We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Callaway Tour Authentic X-Prototype Irons

SuperStroke
I was strongly considering the SteelFibers but I had no place to test them out first. I had found a couple of places on line that sold them at a pretty good price if you do get them let me know.

I just could not have iron covers in my bag. Don't know why but I play with someone who has them and I don't want them in mine. Also that is another reason why I left the MB's. In order to stay sharp I needed to hit a lot more balls. With my bad back that was a no no. The G15's are pretty much a show up and start playing club. My body is not the temple it used to be lol.

Edit: Not scared of his iron play. From what I've read he beats you badly around the greens.
 
You can always shore up the temple CL! LOL! I hope one day to play a round of golf with JB. He seems like a very nice fellow, not to mention very knowledgable. As far as your round goes you better start working on your short game. :)

Here's my dilemma: do I sell the 2.0's and get the SteelFibers on the X-Protos, or do I sell the X-Protos and get the SteelFibers on the 2.0's? Oy vey! Methinks I should stay with the 2.0's!
 
I give no advice because you should be the one with the final say. I will just give you my thought process when I made the decision. How often do you actually shape shots on the golf course vs how often do you just aim at a spot and try and hit it to the spot straight. Also how confident are you from 180 out with say a 4 iron over water. I can tell you I was pretty confident with the MB's 4 iron but I am almost overconfident with the Ping 4 iron. I don't have to work as hard with the Pings and I kind of like that.
 
I rarely shape shot...straight usually works. :) And, if I need to I can turn the ball with the 2.0's. I suppose you have a point about getting away with more with the G15's. The same can probably be said with the 2.0's.
 
An interesting article by Don Trahan, one of the US top 50 golf instructors:

June 15, 2009
The big time world of golf club iron marketing is primarily focused in selling the cavity back/perimeter weighted iron club head design to the golfing masses, rather than the muscle back blade club head. The main advertising concept of the cavity back is that the weight has been taken from the back center of the club head and moved to the outside and perimeter of the club head, hence the terms cavity and perimeter. (Note: The following explanation and points I will elaborate on in this article, relative to the engineering and physics I will discuss, are, as I interpret them, from my discussions with my engineer mentors as they have explained them to me. Also included are what I have read and interpreted in the marketing material of the club manufacturers, and how I have compiled the two sources of engineering and marketing information to come to what I decipher as reasonable conclusions on the subject.)

The selling point to perimeter weighting by creating the cavity in the back of the club head is that it builds more stability into the club head to resist twisting when the ball is hit off center or the “sweet spot.” This is critical, as the more the head twists, more side spin is added to the ball, which will add more slice or hook curve, sending the ball more sideways (also called ball flight dispersion) and likely into trouble. This twisting also means less energy is being transferred from the club head to the ball and it will fly less far, which may be good in that the ball will go less deep into the rough or woods, but if it is a lake it is still wet and gone and now fish food.

To further enhance the perimeter weighting selling point, the “sweet spot” becomes the center of focus of the selling campaign. There have been advertising points claiming a club has a “bigger” or “expanded” sweet spot, or even “multiple” sweet spots. Lately, the sweet spot has also been called the center of gravity or just plain center.
The perimeter weighting concept was originally the main marketing campaign aimed toward the mid to higher handicap golfer which compromised the majority of players. Now, perimeter weighted clubs are made and marketed to the lower handicap players in forged steel and slightly smaller heads to try and gain the acceptance of these lower scoring players. The stability and playability of the bigger sweet spot and less twisting are still the main selling points.

And, with over 40 years of marketing and advertising of perimeter weighted, cavity back clubs and their benefits to resist twisting and hit better (less ball flight dispersion) shots with off center hits, the better players, including Tour professionals, now have them in their bags. I think that making them in the softer forged metal makes the impact sound and, more importantly, feel softer. The softer feel of the ball off the club is critically important for the touch and feel needed and demanded for these finesse shots around the green, and is the key issue fueling the transfer to perimeter weighted clubs by the pros and lower handicap players.

Many Tour pros and top low handicappers resist changing to the perimeter weighted/cavity back using the “I am a traditionalist” or “I am old school” slogans. Well, the manufacturers got a lot of them to switch with the development of what they called “Combo Sets,” and even now make these in forged, softer steel. A combo set is one where the wedges thru the eight iron are “muscle back blades.” The rest of the set has a mild cavity back and may have what manufacturers call a mild, modified or progressive offset in the shaft, with the offset increasing as the irons get longer.
Whatever the reason, the switch is on, from muscle back blades to perimeter weighted cavity back irons. The Tour players and low handicappers are still the main, if not the only holdouts still playing muscle back blades. There are enough of them to still warrant most of the top manufacturers to keep the pure muscle back blades in their lineup of clubs. I think this is just fine. Now let me elaborate a little on my reasons why.

There is no doubt that with perimeter weighting, the center of gravity/sweet spot can be moved more up or down the club head, as well as from the center to closed to the toe, to get it closer to the toe where slicers, who swing outside to in, contact the ball more often. They even build the heads bigger to give you more room or clubface to hit the ball. They say that the sweet spot is bigger or enlarged because of the bigger face. They say this will give a more solid impact with less twisting and thus a straighter and likely longer hit because of the bigger face and sweet spot. And, maybe this maybe true, but I like to deal in fact. So, let’s look at the flip side of which most everything has one. My thoughts on this bigger is better is for one point, a bigger club gets hung up or slowed down more in the rough or with deep divots. And second, what about the simple logic of a bigger face means “more room to miss” the sweet spot and thus hit a worse shot! On both of these points, I take the smaller club head blades.

Because of this built-in compensation of moving the sweet spot toward the toe, I believe golfers are forced to repeat their less than Peak Performance Golf Swing, because the weight of the head will respond best to that outside-in swing path. Just like you can’t take the stripes off a zebra, so can’t you not take the weight responding to the design out of the clubhead.

Another vital issue I like to point out, the major reason I play muscle back blades, is the physics of weight and energy transfer, from the club head to the ball, at impact. The physics of energy transfer is Mass times Velocity Squared. With perimeter weighted cavity back clubs, the weight is removed from the back of the club and placed around the perimeter for stability to reduce twisting of the head in off center hits. Well, by taking the weight from behind the impact point means there is less weight there transferring energy to the ball. It is what I call hitting someone in the nose with a pie plate versus your fist, or hitting the ball with a pie plate versus a steel frying pan. These may be an over exaggerations, but I believe they easily and accurately explain the concept of energy transfer from the club head to the ball. The muscle back blade, like your fist, has the mass tight and right behind the sweet spot for maximum stabilization and energy transfer.

Smaller and compact, with the weight distribution in the muscle back right behind the sweet spot, is the optimum energy transfer. And with the smaller and compact head, the rotation around the shaft of the head into impact, is tighter and with a smaller head hitting the sweet spot or closer to it, twisting is reduced and better controlled.
My radical revelation for today is if you want to play better golf, hit better and more solid shots with a tighter flight pattern, then give muscle back blades a shot. You won’t really ever know if bigger is truly better than smaller and compact. I will add that if you can swing and hit a big head you can hit a small head. I vote for, play and recommend blades. But I will also be the first to admit that taking a stance against marketing is a tough sell. But as the saying goes, “the truth of the pudding is in the tasting.”

What do you all think of his argument?
 
I think that Mr Trahan should keep his day job as an instructor and leave the design of clubs to the experts and R&D teams. This is one of the poorest arguments I have ever heard. THe fact that the best players in the world are switching and have switched at a rapid pace says all it needs to say. There is nothing in their contracts that says they have to play cavity backs instead of blades. Nothing at all. They switch because of what they see on the monitor and the extra abilities it gives them to go after the ball.

Part of his argument is that weight is moved from the sweet spot and while that can be true, it is not always true. By adding perimeter weighting, more weight can be distributed throughout the club. Remember, what mass equals? I said the exact same thing about forgiveness off the toe and have been for the last month in this thread. However that does not mean there is more mass at the sweet spot of a blade than a GI iron. There is usually still less and it cannot be distributed anywhere to gain forgiveness.

John Hoeflich (who makes blades and always has) talks about this very thing in the first interview we did in our Spring Issue. About why people play them. About why the pros are switching. If there has ever been someone that is qualified to give an honest answer it is arguably the greatest club maker of the last 30 years.

I am still baffled by all of this. If you want to play your new clubs, have at it. You dont need validation to do so.
 
I wasn't looking for validation I'm just trying to determine what would be best for my game according to the experts. I'd play ladies clubs with pink shafts and flowers coming out of the grips if that's what would work best. What confused me is when Trahan said that there is more mass behind the sweet spot of a blade than a GI. The implication being that if you hit the ball in the sweet spot, more often than not you'll get better response with the blade than the GI. It seems like for every argument I can find for one, I can find a counter-argument for the other.

If we weren't buried under snow I could go out on the course and actually play both sets and see what's what.
 
There is no doubt that with perimeter weighting, the center of gravity/sweet spot can be moved more up or down the club head, as well as from the center to closed to the toe, to get it closer to the toe where slicers, who swing outside to in, contact the ball more often. They even build the heads bigger to give you more room or clubface to hit the ball. They say that the sweet spot is bigger or enlarged because of the bigger face. They say this will give a more solid impact with less twisting and thus a straighter and likely longer hit because of the bigger face and sweet spot. And, maybe this maybe true, but I like to deal in fact. So, let’s look at the flip side of which most everything has one. My thoughts on this bigger is better is for one point, a bigger club gets hung up or slowed down more in the rough or with deep divots. And second, what about the simple logic of a bigger face means “more room to miss” the sweet spot and thus hit a worse shot! On both of these points, I take the smaller club head blades.

I don't buy his point here at all. With the blades my divot was incredibly large. I was taking huge chunks of soil. With the G15's the sole has made my divots far less pronounced. I have not noticed at all that my play from the rough has been affected. And the more room to miss argument is silly. I hit the club face in the same areas with both clubs. Just my misses now are closer to the pin lol. I like blades and would never tell someone that they shouldn't play them but this guys arguments are weak sauce and fly in the face of what I'm seeing on the course.
 
There is no doubt that with perimeter weighting, the center of gravity/sweet spot can be moved more up or down the club head, as well as from the center to closed to the toe, to get it closer to the toe where slicers, who swing outside to in, contact the ball more often. They even build the heads bigger to give you more room or clubface to hit the ball. They say that the sweet spot is bigger or enlarged because of the bigger face. They say this will give a more solid impact with less twisting and thus a straighter and likely longer hit because of the bigger face and sweet spot. And, maybe this maybe true, but I like to deal in fact. So, let’s look at the flip side of which most everything has one. My thoughts on this bigger is better is for one point, a bigger club gets hung up or slowed down more in the rough or with deep divots. And second, what about the simple logic of a bigger face means “more room to miss” the sweet spot and thus hit a worse shot! On both of these points, I take the smaller club head blades.

I don't buy his point here at all. With the blades my divot was incredibly large. I was taking huge chunks of soil. With the G15's the sole has made my divots far less pronounced. I have not noticed at all that my play from the rough has been affected. And the more room to miss argument is silly. I hit the club face in the same areas with both clubs. Just my misses now are closer to the pin lol. I like blades and would never tell someone that they shouldn't play them but this guys arguments are weak sauce and fly in the face of what I'm seeing on the course.
 
I met with my pro today for more than an hour. We went through the X-Proto's and the 2.0's on something called FlightScope while hitting balls out into the range. While I was hitting the ball well with the X-Proto's I was hitting the ball much better with the 2.0's. I had more distance, more club head speed, ball speed, and a smash factor averaging 1.39.

He is a Callaway staffer and thinks the X-Prototype's are the nicest irons ever made. But, he encouraged me to go with the 2.0's. I agreed. He also ran my 2.0's through the mill to make sure TM got the specs right...the 7-iron was off spec so he fixed that. I'm relieved.

As far as the X-Proto's he said to have fun with them in the summer, and also said to take care of them because he thinks they will have some value some day.

I shared with him what Don Trahan said and he agreed with JB. He is one of New England's top 25 instructors and plays the Callaway Diablo Forged irons...including the gap and sand wedges.

I'm happy to finally put this to rest.
 
Sean said:
I met with my pro today for more than an hour. We went through the X-Proto's and the 2.0's on something called FlightScope while hitting balls out into the range. While I was hitting the ball well with the X-Proto's I was hitting the ball much better with the 2.0's. I had more distance, more club head speed, ball speed, and a smash factor averaging 1.39.

He is a Callaway staffer and thinks the X-Prototype's are the nicest irons ever made. But, he encouraged me to go with the 2.0's. I agreed. He also ran my 2.0's through the mill to make sure TM got the specs right...the 7-iron was off spec so he fixed that. I'm relieved.

As far as the X-Proto's he said to have fun with them in the summer, and also said to take care of them because he thinks they will have some value some day.

I shared with him what Don Trahan said and he agreed with JB. He is one of New England's top 25 instructors and plays the Callaway Diablo Forged irons...including the gap and sand wedges.

I'm happy to finally put this to rest.
Click to expand...

well, what does JB and a top 25 instructor in New England have in common?

Spoiler
they both have been saying this for a while, and they both have been right! :alien:
 
Sean said:
I grok. :doh:
Click to expand...

haha, just giving you a hard time man! look, there's nothing wrong with having a set of sticks you want b/c they look, feel, and actually performed fantastically, but it's always nice to know that what's in your bag is optimized perfectly for you, and that's what you now know. in all honesty, at least you let data decide, when deep down you probably wanted to go with your heart. i think that the scores you shoot will be a testament to that sean.

good stuff.
 
TC said:
haha, just giving you a hard time man! look, there's nothing wrong with having a set of sticks you want b/c they look, feel, and actually performed fantastically, but it's always nice to know that what's in your bag is optimized perfectly for you, and that's what you now know. in all honesty, at least you let data decide, when deep down you probably wanted to go with your heart. i think that the scores you shoot will be a testament to that sean.

good stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks TC. I decided to go with the data! And my pro didn't even charge me. Not only were the 2.0's fit for me, but he doubled checked to make sure the specs were all in order. I think I'm done ho'ing for a while...too much stress.

As to the X-Proto's...you're right...that was all lust. LOL!...and I will hold on to them. :)
 
Sean said:
Thanks TC. I decided to go with the data! And my pro didn't even charge me. Not only were the 2.0's fit for me, but he doubled checked to make sure the specs were all in order. I think I'm done ho'ing for a while...too much stress.

As to the X-Proto's...you're right...that was all lust. LOL!...and I will hold on to them. :)
Click to expand...

Should I be charging for all of this? I mean I am shocked with the result here. :act-up:
 
JB said:
Should I be charging for all of this? I mean I am shocked with the result here. :act-up:
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure you had to sit down after reading this. :) How was your round? How did your friends like the Callaways?

ps: We were talking about the 2.0 wedges and my pro was surprised I could lay open the club face of the 60º and hit flop shots.
 
Old thread I know, but eBay has several of these sets really cheap. The reason I'm considering them is because they look just like the Apex Muscleback irons that Callaway is recommending for me presently.

Any new thoughts on the [h=1]Callaway Tour Authentic X-Prototype Irons[/h]
They sure look pretty!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top