'Distance' irons vs 'player' irons - Adams CMB vs Callaway XR

[sfdoddsy]

There is an increasingly acrimonious thread on another website based on a video by Mark Crossfield. He basically says there is no measurable difference (for him) between blades and player's irons.

So you may as well play blades.

Normally, I would have thought this was nonsense. My theory was always to play the most GI irons you feel comfortable having in your bag.

Lord knows I need all the help I can.

But recently I part-traded a Machine putter against a set of Adams CMB irons. Although they have fairly unanimous good reviews, they are most definately aimed at better players. So my intention was to flip them.

My long-term (10 years) gamers have been a set of JDM Callaways (think thinner-soled Hawkeyes) and at the same time I figured it was time to investigate the latest and greatest technologically advanced irons

So in rapid succession I've trialled TM RS2, Callaway Apex, Callaway XR Pro, Srixon Z545, Cleveland Altitude, Apex CF 16, Wilson C200 and Callaway XR.

All are fine irons.

And I hit all (except the Srixons and Wilsons) well.

Not necessarily better than my old set, but well enough to think maybe there has been an improvement in irons.

Since I had them, I also tried out the Adams CMBs, which have small forged heads, traditional lofts, and no obvious aids for mishits.

And I hit them well, to my surprise. The combination of shaft, lie, grip, length etc seems to agree with me.

But every bad shot I blamed on my poor swing and their unforgiveness. Surely I would be better off with the modern clubs?

So I tried to find out.

In the past week or so I've had a quiet time at work and from family, and so have finally had a chance to do real comparisons on the range and the course between the 'winners' of my modern irons and the Adams.

On the range (off mats) the XRs seemed longer and more forgiving, but felt and sounded much worse. But when I adjusted for lofts, there was no difference in distance. The Adams 7 iron was as long (and high) as the XR 8 iron.

The Adams 4 iron was as long as the XR 5 iron.

It was also higher and straighter (my evil miss is a pull hook).

I was very surprised.

On course, over half a dozen rounds, I've been playing two balls and alternating betwen the two sets of irons.

If I mishit either, the ball is short. But I was expecting there to be less distance loss with the XR.

Not so.

Surprisingly, when I nail the Adams it seems longer than the XR on the course.

We have a 170 yard par 3 that is normally a 7 iron (with my old clubs) for me. I slightly mishit the XR 7 and ended up pin-high but left. I hit the Adams 7 sweetly and it sweetly flew over the pin to the back of the green.

I've had similar experiences quite a few times with nutted CMB shots going way further than expected.

I have to admit that I am biased. I like the look of the CMBs in my bag. I like their cool blue grips. I love the feel. I like being able to say I can hit a 'player' iron well.

But on the other hand, I also like scoring well. I'm competitive. Most of my golf is on competiton days following the full rules of golf.

If I though modern irons would give me an edge, I would jump at it.

My new modern driver does. My new mallet putter does. My new modern wedges do. Even my new modern mini driver kind of does (I think).

But my new tech-filled irons seem to be no better than my old tech-less irons,

I'd be interested to see what a launch monitor says, but there are no outdoor ones near me and I have this weird thing where I start shanking every shot on indoor ones.

And I'd be interested in THP thoughts, since so many here go (like myself) for the latest and greatest.

Sorry for the length, but I've been drinking after finishing 9 holes where I had two birdies with the Adams, and none with the XR.

 

[obedt]

If you prefer the CMBs, play them! It sure looks like your score isn't being affected adversely.

That said, the CMBs are not some old irons with no tech behind them. They come stock with a very good shaft and these are still modern irons. Adams Golf made some good clubs and usually paired them with solid shaft offerings...I always wanted to game the CB3s so I naturally gravitate now towards some WS offerings.

 

[RNG]

I think you should play what you like and what you think works best for you. I find blades much more difficult especially from less than perfect lies. I don't believe Mr. Cross field took that into his evaluation at all.

 

[blugold]

If the CMBs make you happy, play them.

I'm really confused by the below quote. Can you explain?

He basically says there is no measurable difference (for him) between blades and player's irons.

So you may as well play blades.

 

[Wake]

Sounds like the CMBs fit you well, those stock shafts were sweet, both the Steel and graphite. If the C tapers area good fit for you it doesn't surprise me you would get better results than with a kick lighter shaft in the XRs.

I loves the CMBs when they came out, and hit them really well on the range, but they were too penal for my game when I got them on the course.

 

[sfdoddsy]

If the CMBs make you happy, play them.

I'm really confused by the below quote. Can you explain?

He did a video comparing Mizuno blades with Mizuno JPX irons on a launch monitor, and deliberately mishit shots with each.

The expectation was that the more forgiving GI club (the JPX) would help with the mishits and give more consistent distance.

In fact, there was no measurable difference.

So he recommended playing whatever club you are cool with.

The obvious criticism is that he is a pro and can hit anything well.

I'm not a pro, but aside from feel, haven't been able to find a noticeable improvement in distance or consistency between the latest hi-tec irons and a recent more traditional iron.

Which tends to kind of support his argument.

Of course the fact that the vast majority of people do not improve their handicap when changing equipment also does.

I love my new GBB driver, for example, but if I am honest, I'm actually not hitting it any further or straighter than the R7 Superquad I gamed for years

If I'm even more honest, I'd have to admit that the various shafts I've tried with the GBB (and R7) have made no real difference.

I paid lots to fit a Matrix in my R7, for example, because it was the thing to do. I thought it worked better than the stock ReAx, but my scores say I was dreaming.

i have a PX Handcrafted and a Rogue in my GBB. Better than the stock Fubuki? Not objectively, but I prefer them anyway.

Aside from the problem of getting consistent numbers from an inconsistent swing, my averages haven't changed since I first tried a LM 10 years ago. Similar swingspeed, similar launch angle, similar carry.

I went to Australia's 'best' fitter recently. My usual numbers came up, he made suggestions for shafts to improve hem, we tried said shafts and nothing really changed.

He recommended changes to the head setup which did make a difference for the better on Trackman, but for the worse outdoors on the course.

I'm cynical.

One of the fun things about THP is reading the long old threads about the latest and greatest then looking at the current WITB. At the moment the Apex CF16 is everywhere. In a year, those WITBs will be utterly different.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm an audiophile too and they are even more inclined to believe in differences which are not there. And if you think a $400 driver is expensive, try $10,000 amplifiers and $30k speakers.

 

[sfdoddsy]

Sounds like the CMBs fit you well, those stock shafts were sweet, both the Steel and graphite. If the C tapers area good fit for you it doesn't surprise me you would get better results than with a kick lighter shaft in the XRs.

I loves the CMBs when they came out, and hit them really well on the range, but they were too penal for my game when I got them on the course.

The CMBs have Rifle Flighted in them.

I would like to try the C Tapers, because they look so cool and match the satin heads.

But I can't help recalling another Golfwrx article on iron shafts where they tested the usual suspects and found, to their consternation, that (once averaged) there was no difference in launch, spin, carry or dispersion between any of them. Whether steel or graphite.

The famously low launching C Taper actually launched slightly higher than average. Boring old DG S300 had the same launch, spin and dispersion as the new kids.

The only real difference was feel.

 

[Wake]

The CMBs have Rifle Flighted in them.

I would like to try the C Tapers, because they look so cool and match the satin heads.

But I can't help recalling another Golfwrx article on iron shafts where they tested the usual suspects and found, to their consternation, that (once averaged) there was no difference in launch, spin, carry or dispersion between any of them. Whether steel or graphite.

The famously low launching C Taper actually launched slightly higher than average. Boring old DG S300 had the same launch, spin and dispersion as the new kids.

The only real difference was feel.

Wow, not my findings at all, yes head still makes a bigger difference than shaft, but the difference between say a S300 and my current XP95 can be pretty big in my experience.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Some irons have the ability to retain more ball speed on off center strikes better than others. I think it's fair to say that's an objective fact. Now that may or may not may be true for the specific irons MC and you discuss, I don't know. But where the differences exist, it's there to help us. The great thing is, there are so many options available to consumers we have an extremely wide spectrum of choices to us as we decide how much of that help we want and what type of package it will come in.

 

[TMAdidas]

I used to have a set of CMB's, and they were more forgiving than a set of MB's I had previously. I don't think they will be as forgiving as the XR, but they won't be a whole lot shorter, and they will certainly feel better, and IMO look much crisper and cleaner. If you work the ball at all, these will be better than the XR. However, there is less offset on the CMB's than the XR, so that should make a hook less likely. I loved my CMB's, and the only reason I sold them is because I got a killer deal on newer technology.

 

[CBaker]

The absolute biggest thing with golf equipment IMO is confidence. If the CMB's and the other clubs currently in your bag give you the best overall confidence, then play those. The XR's will retain more ball speed than the CMB's on misshits by design, but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll personally hit them better, especially if you enjoy looking at the CMB's and have more confidence with them.

I've also had much different experiences with these specific clubs, along with the shafts you mentioned that they found no difference with.

One of the best parts about THP is that a lot of the equipment you mentioned, we have access to discuss those things directly with the people of those companies, as they are active on here. Anytime you have questions for them, post them up.

In the end, the greatest part about all of this is that no one is forcing you to play anything specific. Play what makes you happy.

 

[Art M]

old thread here but very relative to me. i played cmbs a couple years ago and really liked them. at some point I decided a switch to cf16s would help me score better because of the increased forgiveness and distance orientation of the design. then i decided a switch to recoils would enhance the feel of the iron, be easier on my body, and once again, maybe add a touch of distance. i can't honestly admit that the switch to those clubs then to the graphite shafts really helped me do anything. Are they okay, sure. I have been, of late, dissatisfied with the iron choice i have made. Last few rounds i have played my cmb irons that i reshafted with dg amt tour s400s. callies are longer, higher, more forgiving no doubt. some of my lowest rounds of the season have come recently with the adams. But i needed to "see" the numbers and flights side by side. After work i took 7 balls, both 7 irons, both 5 irons, and my range finder to the course. So cf16s with recoil 760es and cmbs with dg amt tour s400s. the adams are a full club loft more per number ( i hope i said that right 5 iron is 34 vs 31 on the cally ). I moved to 160 yards.....the cf16 flies high carrying the distance with about an 80 percent effort the cmb flies the distance with the use of slightly more effort. the cally is often long, like hot, while the cmb is predictable every time. the cfs are high while the cmb is mid. i hit the green 3 times more often with the cmb, like 5 out of 7 balls per round vs 2 out of 7. and those that miss with the adams are close while those that miss with the callies are right. move to 188 yards for a 5 iron test. same results in that the cmb struck shots are many times more likely to hit the green than the callies. and the callies miss is right of target. To solidify my thought, my last 10 balls i was going to finish off with the cf16s. 7 misses of the green, same miss. so i took the remaining 3 balls and hit them with the cmb. i figured while i was in a "slump" per say, i would see how the cmbs resulted. of the three 2 were within 8' of the flag, 4 inches of roll out and the third was 6 yards left in the green side bunker.
drawing to the conclusion in my mind that the cf16 is longer, number for number, and way more toe forgiving. it has a higher flight and relies in that to stop on the green. and stop they do for me most of the time. The cmbs are an awesome feeling club to hit. the distances are very playable. the accuracy and playability is superior. the looks are so much nicer. better have a good swing and hit the center or i am going to pay. i will be playing the cmbs instead of the cf16s going forward. i am encouraged by my ability to hit these (at least at the current moment in time ) enough to look at the likes of a 785, v6, ap2, x forge etc.

the adams cmb is at least a 6 year old design (and pretty techie at it's inception) and imo still a very relevant iron that can keep pace with the newbies. it can be had for cheap dough

 

[dthrog00]

If we're talking about blade irons from the 50s or 60s I think it would take an elite ball striker to effectively game those. I don't think it matters that much for most modern irons... If you have a semi-repeatable swing I think you can play nearly any modern iron that you choose without much difference on your scorecard.

SGI irons for me seem to be inconsistent and don't result in more greens in regulation than more sleek players type irons. I think a lot of the forgiveness perception is successful marketing honestly.

Dave

 

[WMac19]

old thread here but very relative to me. i played cmbs a couple years ago and really liked them. at some point I decided a switch to cf16s would help me score better because of the increased forgiveness and distance orientation of the design. then i decided a switch to recoils would enhance the feel of the iron, be easier on my body, and once again, maybe add a touch of distance. i can't honestly admit that the switch to those clubs then to the graphite shafts really helped me do anything. Are they okay, sure. I have been, of late, dissatisfied with the iron choice i have made. Last few rounds i have played my cmb irons that i reshafted with dg amt tour s400s. callies are longer, higher, more forgiving no doubt. some of my lowest rounds of the season have come recently with the adams. But i needed to "see" the numbers and flights side by side. After work i took 7 balls, both 7 irons, both 5 irons, and my range finder to the course. So cf16s with recoil 760es and cmbs with dg amt tour s400s. the adams are a full club loft more per number ( i hope i said that right 5 iron is 34 vs 31 on the cally ). I moved to 160 yards.....the cf16 flies high carrying the distance with about an 80 percent effort the cmb flies the distance with the use of slightly more effort. the cally is often long, like hot, while the cmb is predictable every time. the cfs are high while the cmb is mid. i hit the green 3 times more often with the cmb, like 5 out of 7 balls per round vs 2 out of 7. and those that miss with the adams are close while those that miss with the callies are right. move to 188 yards for a 5 iron test. same results in that the cmb struck shots are many times more likely to hit the green than the callies. and the callies miss is right of target. To solidify my thought, my last 10 balls i was going to finish off with the cf16s. 7 misses of the green, same miss. so i took the remaining 3 balls and hit them with the cmb. i figured while i was in a "slump" per say, i would see how the cmbs resulted. of the three 2 were within 8' of the flag, 4 inches of roll out and the third was 6 yards left in the green side bunker.
drawing to the conclusion in my mind that the cf16 is longer, number for number, and way more toe forgiving. it has a higher flight and relies in that to stop on the green. and stop they do for me most of the time. The cmbs are an awesome feeling club to hit. the distances are very playable. the accuracy and playability is superior. the looks are so much nicer. better have a good swing and hit the center or i am going to pay. i will be playing the cmbs instead of the cf16s going forward. i am encouraged by my ability to hit these (at least at the current moment in time ) enough to look at the likes of a 785, v6, ap2, x forge etc.

the adams cmb is at least a 6 year old design (and pretty techie at it's inception) and imo still a very relevant iron that can keep pace with the newbies. it can be had for cheap dough

Funny how we can all be so different as my experience has been to the opposite.

Prior to my CF16's with stiff Steelfiber i95 shafts, I played the Mizuno MP-52 in 7-PW w/Rifle 6.0 and the MX-200 5 & 6 irons w/Flighted Rifle 6.0. Lofts were 2° different between MP and MX so I elected to have the MP-52's strengthened 2°.

I find my CF16's (31° 7-iron) to flight fairly significantly lower than previous irons (33° 7-iron). Low enough that I had to change balls from the Duo-U as it didn't spin enough on mid-iron approaches. Whereas the same ball with the Mizunos reacted just fine.

The Mizunos happen to hit very high for me, particularly 7-PW with the regular Rifle shafts. The Flighted Rifle in the MX 5 & 6 irons offer a more penetrating flight. The Callaways however, with matching shafts of course, are consistent with their medium trajectory relative to loft.

Incidentally, I've since tried three TM model balls with the CF16's, the old TP Red LDP, TP5 and TP5x. All have been just fine wrt mid-iron spin.

CF16's are a strange one for me in that from 7-iron up, they're 1.5 clubs longer (perhaps due to the cupped-face) and 8-iron down are one club longer.

With the ball change, both seem to hold greens equally. CF16's are way more forgiving, specifically low and specifically again toward the toe.

My GIR increased dramatically this season, my first full season with them. One caveat though, although they're the same length as the Mizunos, my CF16's are set at 2° flatter.

 

[leftshot]

IMO distance is not the most important factor in an iron. It isn't second or third most important either. Dispersion is the most important factor. These are your scoring clubs. These are the clubs you use to put the ball close to the hole. Hit your approach inside of 10 feet and you are likely in the hole on the next shot. Two at most. Hit your approach on the green, but 40 or more feet from the flag and it will generally take two more strokes to get it in the hole--sometimes three. Miss the green and you are generally looking at 2-4 more strokes to get it in the hole.

In other words, proximity to the hole on your approach shot has a huge effect on your total score.

 

[DataDude]

I agree with many here. Of course when buying a driver it needs to go as far and strait as possible. You want to cover as much ground off the tee box as your swing allows to get closer to that green because no one will ever argue that a 100 yard shot is harder than a 120 yard shot, etc.

I think many golfers make a serious mistake when they buy irons the same way. Sure we would like a forgiving 4 iron that we can hit as far as possible, but when we are setting 140 yards out it doesn't matter what number is on the sole of that club, it only matters whether you can reliably trust it to go 140 yards. Only vanity would make you prefer it to be an 8 iron instead of a 7 iron.

Manufacturers that are only focused on the distance the number goes are of course going to manufacture clubs that are hot. There is a reason 2 of the largest OEM's tour players are all playing proto irons. There is a reason Titleist tour players are playing the same clubs you can buy at the store. There is a reason players with no deals play Mizuno's. They look good, they feel good, and they perform consistently.