never discusses launch angle, just distance. The proper way to have this discussion is to put two sets of clubs on a LM, find clubs that have comparable launch numbers then discuss distances. Crossfield does it exactly backwards. And in doing so he merely perpetuates the lack of understanding about launch vs. loft, which ultimately does us all a disservice.

Also, even for what he's trying to accomplish, note that Crossfield's methods are suspect. He did not take an average of all balls hit but instead hit sets of three balls then found a set of 3 from each club that he determined to be comparable then drew conclusions about distance from those three shots. Notice that the two fastest club head swings are with the JPS (no surprise those flew further). Coincidence that this set of three JPS shots was selected? The one JPS shot with a comparable SS flew a comparable distance to the Bladez' shot with comparable SS. IF that shot also had comparable loft (which we don't know) then the result is meaningful for what he is trying to determine. But we don't know whether it did or not.

 

[Jman]

Crossfield proved nothing except that he remains a true Mizuno homer and cherry picked some numbers to prove a point.

BINGO! As he always does IMO.

Loft doesn't decide the number on an iron LAUNCH does. With tech now they can make a lower loft LAUNCH as high or higher than its traditional counterpart. It's all about the launch.

 

[All4's]

This is always a hotly debated topic. I fall into the camp that agrees they are delofted and does not accept the concept of a "PW" going 150 because it has the loft of a 9 iron being a good thing for anyone but OEM's selling wedges. But others have made the argument that the placebo effect of having the higher number stamped on the bottom is reassuring to mid-high handicappers. I am all for whatever makes the game more enjoyable for people so different strokes for different folks.

I always choose irons with traditional lofts so I don't need more wedges. To each their own.

 

[blugold]

I always choose irons with traditional lofts so I don't need more wedges. To each their own.

But who gets to decide what is a "traditional loft"?

 

[tequila4kapp]

I fall into the camp that agrees they are delofted and does not accept the concept of a "PW" going 150 because it has the loft of a 9 iron being a good thing for anyone but OEM's selling wedges.

I completely understand this perspective, as it took me a decent amount of time to get my head around this one.

Consider the alternative...if the OEM's used technology to create more launch but did not adjust loft our 50* PW would fly a mile high and become less and less useful. In this sense OEMs virtually have to adjust loft.

 

[NoLine]

I've had the Rocketbladez in play since Thanksgiving and they are noticeably lower launching then the i20's I was previously playing. For me this is a good thing because I've always hit my irons a bit too high for my liking, costing distance. The distance gains in the 4 thru 7 are evident and I'm sure that some of that is coming from launching the ball on a more piercing trajectory then with my previous set.

 

[All4's]

But who gets to decide what is a "traditional loft"?

I completely understand this perspective, as it took me a decent amount of time to get my head around this one.

Consider the alternative...if the OEM's used technology to create more launch but did not adjust loft our 50* PW would fly a mile high and become less and less useful. In this sense OEMs virtually have to adjust loft.

I should have stated that differently, as I also don't really agree with the lofts necessarily being what should be standardized and therefore don't necessarily agree with my own statement.

I believe that the distance the club goes, in standard off the rack setup, should be standardized to account for modern technology and avoid creating yardage gaps at the top and bottom of the bag. I believe that consumers would benefit from the OEM's adhering to a standard distance/iron ratio. For example if the industry standard adopted was that for a 90 MPH swing (or whatever the average swing speed is for the highest population of golfers) the 8 iron goes 150 yards, 7 iron 160 yards, etc. regardless of the loft on the bottom or launch angle.

Then you could walk into a store and buy any set you want knowing that your iron distances would be the same before tweaking shafts and so forth. If you swing 100mph no problem, because you will still be seeing YOUR standard distance for an 8 iron, but now you would see it across all sets and OEM's due to the adherence to some static measurement tying each club to a distance for a fixed MPH.

 

[Arnold]

You guys have greater knowledge than me. But, I was under the impression that loft was the main thing in determining the standard iron.
If we agree that, say, the rocketbaaz gors further, but is not deolfted, what accounts for it doing so?
In the monitor, due to the lower launch angle I was seeing, it made sense to me that the 7 iron's loft must have been less than the PIng's. Are the faces just hotter? Or is it the shaft or what?

 

[nicedivot]

But who gets to decide what is a "traditional loft"?

I don't know for sure but my guess is people. Like what is considered traditional food, music right now may not be considered traditional in 100 years...

 

[Hawk]

You guys have greater knowledge than me. But, I was under the impression that loft was the main thing in determining the standard iron.
If we agree that, say, the rocketbaaz gors further, but is not deolfted, what accounts for it doing so?
In the monitor, due to the lower launch angle I was seeing, it made sense to me that the 7 iron's loft must have been less than the PIng's. Are the faces just hotter? Or is it the shaft or what?

Honestly, 6° difference in loft sounds like a coincidence to me, whether it was a misread or a thin or something else.

The primary things that make up distance are launch, back spin, and ball speed. I've noticed a high launching ball with high ball speeds that tends to spin on the lower end of things with the RocketBladez. My ball height is still very high, even with the lower spin.

 

[blugold]

I should have stated that differently, as I also don't really agree with the lofts necessarily being what should be standardized and therefore don't necessarily agree with my own statement.

I believe that the distance the club goes, in standard off the rack setup, should be standardized to account for modern technology and avoid creating yardage gaps at the top and bottom of the bag. I believe that consumers would benefit from the OEM's adhering to a standard distance/iron ratio. For example if the industry standard adopted was that for a 90 MPH swing (or whatever the average swing speed is for the highest population of golfers) the 8 iron goes 150 yards, 7 iron 160 yards, etc. regardless of the loft on the bottom or launch angle.

Then you could walk into a store and buy any set you want knowing that your iron distances would be the same before tweaking shafts and so forth. If you swing 100mph no problem, because you will still be seeing YOUR standard distance for an 8 iron, but now you would see it across all sets and OEM's due to the adherence to some static measurement tying each club to a distance for a fixed MPH.

Whew, I don't know if that idea makes any sense to me. Why would any company even make new irons then? Just release the same ones year after year. Also, swing speed isn't the only factor in distance. There is just so much space in that idea that leaves very big holes open.

 

[tequila4kapp]

You guys have greater knowledge than me. But, I was under the impression that loft was the main thing in determining the standard iron.
If we agree that, say, the rocketbaaz gors further, but is not deolfted, what accounts for it doing so?
In the monitor, due to the lower launch angle I was seeing, it made sense to me that the 7 iron's loft must have been less than the PIng's. Are the faces just hotter? Or is it the shaft or what?

This is a good question and I find it hard to definitively answer. TM's marketing wants us to believe it is the slot. I don't know...I accept that the slot improves forgiveness but tend to think the distance/launch combo is a result of the technology package compiled in the Bladez...the shafts, that the shafts are flighted, redistributed weight, the slot, etc.

 

[Arnold]

You could be right on the 6 degrees and the distance being an anomaly. The cynical side of me thought maybe the guy had power boosted the simulator(not really).
But, no, the shots were not thin. All launced in the 16 to18 degree range vs 21-22 with th i20's. Thye went markedly further(12-20 yards). Maybe the shaft, since it is lighter than the KBS in the Pings.
I noticed that I launched the KBS, and even S300 TT's higher than the CFS in the Pings, and the CFS is the lightes shaft. Slaes rep tried to tell me the CFS should go higher than the others due to its being lighter.

 

[All4's]

Whew, I don't know if that idea makes any sense to me. Why would any company even make new irons then? Just release the same ones year after year. Also, swing speed isn't the only factor in distance. There is just so much space in that idea that leaves very big holes open.

My stance is admittedly slanted heavily towards the consumer. Just as the notion propagated by the OEM's that the number on the club is affixed to launch angle is slanted heavily in their favor.

I didn't want to threadjack or type a novel but I can fill most of the holes I am sure you are thinking of but which have been touched on in prior debates along these lines.

 

[blugold]

My stance is admittedly slanted heavily towards the consumer. Just as the notion propagated by the OEM's that the number on the club is affixed to launch angle is slanted heavily in their favor.

I didn't want to threadjack or type a novel but I can fill most of the holes I am sure you are thinking of but which have been touched on in prior debates along these lines.

I don't think this is thread jacking. And if it is, so be it.

But I don't think standardizing iron distances is slanted towards the consumer. Why should the OEMs decide that my 92 mph 6-iron swing, will carry the ball 175 yards. When I can carry a 30* Mizuno MP-69 6 iron around 180-185. Why do I have to be handcuffed because of some arbitrary standard?

 

[SharkHat]

My stance is admittedly slanted heavily towards the consumer. Just as the notion propagated by the OEM's that the number on the club is affixed to launch angle is slanted heavily in their favor.

I didn't want to threadjack or type a novel but I can fill most of the holes I am sure you are thinking of but which have been touched on in prior debates along these lines.

While I have no doubt that your intent is to stand up for what you feel are mistreated consumers, I don't think your approach would benefit anybody the way you think it would.

 

[Hawk]

You could be right on the 6 degrees and the distance being an anomaly. The cynical side of me thought maybe the guy had power boosted the simulator(not really).
But, no, the shots were not thin. All launced in the 16 to18 degree range vs 21-22 with th i20's. Thye went markedly further(12-20 yards). Maybe the shaft, since it is lighter than the KBS in the Pings.
I noticed that I launched the KBS, and even S300 TT's higher than the CFS in the Pings, and the CFS is the lightes shaft. Slaes rep tried to tell me the CFS should go higher than the others due to its being lighter.

I don't know what sort of ball speeds you were seeing, but 21-22° seems pretty high for a 6 iron. If you're spinning the ball quite a bit as well it might be a good explanation for the lower distances. Do you remember your spin numbers by chance? With similar spin numbers, I don't think you'd see that big of a disparity in carry, even with the difference in launch.

I took an average the other night and was in the 18's at an average of 112mph ball speed with my 7 iron. My spin was in the mid 4k's in that grouping. Carry distance and ball height were quite good, even though the spin was low. If you up that spin 2000 rpms you are looking at a fairly significant difference in carry distance.

That's one constant I've personally seen with the RocketBladez - a fairly low spin rate. However, I seem to be dealing with that in my long clubs as well at the moment. Regardless, I still hit the ball very high (for me) and haven't had issues with keeping the ball on the green.

 

[All4's]

Blu and Sharkhat-I can't find the thread where JB and I had this same conversation about 2 years where I posted an article articulating why this is emphatically better for consumers as it saves you money when purchasing clubs and would force OEM's to focus their iron R&D on elements other than distance and save distance for drivers and fwy woods. I am sorry as it was a really good explanation.

To try and summarize it as best as I can, by embracing the stronger lofts and the pursuit of distance in irons it causes consumers to buy a set that creates a gap at the bottom of your set and also leaves you with long irons that are harder to hit due to less loft, ultimately also causing you to buy hybrids. So now instead of buying a set with 8 clubs (3-PW), you typically see a set with 7 or 6 clubs (4/5-PW) for the same price as was historically paid for the 8 club set. Plus you have to buy a Gap wedge (a modern invention created solely to address this strong loft issue) plus a hybrid if even the 4/5 iron is still difficult to fit.

Here are 2 different clubmakers addressing the issue:

Tom Wishon- "My “beef” with very strong loft irons is not really the fact that a golfer can be “fooled” into thinking this new set has a new “technology” that allows him to hit his 7, 8, 9, wedges longer than before. If someone wants to hit less club into a green, fine – I have no opposition to that. What does bother me about this low loft iron trend is that when buying such a set, the average golfer ends up with a 3, 4 and 5 iron that he cannot hit. Few golf shops will allow a golfer to only buy the 6-wedges or 7-wedges in a set of irons so they can spend the money they would have spent on the long irons rather instead on hybrids or high loft woods. The big golf companies will not sell half sets of irons to the retailers and no golf shop wants to be stuck with odds and ends 3, 4 and 5 irons that they will never be able to sell. So this is what bugs me about this strong loft situation – the golfer ends up spending hard earned money for several clubs he can’t hit, then he has to spend even more money getting hybrids or high loft woods so he has clubs to fill the need of the long irons that he can hit."

Phil Bonham, Wilson Staff Tour Manager explaining what constitutes a standard vs strong loft. I only included this one because many asked who or what decides "standard" and I hope this shows that standard is just, well standard in the industry.

[video=youtube;-2ARa89mW2k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ARa89mW2k[/video]

 

[Trout Bum]

To be fair, TB, they arent THAT similar to the lofts on your Mizunos, especially on the higher end of your bag. 2* is pretty substantial IMO. Some would argue thats a 1/2 club difference in loft angle. That being said, I'll be interested to see where the bottom side of your set compares to the Tours, were the lofts are the same or very close to matching.

I'm interested too, but 2* is only a couple yards when I compare a 54* to a 56* wedge but when we get to 47* and 47* that's going to be the game changer if it's a club longer. I hit a bunch of clubs this morning at GS and though they didn't have the tour I hit the 7 iron and it went 165 on the monitor, I didn't have my 68's so I grabbed a 69 6 iron demo and hit it 174ish. I have the numbers saved in my phone and I'll post them when I get back from the gym, they're all comparable, it's strange.

 

[blugold]

Blu and Sharkhat-I can't find the thread where JB and I had this same conversation about 2 years where I posted an article articulating why this is emphatically better for consumers as it saves you money when purchasing clubs and would force OEM's to focus their iron R&D on elements other than distance and save distance for drivers and fwy woods. I am sorry as it was a really good explanation.

To try and summarize it as best as I can, by embracing the stronger lofts and the pursuit of distance in irons it causes consumers to buy a set that creates a gap at the bottom of your set and also leaves you with long irons that are harder to hit due to less loft, ultimately also causing you to buy hybrids. So now instead of buying a set with 8 clubs (3-PW), you typically see a set with 7 or 6 clubs (4/5-PW) for the same price as was historically paid for the 8 club set. Plus you have to buy a Gap wedge (a modern invention created solely to address this strong loft issue) plus a hybrid if even the 4/5 iron is still difficult to fit.

Here are 2 different clubmakers addressing the issue:

Tom Wishon- "My “beef” with very strong loft irons is not really the fact that a golfer can be “fooled” into thinking this new set has a new “technology” that allows him to hit his 7, 8, 9, wedges longer than before. If someone wants to hit less club into a green, fine – I have no opposition to that. What does bother me about this low loft iron trend is that when buying such a set, the average golfer ends up with a 3, 4 and 5 iron that he cannot hit. Few golf shops will allow a golfer to only buy the 6-wedges or 7-wedges in a set of irons so they can spend the money they would have spent on the long irons rather instead on hybrids or high loft woods. The big golf companies will not sell half sets of irons to the retailers and no golf shop wants to be stuck with odds and ends 3, 4 and 5 irons that they will never be able to sell. So this is what bugs me about this strong loft situation – the golfer ends up spending hard earned money for several clubs he can’t hit, then he has to spend even more money getting hybrids or high loft woods so he has clubs to fill the need of the long irons that he can hit."

Phil Bonham, Wilson Staff Tour Manager explaining what constitutes a standard vs strong loft. I only included this one because many asked who or what decides "standard" and I hope this shows that standard is just, well standard in the industry.

[video=youtube;-2ARa89mW2k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ARa89mW2k[/video]

Few things. I am not opposed to sets that have 47* PWs. I just bought a set in fact. However, my problem is this. For a set like the Rocketbladez, Taylormade engineered a club that creates more ball speed off of the face and launches higher. So lets say that Taylormade released the Rocketbladez with the "standard" 30* 6Iron, the ball would probably travel a shorter distances, because of the higher launch. So why not dial the loft down, in order to compensate for the higher loft.

I can hit the VR Combo 6iron, with 31* of loft, as far has the Rocketbladez 6iron with 26.5* of loft. It isn't by accident. Next, 3i, 4i, and 5i are not easy to hit. KJ Choi took his 5 iron out of play at the Masters a few years back. To blame lofts for long irons being hard to hit is not right.

Maybe it isn't just the less loft that allows amateurs to hit the ball farther. Maybe by lowering the loft, the center of gravity gets placed into a spot where amateurs can actually find it. So they are making up for swing mechanics by finding the ideal impact area of the club.

In the video, he says "Standard set, that a pro would play with." We aren't pros. The people that the Rocketbladez are aimed to help, are not pros. The Rocketbladez are trying to allow amateur weekend golfers play the game in a similar way the pros do. Nothing wrong with that.

Also, Tiger Woods plays with a 50* PW. Why not make that the standard?