Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kitsap County, WA
  • Referred By:
    Stumbled upon the site looking at reviews

Player Profile

  • Age
  • Swing Speed
    101-110 mph
  • Handicap
  • Frequency of Play/Practice
    Multiple times per week
  • Player Type
  • Biggest Strength
    Short Game
  • Biggest Weakness
  • Fitted for Clubs

Recent Profile Visitors

23,950 profile views

Subdiver1's Achievements





  1. Ooo-Rah and God Bless Marine. Everyday we are on this side of the dirt is a good one. Best way to remember and pay respects to our brothers and sisters who aren't with us anymore is to make the most out of every day we are here, and that is a good way to make the best of any day. Congrats! Guess you'll just have to get out there tomorrow and do it again LOL!
  2. This is interesting. Maybe I missed it but what were you playing before the Stealth HDs? I've read some of the other comments in this thread and it will be interesting to see what you find, but honestly it is strange to me to pit clubs from two different categories against each other. The HD is like the Cleveland Launcher XLs with that sole. Seems kind of like pitting the P790s against some 1980s Titleist blades BUT, you might be surprised. Look forward to reading your follow up. But either way, as much as I still like them, I wish I had only paid $650 for my 790s.
  3. I had links to the iron specs that show lengths, but didn't specifically provide that data in the earlier post. The lengths for the irons 3I to 3I, 4I to 4I were comparatively close; +.05" advantage TM; but when using comparative lofted clubs (e.g. Titleist 3 to TM 5), the length advantage shifted to +.05" in favor of the older Titleist. As far as swing speed goes, the differential was varied, and swapped when comparing clubs based on loft (of course the length advantage swapped as well). Something I learned a few years ago about club length was that "Standard" length back then (pre-2000s I think) was 1/2" shorter than what it is today; so that checks with the manufacturers stats provided below (from the links). There is obviously going to be some ball speed advantage when there is swing speed advantage. I think I provided the data you are looking for below. To your point on forgiveness, I would agree that our newer irons are more forgiving than the old blades. Concentration on MOI, perimeter weighting and other technical advances definitely seem to help that. A discussion I had just this afternoon spoke a little to your point and my perception that I hit these old irons well; 1. I hit down on the ball so I don't have to worry about catching the turf and getting caught in it like those with a sweeper swing who benefit a wider sole; 2. I think (opinion here) that having a smaller head, and being very aware of that when I sat the club behind the ball, I was really focused on contact and not trying to kill the ball too try and "keep up" with the newer clubs. But, I would agree that my P790s are going to be, overall and in the long run, more forgiving than these old Tour Models; but they sure were fun to play with. As far as perceived weight goes, the Wilson 1200 "wood" woods really do heavier than any fairway metals I have. They are also quite a bit shorter. The 975D kind of felt that way, heavy, but I almost wonder if because it looked small, but was really about the same weight that I mentally considered it "heavy." I didn't notice/perceive any weight difference in the irons, but they should all be in the D2/3 range so there really shouldn't be a weight difference there. Thanks for the discussion.
  4. I figured dispersion, in general is better (again in general/for most people) with GI irons. Otherwise why play them. As far as distance, I have always been a bit longer with player/tour irons. For whatever reason I recall discussion that you gave up a bit (potential power) to gain a bit (forgiveness) which is where the Players Distance irons came into bridge the gap between Players (tour) and GI (forgiveness) irons. As I recall from "back in the day" the benefit of a forged tour iron was that when you were on the screws GI irons couldn't keep up, but that was the trade off; if you weren't on the screws you lost a few yards and spin etc. Maybe that has changed. I tried to keep an open mind the last couple of times I went to play around and had fittings done. GI irons never seem to workout so on one hand I was glad I haven't lost so much of my game that I need to move over to a GI iron, but if I had seen better dispersion and relatively equal distance I was open to at least considering it. You touch on one of the funny things about all of this, that no matter how many shaft options there are, some clubs still won't work for some of us. One would almost want to believe that with 42,657 different shafts out there, somebody would be able to make X club work for anyone; that just isn't the case. I wish the ZX5s and 7s had been around when I got fitted last time. I hit the ZX7 a while back and man did they feel good.
  5. Can't say that I would argue with you there. We always used to say, the reason we pair up against bigger stronger opponents in training is that there will always be a bigger, faster, stronger guys out there and the only way to be prepared is to have trained against them to start with. I find it interesting that you hit GI irons longer than PD or Tour (muscle back) type. If loft and spin disparity are pared down or cancelled out by shaft adjustments do you think the same would hold true? I get that certain heads (clubs) are going to be more "skinny" than others to there is only so much one can do with shaft changes, but that is the benefit we have with today's technology. Thanks.
  6. Concur with you. The benefit of head and shaft advancement is that we can really tweak the club to a given swing for maximum benefit. Back when these Titleist were the new stuff other than an R or S shaft option that was it. Sure they could tweak lie and loft by heating and bending the hosel but we didn't have the analysis equipment to really tell what was beneficial over what somebody "thought" might be better. For me the answer to your dispersion question was, "WOW! Why did I ever put these in storage?" Other than a few mis-hit shots, which really didn't end of being all that bad, other than short, I was REALLY happy with how well shots held my line and after dialing in some distance expectations I was dropping shots where I was trying to. I do believe my P790, the T200s I hit last fall, the PXG Gen 5 and 6 irons I hit in the last couple of months and many others of the new players distance and game improvement clubs are way more forgiving than these 1980 blades. With all that being said, if you take a look the wear pattern on my P790 7-iron face you'd probably echo the PXG fitter I recently worked with who said something alongs the lines of, "I guess consistent contact is not an issue for you." But that was where Callaway (like them or not) jump started the stride toward benefitting the regular recreational golfer over the years; starting with bigger heads and larger sweet spot which improved their misses being tighter and more controlled. I'd be the original Tommy Armour 845s were probably more forgiving than these. Ping probably was too, but I could never get into them. More toward your point on dispersion, notice the spin numbers on the table I just added; 3, 4 & 5 Iron spin diff wasn't too bad, but from 6I on down it gets a bit disconcerting. I imagine this was typical in clubs back in those days, spin control was not so easy to measure or compensate for. We couldn't just swap 14 different shafts out to dial a club in for each individual (again, regular to stiff shaft? Kind of like ordering a beer in 1983 vs. 2023, did you want beer, or not beer? Now you need 4-days and a chemistry degree to decide which "beer" you want). Spin was where I struggled when I was younger (just a year or two really ;D) if/when I started cutting the ball; I could go from blowing it by the dads to slinging a HUGE slice over into another state when I really got after it; especially with those old persimmon drivers. I'd love to be able to be able to swap the shaft on these heads out like we can with new club heads and then compare something like the P770, T100, Mizuno Pro P221/225 etc. That would really give us and idea of how far head performance had come. Good feedback though, thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. Club
  7. Funny you mention it that way. See the results of my informal testing of a set of 1980 Titleist irons vs. 2019 TM P790s. I agree that equipment is more forgiving and lofts have definitely "strengthened." But apparently if we compare apples to apples in loft the equipment contribution to distance is relative to those loft changes more than any real improvement in ball speed from material or design. But then this is all based on my testing using a SC300 at an outdoor range not a Trackman and a robot. But, when considering similarly lofted clubs there really wasn't much of a performance (distance) difference between the two. Take 2 guys, one an athlete and the other, not so much, and give the not so much guy a set of new clubs and the fitness guy these 1980 irons and what do you think will come of it?
  8. The "Ball roll back" discussion referred so many times to how advancements in technology, club and ball design have made courses too short that I wanted to see just how much of an advantage my new clubs might provide over the ones I played in “back in the day” (boy that phrase makes me feel old). So, I headed over to the storage unit to do some digging around for my Titleist Tour Model irons (circa 1980) and whatever else I could find. Interestingly enough, earlier in the day I stumbled across the MGS Titleist 975D vs. TSR3 video from last October (https://mygolfspy.com/retro-golf-2023-titleist-tsr-versus-1998-titleist-975d/). I was surprised by the results MGS got. Since I just so happen to have gamed a 975D back in the day, and swear I was able to drive it longer than 250 (isn’t memory a wonderful thing) and since I still have that driver, I figured I'd add it to the mix and see what my testing would show. Weather conditions: -60 deg F, sunny and clear. -4 MPH breeze blowing from the right of the range. Unfortunately, shots had to be hit off the mats. I would have preferred au natural, but… Equipment: -1980 Titleist Tour Model Forged irons (Club Specs: https://www.titleist.com/golf-clubs/irons/1979-tour-model) -True Temper Dynamic Stiff, steel shafts (I think I had these reshafted in the late 80s or early 90s) -Lamkin Oversize Perma-Wrap grips -2019 Taylormade P790 irons ( Club Specs: https://www.taylormadegolf.com/P790-Irons/DW-TA228.html?lang=en_US) -Oban CT-115 S, steel shafts -Winn Dry-Tac oversize grips -Titleist 975 D, 8.5 deg driver, -Grafalloy ProLite +35 Stiff shaft -Lamkin Oversize Perma-Wrap grip -Swing Caddie SC300 launch monitor -Wilson range balls Hypothesis: The old irons won't be as "hot" as the new, but the difference won't be more than one club. I recall being able to hit the ball pretty long before a couple of surgeries restricted my movement and fitness routines. But with the MGS testing I was left wondering if I wasn't one of those guys who over estimated his distance as a rule, rather than an exception. Let's get the 975D out of the way first. I was just as long with the 975D as I am with my G400. Interesting. No Now for the really interesting stuff. The iron comparison (Red chart) was pretty eye opening to the advantage of new equipment; at first look. Then I realized the loft numbers and the discussion over "jacked lofts" may be relevant to the results (club specs can be found at the links provided next to each up in the Equipment section). So, I went back to look at the numbers again and do some additional analysis (Green chart). Look at the 12 yard advantage (Red chart) the P790s have over the old "blades" absent comparison of the loft length of each club the numbers look definitively in favor or new gear. But when we consider those other factors things start to look a little different (Red chart, right columns for comparison, Green chart for test data). Comparing test data for similarly lofted clubs starts to paint a different picture. For 2 of the 3 comparisons the older Titleist had the advantage. I don't think 0.5 degrees of loft is giving me 10 yards of advantage. Maybe the 4-6I and 5-7 comparison. I REALLY don't want to start the whole "jacked loft" discussion back up. We can clearly see that while the TM and Titleist iron static lofts are now similar, the launch angle of the TM 6 and 7 irons is clearly higher, resulting in a higher flight Apex (Green table). So, more height, about the same carry is arguably advantageous. Conclusion: 1. (supported by objective data) We need to change the paradigm of labeling irons as 3, 4, 5 etc. and shift to loft numbers (30 deg, 45 deg etc) like we do on wedges; apples to apples comparison. Not having some old Titleist DT 100s or Maxfli DDH IIs to throw into the mix means I couldn't compare ball performance with each iron to see what contribution that made to the equation. The things is, anecdotally speaking, I recall hitting the ball a similar distance in my youth to what the data here shows; admittedly those balls probably spun way more (especially the balatas). This is born out by the Driver data. Aside form the launch monitor data the range had a flag posted at 274 yards, which I verified with a range finder. I carried several of the tested drive shots to the landing area around the flag; so visual verification of launch monitor data occurred. As much as we want to lean on technology helping the young guys, and some veterans, "overpower" courses the data here gives me pause on that claim. I look forward to your thoughts.
  9. Agree that we went off topic. To bad you haven't located the driver. BTW, the 1200 set of woods I had were not the GE woods. I had GE irons, but the woods were 1200LT or something like that, with a little clear window right in the center of the club face. Happy testing. B

  10. This "discussion" got me more interested in history as it applies to the game and the distance topic. Everyone is taking about THE BALL and equipment changes affecting distance. So some research led me to "thread" discussing Bobby Jones driving distance (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=19402.0) I'll start by referring everyone to, Reply #4 on: August 14, 2005, 02:48:40 PM: "There was a marker during Bob Jones's stroke qualifying rounds at Merion in the 1930 Amateur recording the club, distance and location of his shots. Hole 5: 2nd round, 275 yards Hole 6: 2nd round, 250 with 2-iron Hole 7: 1st round, 290 Hole 8: 1st round, 320; 2nd round 325 Hole 10: 1st round, 280; 2nd round 290 Hole 16: 1st round, 270; 2nd round 300 Hole 18: 1st round, 300; 2nd round 285" Then, Reply #8 on: August 14, 2005, 09:28:13 PM: "An old placemat at Interlachen commemorated his 68? in the 3rd? round of the 1930 Open. Drives regularly rolled out 260 or 275, but he was unable to reach the 268 (longest par 3 ever in the U.S. Open) yard 17th where his drives would land short and roll all the way down to the lake." So, some of this talks about roll, but we all know that fairways and greens were "shaggy" in comparison to conditions today; advancements in equipment, grasses, greens keeping philosophies and techniques allow tighter cuts and smoother greens and we see plenty of roll on the tour today, depending on condition. So, IF Keep in mind we are referring to pre-WWII technology, equipment and conditions. Bobby Jones died in 1971. Nicklaus hit a 360+ yard drive t #18 to win the open, with 1970s ball and club technology. So, back to the argument that ALL of the equipment changes will control the game. It is bupkis. There is always going to be "that guy" who comes through and rows the doors off everyone else using "limiting" equipment. Bobby Jones, Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Jack Nicklaus, John Daly, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods. It crosses all sports and ranges from short to tall, fat to skinny, men and women. Rules committees can limit equipment, but some people are going to out perform others, even with equipment restrictions. The question that must be answered is, at what point do you acknowledge that you cannot stop the people from improving so limiting equipment advancement only further limits those who aren't going to make the extra effort to improve their individual performance, or those who cannot due to some physical limitation or handicap. The ONLY way to equalize the game is by putting the jeopardy into positions on the course that force those with a physical strength advantage to play strategically. Yes, the second shot for the short player still requires a longer club, and as noted earlier, THIS is where the appearance of a boring, same shot all the time competition presents itself; but following the tee shots it is then "game on." Guys will have the choice of going for it and laying up strategically. And even then, there are still guys who are going to look at that tees shot and the "risk reward" aspect and say, Well, if I can carry it 315 (5 yards more than I could really hit the ball and just one yard past the trouble) I'll have an advantage, and some will try. When that starts happening regularly, courses adjust the location of the jeopardy. They do this ALL the time when looking at venues for tournaments. This discussion of hazard position and location kind of correlates to using an MLR for balls. Some courses and tournaments may refrain from involving the MLR; just like some courses would decide not to move or ad hazards so they will remain wide open to "bombers." When those bomber head to courses that have strategically places hazards that force a change of strategy they will either pay the ego penalty or learn where their weaknesses are when prevented from "overpowering" the course the rest of us have to play on. There is NO reason to lengthen courses to 10,000 yards when penalties for not being able to carry hazards or for "blowing it through" are put into place. I understand the assertion that this MIGHT lead to boring, hopscotch golf, but again there is always that one guy who's ego is going to force them to go for it, or that one guy who really is going to be able to, and THAT will provide the anticipation and excitement that started with Jack, carried over with JD, into Tiger and onto Bryson and his unique approach that drove others to try to keep up. The idea of two standards stratifies the community. It presents complications with handicap calculations like I mentioned earlier and haven't seen any discussion on. It presents complications for the competitive amateur who is forced to swap back and forth, or choose to play one other the other, but then cannot be fairly compared by the handicap system to the other players because of an unnatural, unaccountable variable. Not to mention the discussion/comments I saw pop up about, those people, who are going to play with "non-conforming" equipment and the animosity it will create in an otherwise enjoyable day. Anyway, off to the range to do some retro-equipment testing!
  11. We probably need to move this brach of the discussion to another thread or forum or whatever before I get a ticket from the thought police for us talking about irrelevant or misapplied discussion. Anyway, to respond more directly, I grabbed the bag I had in storage with all this old stuff the other day and swung them yesterday. They feel really heavy. I'd like to weight them to see what the difference is. I don't know where the driver is; may have turned to dust over the years, I really don't recall, but it should be there. The 3-wood measured 40.75" from the butt of the grip to the bottom of the whipping and 42" from the butt to the heel. I don't have my new gear here to compare measurement, but the spec sheet for a TM M4 3-wood says it would be 43.25" (https://www.taylormadegolf.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TMaG-Library/default/v1679112461465/docs/productspecs/2018/M4MWD_Tour_FWY_SellSheets_V11_HI-Print.pdf). I'd love to find the driver and try to even hit a ball off the tee. I think I am going to take the 3, 5 & 7 with me and see what my SC300 gives me for numbers. I am sure it will be interesting.
  12. I think free form discussion, aside from any direct threat of harm or name calling, is good debate. The funny thing about getting a group discussion going is that group think is driven by the fear of being told, your thought doesn't matter. In direct, in person, communication we need group norms to prevent group think, in forums like this lack of a response will, or should, cut irrelevant threads off form the main topic; or the relevant tributaries that flow from it. If moderators start shutting down free form thinking and bringing out points that may not be directly relevant, but might lead to another relevant thought path, they create and echo chamber suppress open discussion. Realistically, we could say that anything here is "irrelevant" because the likelihood that anything any of us writes has an impact on the decision is probably less than .01%. If we were to conduct a true root cause analysis (RCA) and come up with an honest solution we would have to include equipment design progression (ball and club components), fitness training, course conditions, and many other facets of the game and players that ave been discussed here. Cutting off one particular line of thought or discussion arbitrarily could prevent a relevant line being drawn between to other subject points. E.g. The strength training = club head speed = balls speed = distance. Solutions? Prevent strength training? Limit shaft length? Control club weight? Control club face design? Control ball design? Require course layout to only play INTO the prevailing winds? Require course design to have uphill slope in target driving ranges to limit roll out? Some of these "solutions" sound ridiculous, but are not less ridiculous to many of us than having two, or more, different ball designs for different regions or play. I agree some of them are ABSIOLUTELY ridiculous, but free thinking and getting silly ideas out there lead to discussion of possible solutions that might not be thought of or expressed if someone didn't hear the silly idea or think that they would be shut down for expressing a silly idea "just because." In industry many innovations and solutions have come to fruition BECAUSE of silly ideas that started the "Why not?" thought pattern and discussion. So, we don't need to have threats and name calling. We don't need to discuss Bryson per se because people just can't see past liking him or not liking him, whatever. But what is accomplished by shutting down a discussion that will just Peter out when the steam fades after no one responds anymore?
  13. Are you kidding me?!? Irrelevant and misapplied? YOU stated that "strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing." Which is part and parcel of the new testing criteria (120MPH to 127MPH) and is an elemental part of the argument that is being made to "roll back" golf ball design. So, the specific point cannot be "irrelevant" in response or as part of the thread. The response and evidence CANNOT be "misapplied" because it DIRECTLY applies to your false assertion that one does not affect the other. Your choice to not like facts don't make them any less relevant or applicable. How about grow up and respond, "Wow. I didn't know that. I may not agree, but thanks I learned something today. Going back to the ball itself..." But in light of and in response: A. PLEASE report ME to the moderator for responding to your statement by providing you with PEER REVIEWED STUDIES which provide data which directly contradicts your silly assertion; AND which also DIRECTLY correlate to point of the topic, in that this bifurcating MLR doesn't close any gap among players. B. YOU are the one who posted the statement, to which a response was provided with real objective evidence and data vs. subjective opinion. C. The only "moderator response" I've seen in the recent thread statements referred to a comment about Bryson. But by all means PLEASE report ME to the moderator for RESPONDING to your absurd assertion. I already moved on from this facet after sending you facts hoping it would help you because, well, because it is moot since the peer reviewed studies already solved that argument. I'm good having passionate discussion on any topic and fielding disagreement because hearing differing points of view is how we open our minds and learn. But when it comes to this kind of exchange hey, I'd love to have a conversation with one of the poor moderators who gets stuck having to go read all of this because a you got schooled and it drove you to come back with, "I'm going to tell my mommy." Worry not, regardless of anything direction from a moderator to cease and desist, I'll refrain from bothering to provide facts, contradicting or supporting, any future statement, in an effort to prevent them being "misapplied and irrelevant" to your feelings. Good day sir.
  14. The short answer it that when I got to my 2nd or 3rd duty station I picked them up during a visit back home so I could start playing again while living in San Diego and have just never gotten rid of them. I played them through high school along with those 1980 Titleist Tour blades and I didn't have a lot of spare funds back in those days so I played with what I had and they have just followed me through the years. I picked up some knockoff metals in the late 90s and played an Orlimar Trimetal; still have that one floating around as well. I did upgrade my driver to a 975D at some point, then picked up a Ping Rapture that I gamed until a few years ago. I've toyed with taking the 1200s and the blades out for a round to see what it is like to play them again. I am actually going to the range later today to compare the blades to my current iron numbers. I play with a group of guys once a month where we play a different format and try to change up locations/courses. I was toying around with trying to get everyone to play one of our matches with pre-2000 equipment just to see how that goes. I think it would be fun. The problem would be the logistics of everyone having or obtaining, or wanting to obtain, such relics just for one outing. Anyway, short answer, because I have a bunch of crap in my garage/storage that I haven't gotten around to getting rid of because I'd rather be out playing than sorting through "stuff" and trying ti figure out what I should keep and what I need to get rid of LOL!
  15. I am severely confused. You said your SIM2 broke so you bought a TSR2, but you replaced the stock Titleist shaft with the one from the SIM. From that I am led to assume it was the head that broke so why not just get a replacement SIM2 head? Especially if you had good performance with it. That aside, interesting results. That sucks though. I tested the TSi drivers and irons last fall at a local course during a Titleist fitting day. The TSi2 with a Project X HZRDUS Smoke Black RDX 60 pretty much identical to my G400 performance; which for me was superior (the G400) to the SIM2 when I compared those at another fitting event. Honestly, I haven't found a club yet that matches the G400-shaft combo I have. So, what is my point? As noted by others, not having tried the club in the store to get numbers and maybe a couple of different shaft options to see what might change, you have no baseline to compare what you are getting to what you might have had. Your SIM numbers hardly matter until you get the Titleist dialed in to see what you might be able to get out of it; then you can compare whether swapping to another brad was a good move. As noted, again, the TSR may not even be the right club for you for a multitude of reasons, regardless of any shaft option the store might give you. Go back to the store. Most of the stores up here would at least give you a significant return in the form of store credit if they could not dial it in to your satisfaction so you could put it toward something else. Hopefully your store would do the same. Hope you can get it figured out.
  • Create New...